Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
nordicboy

Video: Fast Flying UFOs, The Future Transport

96 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
On 9/14/2020 at 12:35 PM, psyche101 said:

No it won't. Dried out of not, we know it will still be terming with life.

Even with your incorrect definition of the word "pond" to create a trap so to speak, you are still wrong. In another thread you are incorrectly protesting that behaviour, yet here you are deploying it.

 

pond

/pɒnd/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a small body of still water formed naturally or by artificial means.

"a garden pond"

You are speaking of a hole in the ground. Not a pond by definition. 

Again, you are supposed to be an English teacher yes? How so when you make basic grammatical errors on such a regular basis? 

Likelihood is based on that very information. 

A fictional character born from human imagination.

Both because it has a finite history in human culture and it's physical makeup is impossible, the creature would die.

We know this, that's why we don't perform regular mermaid searches. 

Yes,Iike the Fiji Mermaid, which proved what we know. It's an impossible creature.

No I didn't. Water or not, it will be terming with life.

No they don't. If your pond shows actually has no form of life, that would be an extraordinary claim.

No they don't. Mars was once a planet with water and is in the Goldilocks zone. Requirements for life. 

That's why we have Rovers looking for life on Mars and not Mercury or Venus. Why believe in the incredibly unlikely conclusion of an alien visiting personal god, when mental delusion already answers the question much better?

You dont know that at all You believe it to be so As it happens i sterilised  my pond with bleach and ultraviolet light  then sealed it in a vacuum.   Unless you test it you can not know.  You are too loose the  term, knowledge,  and you are making too many assumptions.

Nup i have had a dozen garden ponds Some were commercially bought and named  One was a large bath tub placed itn ne ground . one was a large tractor tyre lined with heavy duty plastic. ALL were fish ponds. Your definition includes artificial constructs.

In  this case the "trap" was legitimate.

 

As stated, you made assumptions without testing what form the pond took Yet you still cant see that   Every claim  requires evidences to be KNOWN. Without evidences, any claim is unproven

Humans once had gills and we retain gill arches which were critical for our abilty to speak 

Thus its not impossible tha t a creature might come into existence either artificially or by genetic manipulation which resembles a mermaid. Thats why I asked how do we define a mermaid  Does it require a tail or would an abilty to breathe underwater qualify it ?  A reasonable number of babies are born with vestigial gills(and as an aside about 50 have been born with a tail  (money ike not fishlike) )

People believe in gods for many good reasons.

You choose not to, which is fair enough, but you shouldn't base OTHER things on beliefs and assumptions. ALL should be tested 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You dont know that at all You believe it to be so As it happens i sterilised  my pond with bleach and ultraviolet light  then sealed it in a vacuum.   Unless you test it you can not know.  You are too loose the  term, knowledge,  and you are making too many assumptions.

That's not a pond by definition so you have to deceive and make up your own definitions to create your case.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Quote

Nup i have had a dozen garden ponds Some were commercially bought and named  One was a large bath tub placed itn ne ground . one was a large tractor tyre lined with heavy duty plastic. ALL were fish ponds. Your definition includes artificial constructs.

Yes it does include artificial constructs. Filled with water. 

Yours isn't, so it's not a pond by definition. You had to lie to make your point. 

Your reading seems to be rather off lately. There have been several posts you have answered where I have had to wonder if you actually read the post. 

This is the definition I posted.

a small body of still water formed naturally or by artificial means.

You removed the water and sterilized the ground.

By definition, not a pond. 

Quote

In  this case the "trap" was legitimate.

All your trap has illustrated is that you have to lie to get your pont across. As such, your information is self defeating. You actually look worse now than when you started 

I personally think you should have quit while behind. Your just digging yourself a deeper hole. 

Quote

As stated, you made assumptions without testing what form the pond took Yet you still cant see that   Every claim  requires evidences to be KNOWN. Without evidences, any claim is unproven

No, I used the English language and it's accepted definitions. You had to depart from that to be underhanded, which still does not support your view. It just shows how dishonest belief can make people.

Quote

Humans once had gills and we retain gill arches which were critical for our abilty to speak 

Humans never had gills. 

Quote

Thus its not impossible tha t a creature might come into existence either artificially or by genetic manipulation which resembles a mermaid. Thats why I asked how do we define a mermaid  Does it require a tail or would an abilty to breathe underwater qualify it ? 

Yes it is impossible. Breathing isn't the main issue.

I see you are completely unfamiliar with anatomy in general.

And I'm not talking about some freaky genetic experiment that you wish to fantasise about. The question is "Do mermaids exist" the answer is a big fat resounding No. 

Quote

People believe in gods for many good reasons You choose not to, which is fair enough

I don't agree. I don't think there's a "good" reason. I think most have simply been conditioned to think so. 

