I do not know. In any case, I never said the opposite.Obamot wrote:- perpetual movement never existed.
I admire those who wet their shirts to experiment.
Multiple scientific system of French !!
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
quartz wrote:A small video, well done !! [on formatting ideas]
What do you mean by that, it never stopped the earth from turning around the sun ...
You mean those who "find"Are those who have previously formatted their brains to achieve this? Or that it is the other way around (it would only be those who have not formatted themselves who would have found solutions ...
) Anyway, so much the better for them if it worked for them, since it didn't stop them from finding things for each other (and one more syllogism ... one ...!)
In any case, we are superbly beside the real problem: you have to have a damn restive mind to think / imagine that a formatted brain (or not) would be a prerequisite for the existence (or not) of everything!
They exist or do not exist whatever you think about them ... The facts are the facts, since nature and / or physics meanwhile do not give a damn whether your brain is formatted or not, nor in what sense ...
You see Cuicui, no matter how small we write, everyone is formatted to understand in their own way, or - for the more "honest" - pretend not to understand when it suits them
0 x
obamot hello
What bothers me is this replacement of the religion of a god by the religion of science as if it were, in turn, the depositary of an absolute truth. It doesn't matter whether it is the work of expert scientists or do-it-yourselfers, the simple fact of denying a possibility (however small it may be) is closing the door to another possible one. Likewise rationalism, which has its reason for existing, places itself too much in opposition to the irrational which is only another side of the same reality.
Not being able to explain, to prove, is precisely not the proof of a non-existence. Let us have a little humility because too much still escapes us (fortunately perhaps besides) because "science without conscience is the ruin of the soul"
We are all concerned!You see Cuicui, no matter how small we write, everyone is formatted to understand in their own way, or - for the more "honest" - pretend not to understand when it suits them
What bothers me is this replacement of the religion of a god by the religion of science as if it were, in turn, the depositary of an absolute truth. It doesn't matter whether it is the work of expert scientists or do-it-yourselfers, the simple fact of denying a possibility (however small it may be) is closing the door to another possible one. Likewise rationalism, which has its reason for existing, places itself too much in opposition to the irrational which is only another side of the same reality.
Not being able to explain, to prove, is precisely not the proof of a non-existence. Let us have a little humility because too much still escapes us (fortunately perhaps besides) because "science without conscience is the ruin of the soul"
0 x
This video explains the mental-philosophical behavior of individuals in general!
there are always some who stand out!
Clearly this takes up the concept of elasticity, a concept valid for people and matter.
a piece of glass is capable of a certain elasticity before rupture, weak but real.
once broken his organization is different, it is not very reversible.
For people it's almost the same, we are all able to accept concepts different from ours.
but when these new concepts are too far from the concepts that we have previously accepted, well they become unreal!
we come back to thought formats that stiffen with age, and I know what I'm talking about.
We can clearly see the reluctance of the old to integrate new working techniques.
on the other there is a more important personal elasticity, it is more a chance than a quality, I take myself for example, I started the electronics by the lamps !!
Today I play with integrated circuits whose level of integration exceeds the imagination, not to mention digital or analog circuits programmable at will !!
I have a lot of friends who are still in the business today but are unable to get their hands dirty.
they manage the projects but no longer really understand how the machines work intimately.
They picked up, they could no longer apprehend too much change in their conceptions of things!
then of course you are going to tell me that for fundamental physics it is not the same as the basic bases of the seat plate of the thing!
well no more, it is true that it is a very very stable background on which we rightly refer.
but one day a man with an elastic mind will find something that changes everything.
it may already be done, but the atmosphere is so rigid that it will take years before it is looked at with interest.
For example Leonhard Paul Euler Swiss mathematician who died in 1783 to situate it in time, wrote formulas for which we are just beginning to find applications.
All of this has a name among behavioral professionals,
cultural backwardness he was around 30 to 35 years ago 20 years ago he was still 50 years old!
we have made good progress, thanks to modern means of communication !!
We are in a polarized debate.
on the one hand you need people like you who cling to their scientific-cultural heritage and on the other hallucinated people like us who believe that there may be other things true.
personally I am a little schizoid because my job forces me to use the established scientific bases and in the evening I dream of putting everything in the trash.
this is what the film wanted to say in shortcut
PS: you are right to do what you do, but we also need to respect it!
there are always some who stand out!
Clearly this takes up the concept of elasticity, a concept valid for people and matter.
a piece of glass is capable of a certain elasticity before rupture, weak but real.
once broken his organization is different, it is not very reversible.
