OOPs Wrong Galaxy!

Originally posted by Schecter
thats not a very reputable source for theory. i was referring to the abc article. i dont understand why the OP listed that first, but at the same time i dont understand how one would approach that one in order to debunk theory.

that would be like trying to declare that 9/11 never happened by discrediting rense.com for thir constantly inaccurate info and idiocy

I was talking about the theories in the first article. The fact this galaxy intersects the Milky way is not a theory it's a fact. We though are part of the Milky Way. Wiki has been edited to fit the first article.

So as I was talking about the theories in the first article "the new theories", as the others have been around since the mid nineties and are reputable and you supported these "new theories" what's your point?

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
I was talking about the theories in the first article.

which is not really a proper source to debate from, just so we're clear on that.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
The fact this galaxy intersects the Milky way is not a theory it's a fact.

i never argued that. the theory lies in explaining the effect, and the origins of our solar system...just so we're clear since it seems we're really not.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
We though are part of the Milky Way. Wiki has been edited to fit the first article.

discrediting a weak reference does not render theory dubunked. if you would center your argument on discrediting a movie forum OP's link as opposed to the topic at hand, im afraid we wont get much farther than this familiar territory.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
So as I was talking about the theories in the first article "the new theories", as the others have been around since the mid nineties and are reputable and you supported these "new theories" what's your point?

i never supported the theories of the first article, which is clear to anyone who is capable of reading and comprehension.

Originally posted by Schecter
which is not really a proper source to debate from, just so we're clear on that.

i never argued that. the theory lies in explaining the effect, and the origins of our solar system...just so we're clear since it seems we're really not.

discrediting a weak reference does not render theory dubunked. if you would center your argument on discrediting a movie forum OP's link as opposed to the topic at hand, im afraid we wont get much farther than this familiar territory.

i never supported the theories of the first article, which is clear to anyone who is capable of reading and comprehension.

I stated first Article and "new theories" all the way through, you supported these that's the Mayan calender stuff. If that's not what you meant fair enough although I could pick quotes which indicate differently.

We are part of the Milky Way, the title is whoops wrong Galaxy the ABC article doesn't claim we are part of the wrong Galaxy at all, you get why this thread is wrong.

There's nothing wrong in this article

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm

but it's also nothing to do with the thread title which you are supporting.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
I stated first Article and "new theories" all the way through, you supported these that's the Mayan calender stuff. If that's not what you meant fair enough although I could pick quotes which indicate differently.

i invite you to pick my quotes where i support any theories at all in this thread.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
We are part of the Milky Way, the title is whoops wrong Galaxy the ABC article doesn't claim we are part of the wrong Galaxy at all, you get why this thread is wrong.

of course the thread title is ridiculously presumptuous. welcome to kmc...again.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm

but it's also nothing to do with the thread title which you are supporting.

again, i'm waiting your quote of me supporting any theory on the topic.

Originally posted by Schecter
i invite you to pick my quotes where i support any theories at all in this thread.

again, i'm waiting your quote of me supporting any theory on the topic.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
That's a different argument altogether and very likely. It doesn't revolve around half truths like the first article and yes, some theories are more valid than others. For instance back ground microwave emmisions and red shifted stars from the same area indicate the "Big Bang", where as Lamarks theory that giraffes have long necks because each set of parents stretched is not a good theory. Epistemeology will tell you what is a worthwhile theory and what is a theory which really is an opinion disguised as a theory. Scientific method tests the validity of theories, it's true that they are constantly modified when greater understanding of something comes along. E.g. the atom, Bohrs theory was great when he suggested it, but it doesn't fit modern theories.

The first article is interesting, I love the discoveries in it. They are not theories they are opinions based on the premise we are part of the other Galaxy intersecting the milky way which in itslf is wrong.

This certainly infers support

Originally posted by Schecter
...i was going to ask you for proof that these new theories have been debunked by reputable scholars, but then i remembered that you're from the internet and that it wasnt necessary.

So I did and your stance changed.

If that's not what you meant who cares.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
[B]This certainly infers support

So I did and your stance changed.