Quote

but you shouldn't base OTHER things on beliefs and assumptions. ALL should be tested 

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence.

It's that simple, and you have not made a convincing argument otherwise. Your protests only show themselves to be self serving in order to support the vested interest of your claims of interaction with imaginary beings. 

Did you see the thread about the police who ran from Goblins? They are the laughing stock of the world outside of their little superstitious bubble. That's how gods will be seen one day too. Too many of our species are too reliant and comfortable with the security blanket of faith. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
57 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's not a pond by definition so you have to deceive and make up your own definitions to create your case.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Yes it does include artificial constructs. Filled with water. 

Yours isn't, so it's not a pond by definition. You had to lie to make your point. 

Your reading seems to be rather off lately. There have been several posts you have answered where I have had to wonder if you actually read the post. 

This is the definition I posted.

a small body of still water formed naturally or by artificial means.

You removed the water and sterilized the ground.

By definition, not a pond. 

All your trap has illustrated is that you have to lie to get your pont across. As such, your information is self defeating. You actually look worse now than when you started 

I personally think you should have quit while behind. Your just digging yourself a deeper hole. 

No, I used the English language and it's accepted definitions. You had to depart from that to be underhanded, which still does not support your view. It just shows how dishonest belief can make people.

Humans never had gills. 

Yes it is impossible. Breathing isn't the main issue.

I see you are completely unfamiliar with anatomy in general.

And I'm not talking about some freaky genetic experiment that you wish to fantasise about. The question is "Do mermaids exist" the answer is a big fat resounding No. 

I don't agree. I don't think there's a "good" reason. I think most have simply been conditioned to think so. 

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence.

It's that simple, and you have not made a convincing argument otherwise. Your protests only show themselves to be self serving in order to support the vested interest of your claims of interaction with imaginary beings. 

Did you see the thread about the police who ran from Goblins? They are the laughing stock of the world outside of their little superstitious bubble. That's how gods will be seen one day too. Too many of our species are too reliant and comfortable with the security blanket of faith. 

Nup A pond is ALSO an artificial or natural construct without the water  It is how they are advertised 

Plus, of course, "empty pond"

Arona Pond

https://www.avgc.com.au/products/arona?variant=35032600477860&currency=AUD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&utm_campaign=gs-2020-02-09&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gclid=CjwKCAjwzIH7BRAbEiwAoDxxTr3lpqokY21FZhwdgx7TvQa2SfO42NAq66yjtHPHCP9atxoC1JfQbRoC69UQAvD_BwE 

Again you made an assumption without checking the details 

 Some humans still have vestigial gills 

The y are evolved from  an ancestral  pre human species .

My point remains valid  

I do not believe classical mermaids exist, either 

However i cant claim to KNOW this 

I dont absolutely disbelieve the y exist, either.

i simply do not know (and neither can you).

  You do not BELIEVE there are good reasons for believing in gods (I also suspect this a conditioned response from your own childhood)

  It is an evolved cognitive construct, which means it has survival value.

This is also clinically recognised in thousands of medical and scientific studies. 

Put simply if a belief makes you feel better that IS a good reason to believe 

No that  is a facile and false argument, and quite dangerous if actually applied. ALL claims need to be rigorously tested.

  Start believing the believable ones and you (generic)  are easily conned 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Again you misuse the English language to lie and deceive to attempt to make others believe things that are not true.

 

Check your link. That's not a pond. It's a pond liner.

Your pretty loose with your terms. In the industry I work in, that would spell disaster.

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 Some humans still have vestigial gills 

The y are evolved from  an ancestral  pre human species .

No they don't. A foetus had gill arches which redevelop in the womb. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

My point remains valid  

No it doesn't.

It shows that either you are not cognizant enough to offer a complete description, or you outright lied.

They are the two options you have left me with here. 

Which one is it in this case may I ask? 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I do not believe classical mermaids exist, either 

However i cant claim to KNOW this 

Then you don't know anatomy very well at all. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont absolutely disbelieve the y exist, either.

i simply do not know (and neither can you).

Yes I can, and you can too. You don't want to admit that is all. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

  You do not BELIEVE there are good reasons for believing in gods (I also suspect this a conditioned response from your own childhood)

I have not ever seen any good reason to accept the existance of gods. You can believe what you want, but you can't give me a good reason to accept that human tale as anything more than a human constructed myth. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

  It is an evolved cognitive construct, which means it has survival value.

Evolution isn't static. If it was we would all be single celled organisms. Holding onto a mental security blanket for centuries doesn't fit the description of evolution. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

This is also clinically recognised in thousands of medical and scientific studies. 

