Post by drystyx on Apr 9, 2019 22:37:14 GMT
Incidentally, I decided to go to Opiate's first page of posts, to show how incoherent Opiate is. I could choose about any of Opiate's incoherent ramblings, but this one proves my point that Opiate cannot communicate:
Anyone who believes that has any coherence at all is a sock puppet of Opiate, and I only say that to give such a toady the benefit of the doubt.
Your jealousy is so apparent that a caveman can see it.
I am seeing now that we should just pity you and all of your outbursts are probably just related to your disability...
Let us know when if they find a treatment programme for you. Good luck with the rehabilitation!
But I'll help you in your quest to be embarrassed again.
You are a poor communicator. It's that plain and simple. I make my posts so that there is no question of what any adverb or adjective refers to. You don't. You are totally incoherent. The first rule of communication is "communicating".
Even before my edit, one knew what each adjective described, what each subject was in every phrase.
Anyone who says you communicate as well is outright lying. Period.
Here's the quote you and Goz, in your crack head delusion, are so fond of. A quote you made. I didn't dig past the first page. I'm no stalker.
The scientific method of proving a negative is that you try to prove the opposite using science. In this case it would be that God exists. If you can't prove the negative then science accepts that the negative state is the true state.
Of course no one can argue with that, because it is incoherent. It is impossible to figure out what you're trying to say. Bad enough that you won't use a comma, which is imperative in your third sentence, but the statement gives no indication of what your subject is, nor what you're trying to say.
First sentence:
The scientific method of proving a negative is that you try to prove the opposite using science.
You really think that is a coherent sentence? If you do, you're lying. What does "proving a negative" even mean? Well, it's an oxymoron. It's incoherent. It's definitive of poor English. That phrase alone will cause any honest teacher to flunk a third grader.
Then there's your phrase "prove the opposite using science". It's so garbled that it takes well over five seconds to go back and see what you're referring to, whether you mean "the scientific method" or "proving a negative". I'm not a mind reader, so you insist that is a disability.
I'm curious. Is "mind reading" the new human norm? I'm no mind reader, so if not being a mind reader is a "disability", I qualify. Maybe the majority of people who post here can read minds. Maybe you're correct. I need to know. I'm not a mind reader. I can only use logic. If you and Goz are gifted with ESP, then you are obviously poor stewards over that gift, because you're poor communicators.
Your second sentence has no poor grammar. It's just useless. You say "In this case it would be that God exists". Well, in what case? It's dependent on the incoherent sentence preceding it, so it's useless. Therefore, it says nothing.
And then we have your third sentence:
If you can't prove the negative then science accepts that the negative state is the true state.
The missing comma alone makes this impossible to read, so I'll add it and see if that helps:
If you can't prove the negative, then science accepts that the negative state is the true state
No, doesn't help. I see why you left out the comma. "Science" is some entity that "accepts" something. Epic fail there, you have to admit. "The negative state is the true state". Another oxymoron that is impossible to decipher.
You cannot communicate. Goz claims she can read your mind. This does prove other posts I've made about supernatural forces working on humans. There's certainly nothing "natural" about Person A reading Person's B's mind just by reading incoherent babble written by Person B.