If that's not what you meant who cares. [/B]

my stance never changed. its cute how you conveniently left out my response:

Originally posted by Schecter
thats not a very reputable source for theory...in fact it just looks like some idiot's blog. i was referring to the abc article.
i dont understand why the OP listed that first, but at the same time i dont understand how one would approach that one in order to debunk theory.

that would be like trying to declare that 9/11 never happened by discrediting rense.com for thir constantly inaccurate info and idiocy

i declared that various new theories which cannot be debunked (which you have failed to present evidence to do so) are valid theory. not true, not false, but theory.

Originally posted by Schecter

i declared that various new theories which cannot be debunked (which you have failed to present evidence to do so) are valid theory. not true, not false, but theory.

Which new theories?

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Schecter
the articles neither imply nor discredit the idea that earth actually is part of the milky way galaxy.

thus: 'theory'

the root article does just that.

These theories here,

Originally posted by Schecter
no, not exactly. there are multiple theories, one being that the solar system
was part of this old and devoured galaxy. all theories, none more valid than any other.

are not new theories and are reputable, you're trying to fudge the fact you had not read the first article when you disagreed with me for saying this was not rubbish http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2.

Fair enough you can fudge it all you like but the "new theories" puported are the ones in the first article and they are made up. You can feign confusion but we both know you have just back peddled. Your half reading has perhaps led to this confusion, that or the fact you are a typical internet forum junkie who believes in the Mayan callender. When you leave college son, you'll get it. No you probably won't.

Your sissy ferret sig is apt.

ok thats super

only i never supported/rejected any theory, but rather rejected a source of information. all the dancing and semantics gaming wont change that. in fact there's a prevailing theory that interstellar space is composed of gypsy tears as well as hydrogen and helium. of course, as with other theories on this matter, i do not presume to be in a position to be able to support/debunk any such theories by my word alone.

Originally posted by Schecter
ok thats super

only i never supported/rejected any theory, but rather rejected a source of information. all the dancing and semantics gaming wont change that. in fact there's a prevailing theory that interstellar space is composed of gypsy tears as well as hydrogen and helium. of course, as with other theories on this matter, i do not presume to be in a position to be able to support/debunk any such theories by my word alone.

I debunk 2012 and the "new theories" because they are not theories.
Your post is moronic, showing you to be a moron, i've looked back and you're on almost everyday. Don't you have a life son, at your a age, probably high school you should be out with girls and things, not stuck in your room masterbating about semantics and rejection led alone gases, although you seem full of hot air more than helium or hydrogen. As for gypsies tears, what are gypsies are they like elves?

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
I debunk 2012 and the "new theories" because they are not theories.
Your post is moronic, showing you to be a moron, i've looked back and you're on almost everyday. Don't you have a life son, at your a age, probably high school you should be out with girls and things, not stuck in your room masterbating about semantics and rejection led alone gases, although you seem full of hot air more than helium or hydrogen. As for gypsies tears, what are gypsies are they like elves?

boy that sure is super
should i call the whaaambulance now whirly?

*not reported*

Originally posted by Schecter
boy that sure is super

Not as Super as you'd find having a life would be.

cuntysplat

Originally posted by Schecter
boy that sure is super
should i call the whaaambulance now whirly?

*not reported*

Edited because your weird son.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
I debunk 2012 and the "new theories" because they are not theories.
Your post is moronic, showing you to be a moron, i've looked back and you're on almost everyday. Don't you have a life son, at your a age, probably high school you should be out with girls and things, not stuck in your room masterbating about semantics and rejection led alone gases, although you seem full of hot air more than helium or hydrogen. As for gypsies tears, what are gypsies are they like elves?

According to your location, you live in London and you say high school? What a tosser.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
Edited because your weird son.

relax 🙂

Originally posted by Schecter
cuntysplat

Ahh is cuntysplat some American word for "My name is Schecter" I have no life?

Originally posted by Schecter
relax 🙂

Good advice son, afterall you post so rapidly and so much it's obviously important to you.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
Ahh is cuntysplat some American word for "My name is Schecter" I have no life?

so whats your deal? i notice you troll heavily at intervals of 2-3 weeks. is that how long it takes for you to be fired from a job?

Originally posted by Schecter
so whats your deal? i notice you troll heavily at intervals of 2-3 weeks. is that how long it takes for you to be fired from a job?

What are you talking about son, i've only recently joined your posting indicates you have no job.

Originally posted by Lonelygirl15
Ahh is cuntysplat some American word for "My name is Schecter" I have no life?

You're not American, yet you use phrases like high school. Yet you have the cheek to say 'some American word'. You're a spastic.