You keep saying this and flooding threads with endless text to hide the real outcomes 

You overreach data to come to a narrow minded conclusion to support your own mental crutch. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Put simply if a belief makes you feel better that IS a good reason to believe 

Not my experience. I feel better without as I am more honest with myself. That is probably more geared towards those who require a mental crutch to face a day. 

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No that  is a facile and false argument, and quite dangerous if actually applied. ALL claims need to be rigorously tested.

  Start believing the believable ones and you (generic)  are easily conned 

That's just a veiled threat like you will go to hell if you don't go to church. 

There are also prerequisites, which is what entirely destroys your argument.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Again you misuse the English language to lie and deceive to attempt to make others believe things that are not true.

 

Check your link. That's not a pond. It's a pond liner.

Your pretty loose with your terms. In the industry I work in, that would spell disaster.

No they don't. A foetus had gill arches which redevelop in the womb. 

No it doesn't.

It shows that either you are not cognizant enough to offer a complete description, or you outright lied.

They are the two options you have left me with here. 

Which one is it in this case may I ask? 

Then you don't know anatomy very well at all. 

Yes I can, and you can too. You don't want to admit that is all. 

I have not ever seen any good reason to accept the existance of gods. You can believe what you want, but you can't give me a good reason to accept that human tale as anything more than a human constructed myth. 

Evolution isn't static. If it was we would all be single celled organisms. Holding onto a mental security blanket for centuries doesn't fit the description of evolution. 

You keep saying this and flooding threads with endless text to hide the real outcomes 

You overreach data to come to a narrow minded conclusion to support your own mental crutch. 

Not my experience. I feel better without as I am more honest with myself. That is probably more geared towards those who require a mental crutch to face a day. 

That's just a veiled threat like you will go to hell if you don't go to church. 

There are also prerequisites, which is what entirely destroys your argument.

ARONA POND

  • $29900

it is labelled a pond It looked like a concrete pond to me but it might also be a pond liner 

There are plenty of other ones labelled ponds, as opposed to pond liners 

https://www.avgc.com.au/collections/ponds 

Some humans are BORN with vestigial gills (or at least that's a well known scientific theory to explain small holes which about 1% of humans are born with)

 

Some people are born with an extra hole in their ear, the tiny opening, which sits right where the cartilage meets the face, is a condition called preauricular sinus and cyst that scientists believe may be an evolutionary remnant of gills.

https://www.google.com/search?q=preauricular+sinus+gills&rlz=1C1KAFA_enAU554AU554&sxsrf=ALeKk02Lx2sFWKFHa3y8W-X4bNwEyt_s5w:1600251829893&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_uPzOuu3rAhVESX0KHcKSCtcQ_AUoAXoECA0QAw&biw=1920&bih=969

 

Its perfectly acceptable and normal for you  not to have a reason for believing in gods. It is just that most people do.

Your circumstances shaped your beliefs and needs  

Its becoming pretty evident across multiple disciplines that belief compensates for the difficulties created by humans' levels of self  aware consciousness 

we have evolved belief to enable us to function with unknowns   eg knowledge of our mortality requires a compensatory mechanism to allow us to be happy and prosper, while still knowing we must die. 

This is supported by the science proving that belief promotes  longevity and  better  health, both of which increase the likelihood of progeny.

This causes such beneficial traits to become widespread or even universal.

it is not a threat. It is a valid and logical point 

If you accept things on faith, because the y seem reasonable to you, then you a re a person easily conned  (note i did put generic there and it didn't apply to you )   The best cons are them most reasonable and believable ones.

Nothing should be taken on faith, no matter how believable you find it . 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

ARONA POND

  • $29900

it is labelled a pond It looked like a concrete pond to me but it might also be a pond liner 

There are plenty of other ones labelled ponds, as opposed to pond liners 

https://www.avgc.com.au/collections/ponds 

Might be? 

That's what it actually says at your link. 

Trade names and sales pitches don't change the definition.

Quote

Some humans are BORN with vestigial gills (or at least that's a well known scientific theory to explain small holes which about 1% of humans are born with)

 

Some people are born with an extra hole in their ear, the tiny opening, which sits right where the cartilage meets the face, is a condition called preauricular sinus and cyst that scientists believe may be an evolutionary remnant of gills.

All foetuses have gill arches. The develop into lower facial bones. What your talking about is underdevelopment. It doesn't suggest in any distant way that a mermaid could exist.

Quote

Its perfectly acceptable and normal for you  not to have a reason for believing in gods. It is just that most people do.

Your circumstances shaped your beliefs and needs  

Facts and their definition are what matters, not any circumstances other than becoming more aware of scientific progress. There is just no good reason for belief. Simple as that  It's a personal choice, and for most it's a cultural custom with the choice to understand and accept it removed without consent. 

