Does Space have a terrible secret?

What could it be?

How would we be protected?

What?

Are you thinking of something specific? Because I'm lost here.. hep an old man out..

It is open ended. Make what you will of it.

Start with an answer to the first question, and if you think yes, then go on.

Definition of the word "secret"

/"si:krt/ adjective 1 not (to be) made known or seen. 2 working etc. secretly. 3 liking secrecy. noun 1 thing (to be) kept secret. 2 mystery. 3 effective but not widely known method. in secret secretly. secret agent spy. secret police police operating secretly for political ends. secret service government department concerned with espionage. secretly adverb.


Well....if that's the case then i'm almost positive there is much about space we don't know. That's a secret.... and in my opinion a never ending one as we in this life will never reveal all of them, actually doubt if we hit 1% of all spaces secrets.

But is it a TERRIBLE secret? Do we have to worry about it, or is it benign?

The only secrets that space has are those that we create. All the answers are there all the secretes are exposed if we ask the right questions.
What secret do you want to reveal? Now formulate the question.

QUOTE (j6p @ Apr 24 2003, 09:55 PM)

The only secrets that space has are those that we create. All the answers are there all the secretes are exposed if we ask the right questions.

j6p, no offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Other meanings for secret, and ones that are more appropriate when speaking of space, are things that are unknown or mysterious.

Everybody in the world would agree that there are things not understood about space. Therefore, space would have a degree of 'unknown', 'unexplained', 'mystery' or 'secrets'(whatever you want to call it)

That being said, how is anyone to know if this 'secret' is TERRIBLE or not? We can't accurately identify the secret, because we only know of the existence of the secret by our lack of understanding of space.

What could the secret be? I have a very open mind, and in my humble opinion, the secret could be anything.

How would we be protected? I will protect you Space Moose

Homer, i won't answer for Dan but i do follow his idea. i had an astronomy professor that had the same philosophy about space. he figured that we only learn something new about space when we ask the right questions about it. for example, when neutrinos were discovered. no one really knew what a neutrino was at that time, but they asked the right question(experimented) and the answer was revealed. neutrinos always existed, but it was only the question that led to their discovery.

The secret of space is terrible because we project all of our fears onto it. We can be protected from this fear by paying $150/hour (that's really 50 minutes) to a psychotherapist for a decade or so.

Now let's form a single line.. no pushing..

QUOTE (Sidhe @ Apr 25 2003, 04:53 AM)

Now let's form a single line.. no pushing..

Are you suggesting that we might be safe if we are pushed somewhere?

I'm not sure you can say space has 'a secret', more like the universe is full of things that we have yet to understand. You can't really say that there is a single outstanding fact that we have yet to learn that is the most important fact in the universe.

Something we are not yet aware of may be 'terrible' if it could spell the destruction of life on earth for example, but there are likely to be a lot of terrible facts in that sense, things that we may be powerless to prevent. As the human race develops and advances however, there will be more and more we will be capable of doing to protect ourselves from disaster.

A couple more decades for example and we will very likely have the means to stop a large asteroid from colliding with the earth. Think of what we could accomplish in a million years - preventing disasters on a galactic scale could easily be possible for mankind in the distant future.

I think mostly all of space's secrets will be terrible because by definition they will be alien and until we (as a species) learn not to fear something because it is unknown or different to us then fear will be our reaction to it every time.

Homer, What I mean is this: Take any problem, ask the right question and you will find the solution. If the solution isn't found it's not for lack of information or lack of knowledge it's because the right questions aren't being asked.

Now as far as the Universe is concerned, to some people it's a jumbled ball of knotted twine. To others it's a clear pool of water. I think we all have flashes of insight. Today I see a clear pool. Tomorrow it may be a jangled knot of strings and multiple dimensions.
I, just yesterday, started reading The Universe in a Nut Shell for the third time. That guy screws with my head. I don't believe he's even real

This has to be one of the most nonsensical rhetorical threads I have ever seen. A question that has no direct connection to anything relevant. No point in debating over this guys, but if you want to...go ahead.

I too have read and own Universe in a nutshell, I enjoy the book and his knowledge.