For people it's almost the same, we are all able to accept concepts different from ours.
but when these new concepts are too far from the concepts that we have previously accepted, well they become unreal!
we come back to thought formats that stiffen with age, and I know what I'm talking about.
We can clearly see the reluctance of the old to integrate new working techniques.
on the other there is a more important personal elasticity, it is more a chance than a quality, I take myself for example, I started the electronics by the lamps !!
Today I play with integrated circuits whose level of integration exceeds the imagination, not to mention digital or analog circuits programmable at will !!
I have a lot of friends who are still in the business today but are unable to get their hands dirty.
they manage the projects but no longer really understand how the machines work intimately.
They picked up, they could no longer apprehend too much change in their conceptions of things!
then of course you are going to tell me that for fundamental physics it is not the same as the basic bases of the seat plate of the thing!
well no more, it is true that it is a very very stable background on which we rightly refer.
but one day a man with an elastic mind will find something that changes everything.
it may already be done, but the atmosphere is so rigid that it will take years before it is looked at with interest.
For example Leonhard Paul Euler Swiss mathematician who died in 1783 to situate it in time, wrote formulas for which we are just beginning to find applications.
All of this has a name among behavioral professionals,
cultural backwardness he was around 30 to 35 years ago 20 years ago he was still 50 years old!
we have made good progress, thanks to modern means of communication !!
We are in a polarized debate.
on the one hand you need people like you who cling to their scientific-cultural heritage and on the other hallucinated people like us who believe that there may be other things true.
personally I am a little schizoid because my job forces me to use the established scientific bases and in the evening I dream of putting everything in the trash.
this is what the film wanted to say in shortcut
PS: you are right to do what you do, but we also need to respect it!
0 x
Every minute that passes is an opportunity to change the course of your life.
YouTube page, Dailymotion page, Picasa album, personal Pages, Viktor Schauberger
YouTube page, Dailymotion page, Picasa album, personal Pages, Viktor Schauberger
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
Quartz, you have had some lights of discernment that others have not had. It surprised me and I found it good. Alas, the natural quickly returns to the gallop. No, we cannot accept what you say. THERE IS NO REJECTION, but lacks self-discipline. Bar point.
The "Integrated circuits whose level of integration exceeds the imagination, not to mention digital or analog circuits programmable at will" that you take as an example, reflect the tangible success of official science: do you see the paradox with the rest of your speech?
(In addition, it is you who amalgamates between an official science VS a parallel or what do I know, it is not me, but I wanted to clarify it immediately, because you have misconceptions about about your interlocutors, possibly because it suits you to see it like that, but know that by being one of them, I am not ready to admit it, because it's false.)
Hi Janic,
There is not the question (and I debate it willingly) but thank you for this remark, it allows to fix the framework of this situation. As an example:
- it must be taken into account that these detractors admit that their approach is not scientific but that at the same time they defend themselves in a certain way;
- those that you defend in your post eventually put fervor before rigor, it is a very curious way of approaching the problem and clearly shows the intrusion of cognitive-behavioral into the debate (and which has nothing to do, and this in different other ways) and that's not frankly like that that we can fight against the current theoretical model!
- the only way, in my humble opinion, is to have even more stringent requirements, in order to nail their beak! Or at least equivalent. It is this lack that we can possibly blame Franck Delplace, who makes a very curious mixture of genres, advancing a little quickly on a theory which is only a hypothesis taking roughly elements of the theoretical model current and by adding to it considerations of pseudo-psychology, wanting to undoubtedly make a mythological connection there or what do I know ... (Understand who will be able) But which does not really have place to be;
- there was never any question here - for my part - of denying (or anything in this regard) another possibility. What is problematic in a forum:
- it is the non-entry on the points of contestation in the debate;
- the exclusion of so-called protestors from the discussion, which suggests a sectarian operation;
- the repetition of messages and threads ad nauseam (which is the very nature of one of the practices of trollism);
- the possible but expressed denial of the laws of physics, without providing a contrary explanation;
- the possible denial (but expressed on the contrary since it is accepted) that the measures are not carried out according to the rules of the art;
- the possible denial (but expressed on the contrary since admitted) that the way in which the montages are made can induce erroneous or misleading results;
- the relative use of forum, not as a forum, but to take advantage of its promotional possibilities;
- personal attacks which are launched to avoid answering substantive questions and technical-scientific objections.
etc.
And there, it was the drop of water that caused the was (not was ..)
The proof that this is not the case is that it forum has a section on free energy. But this is more likely due to the fact that there is a large dose of amateurism among the speakers, that they ignore what they are told and that they prolong the debate here that they cannot have in other forums for identical reasons. Which had the consequence of hardening the tone.