Quote

Its becoming pretty evident across multiple disciplines that belief compensates for the difficulties created by humans levels of self  aware consciousness 

we have evolved belief to enable us to function with unknowns   eg knowledge of our mortality requires a compensatory mechanism to allow us to be happy and prosper 

This is supported by the science proving that belief promotes  longevity and  better  health, both of which increase the likelihood of progeny.

This causes such beneficial traits to become widespread or even universal.

I see it as feeding an addiction to gain the support of other like minded people to get an extra couple of years. 

Not worth it from my perspective no matter the benefit. It's like telling a patriotic 2nd amendment supporter then can have an extra ten years life if they live on their knees and never touch a gun again.

How many people in that scenario would take up that option do you think? 

Quote

it is not a threat. It is a valid and logical point 

If you accept things on faith, because the y seem reasonable to you, then you a re a person easily conned  (note i did put generic there and it didn't apply to you )   The best cons are them most reasonable and believable ones.

Sounds like it to me. What your leaving out here is how easy it is to validate a common claim, a glance may he all that is required.

Wether you accept that it not, your alien god claim remains extraordinary. Any proof of it would by definition be extraordinary. Thing is, our medical records offer the far, far more likely conclusion that such a wild claim is incredibly astoundingly extremely likely to be a delusion of some kind, and therefore human error, not the extravagant and rather imaginative conclusion that you have offered.

And quite frankly, I think most sensible people would agree that human error is the most likely.

Quote

Nothing should be taken on faith, no matter how believable you find it . 

Exactly, which is why your posts are so regularly questioned and rationalised. Some things are just easier to accept, and don't attract attention. With your imaginative claims, it's clear you seek attention or you would not be telling them. You're only really receiving the critsism you seek. I just hope it's not a ploy to attract emotionally unstable people who are ready to grasp at any straw of hope. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

These comments by MW are as ignorant as the thread in which MW tried to pretend there are false facts and true facts.

A pond is a body of water in which plants that are rooted can reach the surface across much of the area.

Therefore, a pond is a body of water, not a place a pond might be or once was. In the same way, the deserts in Egypt west of the Nile where whale skeletons are found is not a sea.

Therefore, a pond is not a body of water based on surface area size. Although we can find large bodies of water called ponds such as Ten Mile Pond in Newfoundland, the body is not a pond. The misnomer is due to the people naming the body of water coming from a particular area of the Europe where everything is called a pond.

A company selling something that can be used to form a pond does not mean that the object itself is actually a pond. Just as a store sells a bag of material to form concrete they call it concrete. It isn't at the time you purchase the material. 

MW, your reliance on illogical constructs, ignorance, and misuse of words seems to be all you have. You might try providing a useful response at some time. We'd all prefer to see that.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
14 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The misnomer is due to the people naming the body of water coming from a particular area of the Europe where everything is called a pond.

Just as the expression, "across the pond" doesn't actually make the Atlantic Ocean a pond.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Might be? 

That's what it actually says at your link. 

Trade names and sales pitches don't change the definition.

All foetuses have gill arches. The develop into lower facial bones. What your talking about is underdevelopment. It doesn't suggest in any distant way that a mermaid could exist.

Facts and their definition are what matters, not any circumstances other than becoming more aware of scientific progress. There is just no good reason for belief. Simple as that  It's a personal choice, and for most it's a cultural custom with the choice to understand and accept it removed without consent. 

I see it as feeding an addiction to gain the support of other like minded people to get an extra couple of years. 

Not worth it from my perspective no matter the benefit. It's like telling a patriotic 2nd amendment supporter then can have an extra ten years life if they live on their knees and never touch a gun again.

How many people in that scenario would take up that option do you think? 

Sounds like it to me. What your leaving out here is how easy it is to validate a common claim, a glance may he all that is required.

Wether you accept that it not, your alien god claim remains extraordinary. Any proof of it would by definition be extraordinary. Thing is, our medical records offer the far, far more likely conclusion that such a wild claim is incredibly astoundingly extremely likely to be a delusion of some kind, and therefore human error, not the extravagant and rather imaginative conclusion that you have offered.

And quite frankly, I think most sensible people would agree that human error is the most likely.

Exactly, which is why your posts are so regularly questioned and rationalised. Some things are just easier to accept, and don't attract attention. With your imaginative claims, it's clear you seek attention or you would not be telling them. You're only really receiving the critsism you seek. I just hope it's not a ploy to attract emotionally unstable people who are ready to grasp at any straw of hope. 

I will only reply to your last point, because in answering it, it answers all your other questions

 I post because these stories are true. Every one of them.