Mentalcase

I agree with you MC, which is why I was making light of it

j6p, asking the right question doesn't guarantee the right answer. For example, my question is:How many atoms are there in our sun? That could be considered a secret(or a mystery, as I have explained earlier about more appropriate words to describe it). Nobody knows this answer, and nobody will ever know this answer, and by your argument, it's because we didn't ask the right question. What about my question? Why wouldn't that be the right question for the information I'm wanting?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by the 'right question'

I guess we will just have to decide on whether to take the Blue pill or the Red pill

I can't see what's wrong with this thread . I have read over all the information put forth in these post's and calculated the degrees of probabillity to within 3.1472% of accuracy and the answer is obviosly 47.
It scares the *something nasty* out of me.

Kismit! And those riddle makers think they've got you
fooled! HA!



TO, now that you've posed the question, what would
be your answer?

Here's an answer for Homer and his atom counting experiment.

The crux of your issue with j6p lies in a critical conundrum in science that still isn't resolved today. j6p has some standing if he thinks expectation may play a role in what you discover. Quantum physics shows that things don't "exist" in a tangible sense until an observer actually goes looking for them.

So, to the quesion of how many atoms exist in the sun.. we have a couple of problems.. Science can give a very good estimate of the number. Then, if they had an enormous detector, they could sample a certain number of them and make an even better educated guess. But in a very real sense, the *actual* number of particles that makes up the sun may not be an issue "decided" until someone actually goes to the trouble of counting them..

I don't mind making the leap, scientifically unjustified as yet, that j6p makes.. i.e., the "macro" level world might be as "undecided" as the quantum world. At the very least, we can't deny his theory out of hand. The jury is definitely out on that one.

The funny thing is, science has known about this "incompleteness" since the early 20th century, but we still grow up thinking things are solid and countable all up and down the scale, when really, it is only once you reach a certain size that this becomes the case, apparently.

The philosophy called phenomenalism suggests that only our looking and paying attention to the things we percieve turns them into "real" objects. What's fascinating is they came up with this idea long before science caught up with them and showed that it was indeed the case at the "lowest" level of reality.

Sidhe,
Thank you, you have shown that I am correct. In some thought processes, some believe that it isn't real if you can't perceive it. Those same thought processes believe that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. Those same thought processes believe that asking he right questions will give you all the answers. In all circumstances, those thought processes are wrong. How are they wrong, you might ask? because I perceive them to be wrong, and by those very thought processes, what you perceive is your reality.

But seriously, though, that whole 'reality is what I perceive it to be' is ridiculous, in my humble opinion. In our 3 dimensional spacial universe, 2+2 will always equal 4. Always. It doesn't matter what you call the values, 2 will always be 2 until it isn't 2 anymore. That being said, if someone perceived the sum of the value of 2, added with the value of another 2, as being something other than value of 4, than they are wrong. Their perception doesn't make it real.

Also, I want some examples of how asking the right questions reveals the secrets of the universe, as j6p states. Also, what does j6p mean by "The only secrets that space has are those that we create?" This implies that every secret in the entire universe is created by us. What gives?

well, i dont have my astronomy book handy(its buried in a box under 20 boxes of books) but i can remember another instance of asking the right question:

i was going to post a link, but considering our discussion the other night, Homer, i will just post the text here

Sir Frederick William Herschel (1738-1822) was born in Hanover, Germany, and became well known as both a musician and an astronomer. He emigrated to England in 1757, and with his sister Caroline, constructed telescopes to survey the night sky. Their work resulted in several catalogs of double stars and nebulae. Herschel is perhaps most famous for his discovery of the planet Uranus in 1781, the first new planet found since antiquity.
In the year 1800, Herschel made another very important discovery. He was interested in learning how much heat passed through the different colored filters he used to observe the Sun and noticed that filters of different colors seemed to pass different levels of heat. Herschel thought that the colors themselves might contain different levels of heat, so he devised a clever experiment to investigate his hypothesis.

Herschel directed sunlight through a glass prism to create a spectrum - the "rainbow" created when light is divided into its colors - and measured the temperature of each color. He used three thermometers with blackened bulbs (to better absorb the heat) and placed one bulb in each color while the other two were placed beyond the spectrum as control samples. As he measured the temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls and that the temperature of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum. After noticing this pattern, Herschel decided to measure the temperature just beyond the red portion of the spectrum in a region apparently devoid of sunlight. To his surprise, he found that this region had the highest temperature of all.

