|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2010 12:43:01 GMT -4
What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? I saw somewhere about a pendulum experiment, dust being thrown up etc. But nothing that would convince an HB with hoax-tinted glasses on. Well, but that's just it. It could look like it should have "Yakkety Sax" playing in the background, and that wouldn't convince some people of anything.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2010 12:41:06 GMT -4
Childishness?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2010 14:33:36 GMT -4
it may not be well-explained scientifically, but certain 'scientific' explanations are given. www.dreammanifesto.com/the-science-behind-the-secret-and-the-law-of-attraction.htmlmy belief doesn't fit into science as is needing vivid , tuchable proof that can be viewed under the microscope or in the lab yet. but my belief stems from the stories that happened to me just after I would ask for something or when things happen exactly as I imagine them. Okay. But if you don't have that proof, just stories, why should we believe it proves anything? It may have convinced you, but without replicable results, why should it? See, whereas I think things sometimes just happen. Oh, there are reasons the rain stopped when it did--atmospheric pressure, temperature, and so forth. But did it have anything to do with when I got home? No. If I had taken less time to get up and get going, I would have been inside before it stopped. If I had walked slower, I wouldn't have been home yet. And either way, I still would have gotten wet. Yes. But does it mean they'll hit it off?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2010 14:28:45 GMT -4
And now, I've had another one of those "that was ten years ago!" flashes. Those have been happening a lot lately.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2010 3:32:05 GMT -4
what I am saying is that psychologiy affects the human health. however, by the law of attraction, it is stated that you bring things to your health without thinking on how it works. so it might not be totally psychological, but you attract the right medicine, right physician.. by the same token you can attract the wrong physician who can commit mistakes.. Yeah, but you've missed my point. I quoted those specific words for a reason. Take a look at them and really think about how science works and how you're approaching the discussion. Where does science start? How does it work? What are the processes involved? Where does "I believe" fit into it?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2010 3:30:06 GMT -4
o.k I 'll pay attention to my typing. I appreciate that. Yeah, that's definitely a cultural difference. Generally speaking, in the US, you don't meet the family until after you've been seeing the person for a while. Meeting the family is proof that the relationship is serious. I also find it the height of folly to assume, first, that you can tell how someone is raised by the outward appearance of the family. There are a lot of secrets behind closed doors. I also think it obvious that good parents still manage to raise bad children and vice versa. However, it doesn't touch my initial point, which is that you can't force love just because a relationship would be better for you than your last one. Plenty of people pick one loser after another. More relevant to the original discussion, I went for a walk yesterday. It's about a mile around my block, and on days when my brain, my joints, and the weather cooperate, I take a walk. There's a park down the street, and I'll bring a book to read while I sit in the park. Yesterday, it started to rain. (Not unusual around here no matter what season it is.) I walked the rest of the way home. When I got to my front door, it stopped raining. If that's synchronicity and not mere coincidence, what does that say about the dozens of times that hasn't happened?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 17, 2010 0:14:19 GMT -4
Which is why reasoning ahead of your evidence is a serious mistake and ought to be avoided. I mean, it is regardless, but given how jumpy some HBs are about mistakes--there is no such thing as an honest mistake!--it's touchier in this field than a lot of others.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2010 13:17:03 GMT -4
well , the girl wh owas his fiance, everyone around huim told im she is not for yuo but love was blinding him. at least there are minima lcharacteristics you can rely on to assume that the relationship would work, but it migth not. if something was a obvious as the previous girl that it is not good, then she can advise him against it. My brother-in-law doesn't treat my sister very well, but they've been together for about thirteen years, and the fact that essentially none of her friends liked him very much didn't change anything. I ran into a friend the other day, and I was delighted to see and talk to him. We lived across the hall from each other in the dorms, and we spent a lot of time talking and so forth. However, neither of us considered asking out the other, even though we spent a lot of time talking to each other about past breakups. You're oversimplifying human interaction as well as science. You also, if you don't mind my saying, seem to be putting less effort into your English lately. Your spacing and letter reversals have been very bad. Now, I'll agree that my Spanish, the only language I've serious studied, isn't very good. However, that's mostly because I haven't really used it in fifteen years. Your English is usually quite good; my issue is that you seem to be getting sloppy.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2010 13:12:55 GMT -4
. . . could eb [ sic] . . . I think you can find something on the net. . . . Might not be totally psychological. I assume . . . . Do you see what you're doing here?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2010 13:10:12 GMT -4
Well i did not know that everyone in here knew the moon landing was real, there is usually several people who do not. Frankly, this is because you don't seem to be reading what most of us say. It's not as though you haven't been told several times per page.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2010 4:44:11 GMT -4
No one's saying reflectors were placed on the Moon by Surveyor. What we're saying is that the Surveyor missions were unmanned lunar missions from the US.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 23:07:29 GMT -4
Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy. Just so you know, we're rather short on HBs at the moment. They've all gone off to YouTube where the format doesn't permit presentation of any real evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 20:21:30 GMT -4
Not only would throwing in Alaska not be enough, it would be a hint noticeable.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 19:08:53 GMT -4
One thing I've never heard HBers satisfactory address though is the fact that the USSR would've known and gleefully called us out had we faked the Apollo landing. What, you've never heard the wheat explanation? Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that they won't use it; it's never stopped them before.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 15:30:22 GMT -4
My boyfriend's whole family has that attitude. I've had several deeply frustrating conversations with his mother in the last few days--her experiences in Texas thirty years ago trump the experiences I'm able to describe to her which are more current and/or more relevant. One of my boyfriend's brothers also once argued some point of Elizabethan weaponry with me on the grounds that he had a friend who studies Japanese weaponry of that same era, which gives him more knowledge than I have. I can't stand my boyfriend's brother . . . .
|
|