  They are not delusions, the stories of a person needing /seeking attention, and the y are not wish fulfilment or based on some psychological need 

 

Being true and not made up it is important to publish them and let others know 

What others believe after reading them   is irrelevant 

We all, including yourself, believe what makes us comfortable, but when faced with facts and evidences in our lives we cant ignore them  even if the y challenge our belief /disbelief and make us uncomfortable

Ps my medical records show no hint or sign of anything which would cause delusions etc My psychological records and profile show a person very well adjusted, and able to discern reality from unreality 

Sensible does not come into it and is a subjective term 

Some people will know from their own experiences that i am speaking a truth

Those without experience have to decide whether to believe or disbelieve.

Some, like you,  will be guided by a negative perception of religions,  faith  and belief, towards disbelief.

Others, with a more positive attitude towards faith/ belief, may be more inclined to believe 

I can't speak for others or their stories. 

Mine are real and true.

 My wife and i would have been killed a number of times, if not for the direct intervention of this being.  (well we could only die once, but you know what i mean) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, stereologist said:

These comments by MW are as ignorant as the thread in which MW tried to pretend there are false facts and true facts.

A pond is a body of water in which plants that are rooted can reach the surface across much of the area.

Therefore, a pond is a body of water, not a place a pond might be or once was. In the same way, the deserts in Egypt west of the Nile where whale skeletons are found is not a sea.

Therefore, a pond is not a body of water based on surface area size. Although we can find large bodies of water called ponds such as Ten Mile Pond in Newfoundland, the body is not a pond. The misnomer is due to the people naming the body of water coming from a particular area of the Europe where everything is called a pond.

A company selling something that can be used to form a pond does not mean that the object itself is actually a pond. Just as a store sells a bag of material to form concrete they call it concrete. It isn't at the time you purchase the material. 

MW, your reliance on illogical constructs, ignorance, and misuse of words seems to be all you have. You might try providing a useful response at some time. We'd all prefer to see that.

Thats one definition. It certainly is not the only one 

Maybe its a local or Australian thing but we have always talked about buying fish ponds, for example, meaning an artificial construct in which water, fish and plants can be placed.    Go to any advertisement and you will see these empty containers called fishponds.

Thus it is common usage, and by prior definition on UM, common usage is acceptable usage, here. 

So I am correct ,again :)   ps in australia we have dry seas which once contained water :)

 So to be clear. A fishpond is any structure, natural or artificial, intended to hold fish.  It is a pond when it is dry. and it is a pond when it is filled with water  It remains a fish pond even when it has no fish in it, if it was intended to hold fish. That goes for both natural and artificial ponds.

  Here in Australia a lot of our natural ponds dry out in summer but are still referred to as a pond, when dry   Think of a swimming pool and you get the idea. Take out the water and it remains a swimming pool  Maybe in Europe ponds always have water in them. Not here.  

Stick to the facts, and get them right.

Personal comments are ignorant, and don't win arguments or influence me. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I will only reply to your last point, because in answering it, it answers all your other questions

No it doesn't.

How about the hypothetical patriot American? How does it answer that scenario?

Quote

 I post because these stories are true. Every one of them.

  They are not delusions, the stories of a person needing /seeking attention, and the y are not wish fulfilment or based on some psychological need 

Wether you believe that or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that you cannot support your claims in any way at all, and that modern knowledge strongly illustrates that your stories are best explained rationally by deception or delusion. Human nature makes those options the most likely regarding the information that you have provided.

From an outside perspective, they are best explained by delusion. From your personal perspective, perhaps otherwise. That's just how things are. 

Quote

Being true and not made up it is important to publish them and let others know 

What others believe after reading them   is irrelevant 

I don't accept your word that they are true. I cannot find good reason to do so.

I don't know why you think your stories are important. I can't see how.  I think you are only enabling and gently coaxing others to follow your example. Lost people like Will only become more fundamental after having their fantasies validated by others like yourself. I can't see how your stories do any more than encourage others to lie more and make things up. I don't see that as important at all. The only advantage seems to be to yourself. 

Quote

We all, including yourself, believe what makes us comfortable, but when faced with facts and evidences in our lives we cant ignore them  even if the y challenge our belief /disbelief and make us uncomfortable

That's the thing. The facts are available to us all and that's why the most likely conclusion doesn't change for a wild anecdote. 

Quote

Ps my medical records show no hint or sign of anything which would cause delusions etc My psychological records and profile show a person very well adjusted, and able to discern reality from unreality 

Then it's obviously flawed.

You misinterpret studies all the time here but think your interpretation is correct because you are very verbose with your opinion. That's a clear example of how your abilities to judge are inadequate. I would say that in my opinion, your posting here proved that you cannot follow logic. The extraordinary claim discussion well illustrated to all that your idea of logic is skewed and that you are not rational in evaluation. 

Quote

Sensible does not come into it and is a subjective term 

Of course it does, my context wasn't ambiguous.

Quote

Some people will know from their own experiences that i am speaking a truth

Like minds tend to agree. 