Herschel performed further experiments on what he called the "calorific rays" that existed beyond the red part of the spectrum and found that they were reflected, refracted, absorbed and transmitted just like visible light. What Sir William had discovered was a form of light (or radiation) beyond red light. These "calorific rays" were later renamed infrared rays or infrared radiation (the prefix infra means `below'). Herschel's experiment was important not only because it led to the discovery of infrared, but also because it was the first time that someone showed that there were forms of light that we cannot see with our eyes. Herschel's original prism and mirror are on display at the National Museum of Science and Industry in London, England.

Today, infrared technology has many exciting and useful applications. In the field of infrared astronomy, new and fascinating discoveries are being made about the Universe. Medical infrared imaging is a very useful diagnostic tool. Infrared cameras are used for police and security work as well as in fire fighting and in the military. Infrared imaging is used to detect heat loss in buildings and in testing electronic systems. Infrared satellites have been used to monitor the Earth's weather, to study vegetation patterns, and to study geology and ocean temperatures.




so here is an instance of asking the right question. Herschel didn't know why there was heat in an area of the spectrum that he could not see, but it existed. he asked the right question, and a secret was revealed.

I marvel at your logic Homer
I'll try to clear up what I meant.
If you take any problem that has ever been solved in the recorded history of the human race and follow it back to where it was first conceived you will find that there were a series of questions asked or experiments performed in order to find the solution to that problem. Along the way you will find that there were some wrong answers but eventually the solution was found. One of many examples that I can offer now is cancer. We will find a cure but there will be many more experiments performed (questions asked) before we get to the final cure (answer). My mind reels at the flood of input relating to examples that I can put forth so what I will do is this. I'll ask. What answer needs no question?
As far as "the only secrets in the universe are the ones we create" I'll stand by that and try to clear it up by adding: There are no secrets of the universe only unknowns, if we call them secrets of the universe then we are affording the universe the status of a thinking entity that holds secrets from us. The universe isn't alive it holds no secrets.
Another way that I look at it is that there are many things out there in space that are now unknown to us. They aren't secrets because we aren't aware of them yet. When we become aware of them then they can be called secrets. Somebody has to know something before it can be held as a secret.
For some reason I detect that we are closer on this one than it may appear.

j6p,
I am now of the belief that instead of a difference of opinion, there is a misunderstanding of what is being said. I have been correct from the start(obviously), and now that you cleared it up, I see your point. DS's post only confirmed my belief, because Herschel's discoveries were due to questions and experiments. But your statement:"We will find a cure but there will be many more experiments performed (questions asked) before we get to the final cure (answer)" indicated the questions are the experiments. Where I come from, they are two different things.

I believe that eventually (if the human race lasts) we can and will find answers to conceivably any question we might ask ourselves. I agree in that it isn't a case of unlocking 'secrets' more it'll be a process of discovering knowledge through a process of trial and error.

But could there be one question that will always elude us?

WHY ARE WE HERE?

(as in the meaning-of-life, deep fundamental question)

Maybe we have to die B4 we find out about that one?

QUOTE

I am now of the belief that instead of a difference of opinion, there is a misunderstanding of what is being said. I have been correct from the start(obviously),

@ Homer

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.



in other words, Homer, the question comes before the experiments

DS,
By that statement, it makes me even more accurate, because it means the questions are not the same as the experiments, which is what I have been saying from the start. So by that statement, asking the right questions would only be a step in answering the mysteries of space.

Homer, it is obvious you like to construct logical arguments. But you are still arguing like a Modernist, and this is the post-postmodern era now. Familiarize yourself with some ideas that were new in the 1920s, particularly Godel's "incompleteness theorem," the high strangeness that is Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity, and get back to us. I think you'll see your "position" doesn't really exist.

It's ironic that you are making your position "true" by thinking it so, yet you are arguing against thought having anything to do with what we percieve..

Sidhe,
You post as if you haven’t read anything that has been written before. I had already stated that with j6p we had a miscommunication, and in fact we both agree on this. DS has posted twice confirming my ‘position’(as you like to call it), and I am quite familiar with quantum mechanics and have posted about those theories more than anyone on this board.

You seem to be the only one now who doesn’t get it, and yet you want me to familiarize myself with other theories and get back to you. How convenient.
Instead, why don’t you humor the forum and let me know where I’m wrong.