Even here, someone who had decided for several years not to take sides, had to back off a bit, in spite of himself, because it was getting outrageous and you can't let anything go. Like questionable methods and techniques, not any rejection of anything that is not "the normal way"!
As I said before, there is possibly a blatant lack of discernment in this group (it shows through and is embarrassing no ...?), And it's not doing them a favor that not to intervene .
In addition for the reasons mentioned (and with the usual reservations) certain experimenters or commentators allow themselves to question the same ethical rules (whether directly or indirectly or by omission), and practiced by all honest researchers on the part the world including those who are not great followers of the generally recognized theoretical model (without putting anything else in its place, without debate or anything) by purely and simply rejecting official science as a whole! It is an insult to the researchers who are in the camps opposite and who are bound to a great rigor (as we do the Kousmine teams, for example: they have proved theses opposed to those in force, by producing results and reproducibility of their work, both in the laboratory and in the field ...). So indeed it is humiliating, since in the world that they reject there are also scientists who submit to the rules and who fight to have their own research recognized without having NEVER PUBLISHED ANYTHING BEFORE IT HAS BE AVERAGED (or never questioning the contrary) as with the recent Séralini affair with GMOs. Case that suffices in itself to prove the problems and gray area in the scientific world, without there being any need to hit the nail by instrumentalizing unlikely hypotheses to try to validate with a beautiful syllogism more , that any action not subject to self-criticism would then become justifiable in itself - intrinsically and automatically valid in view of the problems of the scientific world too quickly qualified as "official" - VS another who would be marginal but who would hold the truth! Absurd!!!
Not even that, that has no reason to be, there is no living in a ghetto just because the rest of the world would have wanted to put us there (lol) or that it would be comfortable to go there be, because like that, we could practice the rules we want ...!
Then, in the name of a form of paranoia that shows up, we come to personal attacks, rather than coming to the substantive debate is a very credible angle of attack. It's so practical .... But nothing scientific. Wake up, because I think sclerosis is more like this.
As the two have the right to live together, as already said. I do not see the problem. Those who see it are precisely those who find it difficult to make sense of things, and de facto deviate from discernment, alas.
Nor the proof of an existence ... (Never forget the anti-thesis, it can be useful for understanding ...)
The question here was raised by the absence of a certain humility which annoys, and raised even by Cuicui, who knew how to point a lucid look at this title.
The good thing about it is that we can find it (or not) in both camps ... And that it doesn't seem to suffocate those who wallow on it .
Janic, it is still curious that your great sagacity, do not also put you the chip in the ear of some of the points above! I dare to hope that the great rigor which you show and which you apply to the VG plan, will be found in a critical appreciation of the questions described. Sorry, you don't seem to have gone far enough for my liking you see, my point of view is paradoxical, at the same time I defend the side roads, but at the same time, I would not want to defend anything, as the approach is fragile.
The "Integrated circuits whose level of integration exceeds the imagination, not to mention digital or analog circuits programmable at will" that you take as an example, reflect the tangible success of official science: do you see the paradox with the rest of your speech?
(In addition, it is you who amalgamates between an official science VS a parallel or what do I know, it is not me, but I wanted to clarify it immediately, because you have misconceptions about about your interlocutors, possibly because it suits you to see it like that, but know that by being one of them, I am not ready to admit it, because it's false.)
Janic wrote:obamot helloWe are all concerned!You see Cuicui, no matter how small we write, everyone is formatted to understand in their own way, or - for the more "honest" - pretend not to understand when it suits them
What bothers me is this replacement of the religion of a god by the religion of science as if it were, in turn, the depositary of an absolute truth. It doesn't matter whether it is the work of expert scientists or do-it-yourselfers, the simple fact of denying a possibility (however small it may be) is closing the door to another possible one.
Hi Janic,
There is not the question (and I debate it willingly) but thank you for this remark, it allows to fix the framework of this situation. As an example:
- it must be taken into account that these detractors admit that their approach is not scientific but that at the same time they defend themselves in a certain way;
- those that you defend in your post eventually put fervor before rigor, it is a very curious way of approaching the problem and clearly shows the intrusion of cognitive-behavioral into the debate (and which has nothing to do, and this in different other ways) and that's not frankly like that that we can fight against the current theoretical model!