Quote

Those without experience have to decide whether to believe or disbelieve.

Or one can fall back in gathered knowledge and make an informed conclusion from actual factual information.

Quote

Some, like you,  will be guided by a negative perception of religions,  faith  and belief, towards disbelief.

No evidence at all supports your claims. That offers a clear default position as we do have evidence that can explain it. 

Quote

Others, with a more positive attitude towards faith/ belief, may be more inclined to believe 

There's a certain type of poster that lends your claims some personal support. Some have even wilder claims.

Not ever one of the academic posters who provide worthy contributions. Always the nutters, the fundamentals, the new agers, even those who sat hallucinogens are a path to God

The above pretty much speaks for itself doesn't it? 

Quote

I can't speak for others or their stories. 

Mine are real and true.

 My wife and i would have been killed a number of times, if not for the direct intervention of this being.  (well we could only die once, but you know what i mean) 

As I said, wether you believe this is not is irrelevant to the supported information we do have. I honestly don't know if you believe your own stories or not, but I know I cannot see why I would accept them over the overwhelming evidence that insists that they are delusion to a rational person.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats one definition. It certainly is not the only one 

Maybe its a local or Australian thing but we have always talked about buying fish ponds, for example, meaning an artificial construct in which water, fish and plants can be placed.    Go to any advertisement and you will see these empty containers called fishponds.

Thus it is common usage, and by prior definition on UM, common usage is acceptable usage, here. 

So I am correct ,again :)   ps in australia we have dry seas which once contained water :)

 So to be clear. A fishpond is any structure, natural or artificial, intended to hold fish.  It is a pond when it is dry. and it is a pond when it is filled with water  It remains a fish pond even when it has no fish in it, if it was intended to hold fish. That goes for both natural and artificial ponds.

  Here in Australia a lot of our natural ponds dry out in summer but are still referred to as a pond, when dry   Think of a swimming pool and you get the idea. Take out the water and it remains a swimming pool  Maybe in Europe ponds always have water in them. Not here.  

Stick to the facts, and get them right.

Personal comments are ignorant, and don't win arguments or influence me. 

Then stick to the facts.

Your own link called it a pond liner. Slang doesn't negate definition.

Lol, and you tried to say I didn't investigate the situation well enough!

Now you can't admit to a simple error!!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Then stick to the facts.

Your own link called it a pond liner. Slang doesn't negate definition.

Lol, and you tried to say I didn't investigate the situation well enough!

Now you can't admit to a simple error!!

NUP the label said pond not pond liner.

I've given more  sources proving this to be  correct 

It is admittedly a matter of the vernacular, but we have in the past all had to accept that common usage establishes a correct usage on UM , These are sold as fishponds not as fishpond liners  

 

Fish ponds moulded by Dynaplas - made from polyethylene large and small  Australian Madelabeled /sold as a fishpond 

 

images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSGJTcrSAy1pmS5HEKFddmh2Ma66sf6RBjtb8Do9GFGZZhoTjfpzLIF7fY6tDjtM9S0SAL0EFzl&usqp=CAclabelled/sold as a fishpond 

image.jpeg.5f12a70257e85ac061de5f2e7cc2fd88.jpeglabelled/ sold as a fibreglass pond 

look for yourself

https://www.google.com/search?q=fishponds+for+sale+austrlia&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwid_sbU1fHrAhXbCXIKHQPOD4EQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=fishponds+for+sale+austrlia&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDDoECAAQQzoCCAA6BggAEAgQHjoECAAQGDoGCAAQChAYOgQIABAeUPAhWO9UYMd6aABwAHgAgAGfAogB-x-SAQYwLjMuMTWYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=8BxkX53GEtuTyAODnL-ICA&bih=969&biw=1903&rlz=1C1KAFA_enAU554AU554&hl=en

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No it doesn't.

How about the hypothetical patriot American? How does it answer that scenario?

Wether you believe that or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that you cannot support your claims in any way at all, and that modern knowledge strongly illustrates that your stories are best explained rationally by deception or delusion. Human nature makes those options the most likely regarding the information that you have provided.

From an outside perspective, they are best explained by delusion. From your personal perspective, perhaps otherwise. That's just how things are. 

I don't accept your word that they are true. I cannot find good reason to do so.

I don't know why you think your stories are important. I can't see how.  I think you are only enabling and gently coaxing others to follow your example. Lost people like Will only become more fundamental after having their fantasies validated by others like yourself. I can't see how your stories do any more than encourage others to lie more and make things up. I don't see that as important at all. The only advantage seems to be to yourself. 

That's the thing. The facts are available to us all and that's why the most likely conclusion doesn't change for a wild anecdote. 

Then it's obviously flawed.