Homer, you are logical snake that slithers in and around things without ever admitting you are wrong. it is possible that you are wrong from time to time though as witnessed by this statement on page one:

QUOTE

j6p, asking the right question doesn't guarantee the right answer. For example, my question is:How many atoms are there in our sun? That could be considered a secret(or a mystery, as I have explained earlier about more appropriate words to describe it). Nobody knows this answer, and nobody will ever know this answer, and by your argument, it's because we didn't ask the right question. What about my question? Why wouldn't that be the right question for the information I'm wanting? I guess I don't understand what you mean by the 'right question'

now, you are correct that asking the right question doesnt GUARANTEE the right answer, but in my post of the scientific method above, asking the RIGHT question is imperative to finding truth. someone may just know the answer to your question about the sun if they come up with the correct hypothesis and it is proven to be a law. that will not happen until someone asks the right question

as for your statements on page 2 of this, i just ignored them because you went way off on some philosophical tangent(perception doesn't equal reality stuff) when i was simply making points on your original argument. i admire your logic but sometimes it convolutes your common sense

DS,
That ‘tangent’ you are referring to was in response to only Sidhe, who talked about “The philosophy called phenomenalism”. You did good to ignore that, since it had no basis for this discussion. I was simply responding to, and not bringing something up.

What you fail to come to terms with DS, is that you and j6p and myself agree on this, so there is no need to debate any further with me. We agree that the mysteries of space(or anything else for that matter) can’t be answered without first asking the right questions. But that is just one step, and according to the scientific method that you posted, that is not the only step. By j6p’s definition, they are all considered the ‘question’. Since that is nothing more than a difference of terminology, I won’t go any further with that.

Of course I can be wrong from time to time, I have been wrong plenty of times, and I have admitted my mistakes as I see them. But I’m not wrong here, and since we both agree on this, you are not wrong either. That quote of mine you posted is not an example of me being wrong, as you have implied, but instead it only reinforces my point that questions alone can’t solve the mysteries of space.

So I fail to understand the purpose of your post. Our view on this is the same, as with j6p’s. Perhaps it’s because of my arrogance. Our views are the same, but my arrogance is getting to you, isn’t it? I’m only arrogant because I simply can’t be proven wrong on this by anyone at anytime.

Homer,

You may be the most learned person I've ever encountered, but your posts in this thread don't show the evidence, and you leave me in the dark on that score.

But you asked me a question and I oblige.

On page one you said:

QUOTE

"How many atoms are there in our sun? That could be considered a secret(or a mystery, as I have explained earlier about more appropriate words to describe it). Nobody knows this answer, and nobody will ever know this answer, and by your argument, it's because we didn't ask the right question."

Your question assumes that there is a number of atoms to be discovered; that there is "an" answer. I suggested that according to some principles of science and philosophy, there may not be "an" answer until someone goes to the trouble of looking for one.

You answered this charge by falling back on "solipsism" -- the belief that everything emanates from the self. Conflating solipsism with phenomenalism exposes a flaw in thinking, but I didn't want to drag it out and beat you with it. The philosophy of phenomenalism is as strong as any other philosophy, and as full of holes as any other too -- a critical point when evaluating philosophies (a reference to Godel's "incompleteness theorem") but that doesn't make any of them "wrong". Solipsism, on the other hand, cannot be "disproved", but that is only because one can always say, "I willed it thus" no matter what happens. That makes it something like a tautology, and most philosophers stop thinking about it right about there.

You make an example of mathematics,

QUOTE

"In our 3 dimensional spacial universe, 2+2 will always equal 4. Always. It doesn't matter what you call the values, 2 will always be 2 until it isn't 2 anymore. That being said, if someone perceived the sum of the value of 2, added with the value of another 2, as being something other than value of 4, than they are wrong. Their perception doesn't make it real."

That's some clear thinking, but you don't acknowledge that you are talking about "ideas" that exist somewhat separately from the physical world. With reference to geometry, we used to think there was only one geometry and the rules applied universaly. Now we know that isn't the case. In non-euclidean geometries, a right triangle does not have to have the same properties it does in euclidean geometry.