- the only way, in my humble opinion, is to have even more stringent requirements, in order to nail their beak! Or at least equivalent. It is this lack that we can possibly blame Franck Delplace, who makes a very curious mixture of genres, advancing a little quickly on a theory which is only a hypothesis taking roughly elements of the theoretical model current and by adding to it considerations of pseudo-psychology, wanting to undoubtedly make a mythological connection there or what do I know ... (Understand who will be able) But which does not really have place to be;
- there was never any question here - for my part - of denying (or anything in this regard) another possibility. What is problematic in a forum:
- it is the non-entry on the points of contestation in the debate;
- the exclusion of so-called protestors from the discussion, which suggests a sectarian operation;
- the repetition of messages and threads ad nauseam (which is the very nature of one of the practices of trollism);
- the possible but expressed denial of the laws of physics, without providing a contrary explanation;
- the possible denial (but expressed on the contrary since it is accepted) that the measures are not carried out according to the rules of the art;
- the possible denial (but expressed on the contrary since admitted) that the way in which the montages are made can induce erroneous or misleading results;
- the relative use of forum, not as a forum, but to take advantage of its promotional possibilities;
- personal attacks which are launched to avoid answering substantive questions and technical-scientific objections.
etc.
And there, it was the drop of water that caused the was (not was ..)
The proof that this is not the case is that it forum has a section on free energy. But this is more likely due to the fact that there is a large dose of amateurism among the speakers, that they ignore what they are told and that they prolong the debate here that they cannot have in other forums for identical reasons. Which had the consequence of hardening the tone.
Even here, someone who had decided for several years not to take sides, had to back off a bit, in spite of himself, because it was getting outrageous and you can't let anything go. Like questionable methods and techniques, not any rejection of anything that is not "the normal way"!
As I said before, there is possibly a blatant lack of discernment in this group (it shows through and is embarrassing no ...?), And it's not doing them a favor that not to intervene .
In addition for the reasons mentioned (and with the usual reservations) certain experimenters or commentators allow themselves to question the same ethical rules (whether directly or indirectly or by omission), and practiced by all honest researchers on the part the world including those who are not great followers of the generally recognized theoretical model (without putting anything else in its place, without debate or anything) by purely and simply rejecting official science as a whole! It is an insult to the researchers who are in the camps opposite and who are bound to a great rigor (as we do the Kousmine teams, for example: they have proved theses opposed to those in force, by producing results and reproducibility of their work, both in the laboratory and in the field ...). So indeed it is humiliating, since in the world that they reject there are also scientists who submit to the rules and who fight to have their own research recognized without having NEVER PUBLISHED ANYTHING BEFORE IT HAS BE AVERAGED (or never questioning the contrary) as with the recent Séralini affair with GMOs. Case that suffices in itself to prove the problems and gray area in the scientific world, without there being any need to hit the nail by instrumentalizing unlikely hypotheses to try to validate with a beautiful syllogism more , that any action not subject to self-criticism would then become justifiable in itself - intrinsically and automatically valid in view of the problems of the scientific world too quickly qualified as "official" - VS another who would be marginal but who would hold the truth! Absurd!!!
Not even that, that has no reason to be, there is no living in a ghetto just because the rest of the world would have wanted to put us there (lol) or that it would be comfortable to go there be, because like that, we could practice the rules we want ...!
Then, in the name of a form of paranoia that shows up, we come to personal attacks, rather than coming to the substantive debate is a very credible angle of attack. It's so practical .... But nothing scientific. Wake up, because I think sclerosis is more like this.
Janic wrote:Likewise, rationalism, which has its reason for existing, places itself too much in opposition to the irrational which is only another side of the same reality.
As the two have the right to live together, as already said. I do not see the problem. Those who see it are precisely those who find it difficult to make sense of things, and de facto deviate from discernment, alas.
Janic wrote:Not being able to explain, to prove, is precisely not proof of non-existence.
Nor the proof of an existence ... (Never forget the anti-thesis, it can be useful for understanding ...)
The question here was raised by the absence of a certain humility which annoys, and raised even by Cuicui, who knew how to point a lucid look at this title.
Janic wrote:Let us have a little humility because too much still escapes us (fortunately perhaps besides) because "science without conscience is the ruin of the soul"
The good thing about it is that we can find it (or not) in both camps ... And that it doesn't seem to suffocate those who wallow on it .
Janic, it is still curious that your great sagacity, do not also put you the chip in the ear of some of the points above! I dare to hope that the great rigor which you show and which you apply to the VG plan, will be found in a critical appreciation of the questions described. Sorry, you don't seem to have gone far enough for my liking
you see, my point of view is paradoxical, at the same time I defend the side roads, but at the same time, I would not want to defend anything, as the approach is fragile.