You misinterpret studies all the time here but think your interpretation is correct because you are very verbose with your opinion. That's a clear example of how your abilities to judge are inadequate. I would say that in my opinion, your posting here proved that you cannot follow logic. The extraordinary claim discussion well illustrated to all that your idea of logic is skewed and that you are not rational in evaluation. 

Of course it does, my context wasn't ambiguous.

 

Like minds tend to agree. 

Or one can fall back in gathered knowledge and make an informed conclusion from actual factual information.

No evidence at all supports your claims. That offers a clear default position as we do have evidence that can explain it. 

There's a certain type of poster that lends your claims some personal support. Some have even wilder claims.

Not ever one of the academic posters who provide worthy contributions. Always the nutters, the fundamentals, the new agers, even those who sat hallucinogens are a path to God

The above pretty much speaks for itself doesn't it? 

As I said, wether you believe this is not is irrelevant to the supported information we do have. I honestly don't know if you believe your own stories or not, but I know I cannot see why I would accept them over the overwhelming evidence that insists that they are delusion to a rational person.

It answered your first point 

A belief may be proven to add 10 years to your life That doesn't mean tha t everyone will choose the belief Other needs or beliefs may override it  BUT the y deserve to KNOW the facts In your specific example it would be interesting to see if the person believed that giving up his guns would mean not just 10 years more life but a happier healthy life as well AND if he did believe this would it change his mind and behaviors.

For some it would.

Others less so.

  America is  a different place and culture to Australia but (when we left the farm)  i gave up firearms i had held for almost 40 years without any ill effect and without any regrets. 

 

What i believe is irrelevant but the truth is not. 

I dont have any need or requirement to support a claim.

You have a choice to believe/disbelieve.  Your choice will affect all your future life in some ways.

From the perspective of a person without similar experience the y COULD be explained as delusion. Or attention seeking, or simple lying   Try temporarily adjusting your perspective :) 

Of course you dont believe them. Thus you cant see why they are important The y ARE true and it is that which makes them important to others. eg if i just tell a  made up story about aliens  landing, it has no importance BUT if i am telling a true story of what i experienced and aliens actually did land, then it has importance even if it cannot be proven.

  Sorry but you simply do NOT have the same facts and evidences available to me.

Its strange and humorous that my  university studies included logic I suspect it is not i who isn't thinking logically.

Logically explain why an ordinary claim does not require as much proof as an extraordinary one.

It will come back to acceptance and belief of the ordinary claim, not knowledge.   

lol your prejudices are showing  ie anyone who disgreewithyouonthis must be 

Always the nutters, the fundamentals, the new agers, even those who sat hallucinogens are a path to God 

and yet I am none of these, and to your great credit you have never treated me as if i was.

I am just an ordinary bloke who has been lucky enough to have some extraordinary experiences in my life 

I understand your pov and am not offended by it.

indeed you are one of the more polite posters, who debates the posts content  not the person, and I appreciate that 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
15 hours ago, stereologist said:

Not ponds. A pond is a body of water. Regardless of how you misuse the English language and other misuse the English language a pond is a body of water.

 

A pond is a body of water. No argument 

  In common usage ( and thus allowable on UM) a pond is also a construct which can hold water. Eg a dry pond remains a pond and an artificial pond is a pond, even before it contains water. 

We all learn a lot on Um, and i have learned new usages of words many times here.  

I am almost 70 years old, with an excellent vocab, and wide reading experience yet  I've never encountered the belief that a pond could ONLY be a body of water, before this  :)

 It is  like the idea that  a swimming pool can only be a swimming pool when it is filled with water.

You are entitled to your limited description, but my wider one is supported by widespread common use 

What would you call a pond that had dried out?  

Ps I would call it a dry pond 

 

quote

Dry pond

 

quote

There are two general types of stormwater ponds: wet ponds and dry ponds.

How can a pond be dry? A dry pond is designed to hold water for a short period of time before allowing the water to discharge to a nearby stream. Dry ponds control peak flows of runoff, help improve water quality and lessen the effects of erosion. Between rain events, a dry pond looks like a large, grassy low area. When it rains, the pond fills with water. They hold water for 48-72 hours to allow sediment and pollutants to settle out. Because they detain water for a brief time before allowing it to flow out, dry ponds are also called detention ponds.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/soil-water-conservation/understanding-stormwater-ponds#:~:text=A dry pond is designed,lessen the effects of erosion.

image.jpeg.5792258d977c17a17ff96f7e76d9f38b.jpeg

image.jpeg.52d72d184f875792725b805dfc3a8d3b.jpeg

quote from the ultimate source :)

 

 

The first job is to remove the water plants including Elodea and water hawthorn Aponogeton distachyos which flowers all winter. Then remove the fish from the pond. To do this put the net in front of the fish and they will swim straight into it. Avoid touching the fish with your hands as dry hands will remove their scales. If touching them is unavoidable, do it quickly and wet your hands in the pond water first.