What I question is not your own theory, but your absolute intolerance of another possibility. Godel's theorem tells us that no "complete logical structure" will ever be able to say everything there is to say about reality. By the same token, General Relativity teaches us that our ideas of causality are an illusion caused by our perceptions "relative" to our spacial positions. One need only have a mind made for wonder to extrapolate a little; indeed, that's where the post modern age was born.

As for examples of expectation affecting experiment, I've already given you the realm of quantum mechanics. I'll only direct you to look at the experiments that deal with splitting light out of its "superposition" and perhaps that will shake your faith. If it doesn't, there are also the experiments done recently by a skeptic and a believer (both scientists) that attempted to evaluated whether people could perceive that someone was watching them. The skeptical scientist returned results that showed there was no apparent effect, while the believer returned positive results. They both got what they expected! It's important to understand, the purpose of the double experiment was precisely to see whether the predispositions of the scientists could have an effect on the experimental results. It did appear that they had..

Anyway, the answer to the question of atoms in the sun is "zero..ish" For until you go looking for them, for the particles that make them up exist in superposition unil they are observed.

So, as I said, I don't think you are familiar enough with these ideas, especially for one who wants to appear to be an authority, to really take this question head on. I wouldn't have been so blunt, but you haven't minded being snide with myself and others, so you will have to take your lumps here as you find them.

your arrogance doesn't bother me anymore, Homer. im quite used to it and i actually respect your opinions quite a bit because of it.

your logic just zips right over my head, i guess.

Sidhe,
I understand you are new here, and probably haven’t had time to review the various posts that relate to science. But if you would review, you would find that I have a very open mind and that I believe anything is possible.

You still seem to misunderstand, and you are the only one who does. Perhaps there may be someone else here that can explain the obvious better than I can.

That question I asked regarding the number of atoms in the sun wasn’t meant to be answered, nor can it be answered. I asked it as an example of a mystery that can’t be solved merely by asking the ‘right question’. I was absolutely correct, by my terminology of the word ‘question’. Upon j6p explaining his meaning of ‘the right question’, it is apparent that j6p and myself are both correct, just utilizing different termilogy.

BTW, the answer isn’t ‘zero-ish’, but it is ever changing. Hydrogen atoms are fused together to form helium atoms etc etc, but that isn’t the issue.

I’m not the authority, but I am familiar with your ideas enough to take this head on. You stated: “What I question is not your own theory, but your absolute intolerance of another possibility.”
For one thing, I don’t have any theories of my own, as you seem to think I have. Another thing, I haven’t shown any intolerance towards any other possibility. What I have stated, and it is a fact, that some of the mysteries of space can’t be answered simply by ‘asking the right questions’, except, possibly, in the case where there is a different terminology of the word ‘question’.

You seem to be alone in your thinking, and yet you concentrate your attention only on me. I would be flattered except for the lack of competition. And you can be as blunt as you like, because DS, j6p and myself are still correct.

QUOTE

I don’t have any theories of my own, as you seem to think I have

Your speech is riddled with theory, sir, you are too modest.

I see what is what now. Thank you for bringing me "into the light".

No, Sidhe! No! Don't go into the light! The light is EVIL!

Sidhe,
You have exposed yourself as a liar. Nowhere on this thread have I posted a theory of mine, and the reason why I didn't is because I don't have a thoery on this.

But you are welcome for bringing you into the light. All I did was expose your flawed posts and backed it up with some good ol' common sense.

That you think your theories are facts doesn't keep them from being theories. You've theorized the physical reality of reality, against the prevailing scientific thought of the day. And you actually think you are "right"!

You are behaving like a rude and stupid man. You don't even realize the many ways you've shown yourself to be a nincompoop in this thread! Well, here's to hoping life gives you the medicine you are in need of.

When I see a snake, I usually hop 'round it.

Hop.

oh Lord. please, don't start insulting each other. just bite your pride, agree to disagree, shake hands, and walk away.

QUOTE

You are behaving like a rude and stupid man. You don't even realize the many ways you've shown yourself to be a nincompoop in this thread! Well, here's to hoping life gives you the medicine you are in need of.

this is really, really bad Sidhe. i think you should apologize.

QUOTE

Sidhe, You have exposed yourself as a liar. Nowhere on this thread have I posted a theory of mine, and the reason why I didn't is because I don't have a thoery on this. But you are welcome for bringing you into the light. All I did was expose your flawed posts and backed it up with some good ol' common sense.