Any sludge from the bottom of the pond can be poured straight onto the garden because it's full of fish waste, 12 months worth of leaves and other detritus. All of this is beautiful nutrient for the garden.

Next the pond is pressure cleaned to remove what's left of the rubbish.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/gardening/factsheets/pond-cleaning/9427160

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
15 hours ago, stereologist said:

Not ponds. A pond is a body of water. Regardless of how you misuse the English language and other misuse the English language a pond is a body of water.

 

lol What you are saying is basically; no matter how much evidence is provided, you are right, and everyone else is wrong.  Gotta love that. 

It is pretty normal ( especially in the young )

Once we learn something,  we are often  reluctant to have to discard it, expand on the knowledge  or  learn more diverse understandings . 

Thats one reason why things "learned " in childhood and adolescence, are hard to unlearn or  expand upon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

From @Mr Walker link post #78.

 

ARONA POND

Stocking fibreglass pond liners and concrete pond pieces, we've got you covered for all your pond needs.

 

Dictionary:

pond

/pɒnd/

noun

a small body of still water formed naturally or by artificial means.

 

Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

From @Mr Walker link post #78.

 

ARONA POND

Stocking fibreglass pond liners and concrete pond pieces, we've got you covered for all your pond needs.

 

Dictionary:

pond

/pɒnd/

noun

a small body of still water formed naturally or by artificial means.

 

Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. 

Thats a partial definition (not incorrect but incomplete)  Again, I refer you to the many quotes and other references where a pond is described as a natural or artificial construct to HOLD water.  It remains a pond even if it has no water in it . if you go to the website they stock pond liners, concrete parts for ponds, AND complete  fiberglass or plastic ponds. 

From another site

quote

Fibreglass Ponds and Water Features

Your fibreglass pond is the focal point of your garden,

Aquapro 65L MINI ROCK LOOK POND Made of Fibreglass,

 

Aquapro 65L MINI ROCK LOOK POND Made of Fibreglass, Real Looking, Natural Style

 

https://www.ebay.com.au/b/Fiberglass-Ponds-Water-Features/93632/bn_10589403

 

NEW Garden Water Feature Creek Bed Fibreglass Pond

 

NEW Garden Water Feature Creek Bed Fibreglass Pond

I don't even know why people are arguing about this, but a pond is often NOT filled with water. Indeed it may not even contain any water 

Whatever the case, to establish if life exists within it, requires investigation and evidence, not belief 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats a partial definition (not incorrect but incomplete)  Again, I refer you to the many quotes and other references where a pond is described as a natural or artificial construct to HOLD water.  It remains a pond even if it has no water in it . if you go to the website they stock pond liners, concrete parts for ponds, AND complete  fiberglass or plastic ponds. 

From another site

quote

Fibreglass Ponds and Water Features

Your fibreglass pond is the focal point of your garden,

Aquapro 65L MINI ROCK LOOK POND Made of Fibreglass,

 

Aquapro 65L MINI ROCK LOOK POND Made of Fibreglass, Real Looking, Natural Style

 

https://www.ebay.com.au/b/Fiberglass-Ponds-Water-Features/93632/bn_10589403

 

NEW Garden Water Feature Creek Bed Fibreglass Pond

 

NEW Garden Water Feature Creek Bed Fibreglass Pond

I don't even know why people are arguing about this, but a pond is often NOT filled with water. Indeed it may not even contain any water 

Whatever the case, to establish if life exists within it, requires investigation and evidence, not belief 

So a term used as slang by eBay exceeds the dictionary and even your original "proof"?

I don't know why either. Be definition, you are clearly wrong and are guilty of the lack investigation you accused me of. If you had, this discussion would not be happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
35 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So a term used as slang by eBay exceeds the dictionary and even your original "proof"?

I don't know why either. Be definition, you are clearly wrong and are guilty of the lack investigation you accused me of. If you had, this discussion would not be happening.

"Common usage"  is accepted on UM and I've been criticised for denying this.

  it is more than slang, and in my locality a pond is almost NEVER a  permanent pool of water, because we dont have them.

  I have friends who live on Duckpond Lane near Port Lincoln  There is a large limestone depression in the ground which, when filled with water, sometimes  has ducks on it,  but 95% of the time it is dry. It is still referred to as the duck ponds. It is wrong to argue that a pond can ONLY be  filled with, or containing, water. It is the entire structure, rather than the water,  which forms the pond 

You're just cranky because you were fooled into an assumption. 

There are even dry "ponds"  on Mars which, a long time ago, contained water.

Over millions of years these ponds were sometimes overflowing with water and other times totally dry.

The y remained ponds, whether wet or dry.  

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.