Homer, this was asking for it. you should apologize.



just remember that apologizing doesn't mean accepting the other's point of view, its just something you have to do to maintain a bit of civility. i think we all value that, right?

Wow.

This thread has been interesting, I have quite enjoied reading it. It has taken a downturn as of late, but that is to be expected when people get passionate about things.

From my background in politics, I know how defensive people can get of their thoughts and beliefs, especially when they are talking to somone who does not share that same though or belief. It could be said that this has taken part recently and things have started to boil over a bit.

As someone (MentalCase I believe) said earlier, this thread does not have any basis in anything, but yet we have a good discussion coming out of it none the less. That is good, and sometimes posting a vague thing can work quite well in pulling out a variety of opinions.

While I do believe this has happened here, it is obvious that this is no place for playground name calling. I believe that both Homer and Sidhe have used strong language in refrence to eachother and I would urge that they withdraw their statements and appologise.

DS,
You stated I should apologize due to the quote you posted. Not only was there no name calling, but they were accurate statements. What specifically did I say that was inaccurate? What did I say that was name calling?

SMoose,
Specifically, what strong language that I have said are you refering to? You mentioned name calling, and where specifically did I do that?

If anyone considers my saying he is a liar to be name calling, I would disagree and say it is an accurate statement backed up multiple times by fact. Everyone that has read this thread should understand this.

I have stayed clear of this topic all day to avoid further confrontation, and have even sent Gareth a message indicating my participation in this is over.

You will get no aplogies from me, and I certainly will not withdraw accurate statements.

Homer

well, calling someone a liar is not nice- especially on matters of opinion. you may see 'the facts' differently from Sidhe. most people don't take kindly to being told, "youre welcome for bringing you to the light" either- again especially on matters of opinion. we all value our own opinions highest of all and are usually only converted through respect of a better one, not criticism of a very harsh nature.

im just saying the spirit of the postings turned negative, not necessarily insulting, but negative. i know you, Homer. you like to push people's buttons on things, which is not a mean spirited act on your part, but some people (myself included) cannot resist letting a playful insult fly when pushed to the limits. that's obviously what happened here.

i just thought an apology would be a nice gesture for both of you. remember when you were a kid and your parents would sort of take you aside and force you to apologize to that neighbor kid after some nonsense occurred? maybe you saw nothing wrong with whatever it was you did(and he often felt the same), but the fact remained that you lived next door to each other and you were both going to apologize and shake hands. sometimes you just have to do that kind of thing. believe me, i know about this...

(fighting back the comment)

I bet you do know about those things DS

Lets not misunderstand what I said, though. I said that my statements of Sidhe being a liar are accurate and that they are backed up by facts. There is no 'opinion' on this.

Sidhe has stated on more than one occasion that my statements are based on my own theories. He even said: "You've theorized the physical reality of reality, against the prevailing scientific thought of the day."
I have stated correctly, on more than one occasion, that I have not posted any theories of mine. You only have to read the thread to come to the conclusion that he is a liar. I said my statements are accurate and backed up by facts and I meant it. If you can show where I did post a theory of mine, then it would be I who has lied by saying I didn't, and I would then apologize.

I shouldn't have had to say this much. When someone posts false statements against someone, on multiple occasions, in front of everyone, why do you not understand that needs to be confronted? I have said it before, and I'm saying it now, if I see someone posting crap, I will confront it and expose it. I would have expected others to do the same. Obviously I was mistaken.

Homer,

I have not directly implicated that any single poster has called any other poster an inflamatory name, I only said that both you and Sidhe used strong language towards eachother.

Having said this, I firmly believe that calling someone a "liar" is a use of strong language. Various Rules of Order support his claim, most notably Beauchesne. While this fourm is by no means governed by this particular set of rules, it has been expressed that calling another a "liar" is beyond what is acceptable. While the particular flavour of your statement is not in question, I believe that softer and more appropriate language should have been used.

Do you have to? No, of course not. I can't make you do it nor can anyone else. If you choose to stand by your comments, that is fine with me, I will still be able to sleep at night. But it is a gesture that would be well recieved.

Seems to me that the relevance and purpose of this thread has pretty much been lost, so guess what?