0 x
obamot
I did not follow the debate at the beginning and moreover I have no competence on the subject. So I'm more in the feeling. And what I perceive are taking sides (normal in itself) when generally these are not in the experimentataion but in the simple critic (justified or not for that matter). I have read reviews on Naudin for example, but he tries to reproduce with success or failure, no matter what theories or theory. Now it seems to ME that this is what is most important, putting his work back on his job and after many failures to persevere despite everything because this is how most of the discoveries that changed humanity were born.
The hyper-scientized form of our time is as likely to discover as it is to stifle what, as one signature says, "he didn't know it was impossible, that's why he did it"
In the field where I have some experiences or lived that of times I saw suffocate or fight what would have precisely made it possible to solve human problems and which resulted in suffering and death because "science" claimed the reverse or its impossibility.
so let's be careful!
I did not follow the debate at the beginning and moreover I have no competence on the subject. So I'm more in the feeling. And what I perceive are taking sides (normal in itself) when generally these are not in the experimentataion but in the simple critic (justified or not for that matter). I have read reviews on Naudin for example, but he tries to reproduce with success or failure, no matter what theories or theory. Now it seems to ME that this is what is most important, putting his work back on his job and after many failures to persevere despite everything because this is how most of the discoveries that changed humanity were born.
The hyper-scientized form of our time is as likely to discover as it is to stifle what, as one signature says, "he didn't know it was impossible, that's why he did it"
In the field where I have some experiences or lived that of times I saw suffocate or fight what would have precisely made it possible to solve human problems and which resulted in suffering and death because "science" claimed the reverse or its impossibility.
so let's be careful!
0 x
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
It is not false...
Nothing directly nor against the principle of what you describe nor Naudin or whoever it is. Besides, if Gégyx allows me to do so, I would like to publish here the PM that I had sent him to warn him and prevent Naudin ... That says it all! (and which he never answered, so he can play it well with his Dr Jekyl and Mister Hyde, and "play the victim's game" as long as he doesn't tell you everything ....)
So, seen from here there is no problem! just some who make the effort to understand and others not (or it is not in their capacities, it is regrettable but what can we do about it ...). And that compared to that you have to keep your feet on the ground.
Nothing directly nor against the principle of what you describe nor Naudin or whoever it is. Besides, if Gégyx allows me to do so, I would like to publish here the PM that I had sent him to warn him and prevent Naudin ... That says it all! (and which he never answered, so he can play it well with his Dr Jekyl and Mister Hyde, and "play the victim's game" as long as he doesn't tell you everything ....)
So, seen from here there is no problem!
just some who make the effort to understand and others not (or it is not in their capacities, it is regrettable but what can we do about it ...). And that compared to that you have to keep your feet on the ground.
0 x
-
moinsdewatt
- Econologue expert
- posts: 5111
- Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
- Location: Isére
- x 554
Cuicui wrote:I do not know. In any case, I never said the opposite.Obamot wrote:- perpetual movement never existed.
I admire those who wet their shirts to experiment.
I don't admire them at all.
I can no longer even have pity on their psychological problem to continue to "believe", when hundreds of previous years of tests show that it is in vain.
0 x
moinsdewatt
Well, I come to work and when I see comments like yours you run in the grand canyon at the speed of light!
You are part of "I haven't seen it so I don't believe it", I have done many things in my tech life that have surprised me and have surprised many of my customers and to hear you from the top of your pedestral well I think your closed mind would need a shrink much more than many people you criticize and especially >>>>>
A CRAZY DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT IS CRAZY!
So what you think you should keep it for you because apart from your copied / pasted have not much to get your teeth into !!!
If you think of going up in credit with your rather ridiculous sermonades well know that it is not at all the case and I begin to be jaded of the small idiots like you who allow to descend the pioneers who made this site what he is!
And if you do not understand well, I would take sides so that you have a forced leave and that way we will come back to 95% of content instead of the untimely bickering of recent times!
Is that clear?
Well, I come to work and when I see comments like yours you run in the grand canyon at the speed of light!
You are part of "I haven't seen it so I don't believe it", I have done many things in my tech life that have surprised me and have surprised many of my customers and to hear you from the top of your pedestral well I think your closed mind would need a shrink much more than many people you criticize and especially >>>>>
A CRAZY DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT IS CRAZY!
So what you think you should keep it for you because apart from your copied / pasted have not much to get your teeth into !!!
If you think of going up in credit with your rather ridiculous sermonades well know that it is not at all the case and I begin to be jaded of the small idiots like you who allow to descend the pioneers who made this site what he is!
And if you do not understand well, I would take sides so that you have a forced leave and that way we will come back to 95% of content instead of the untimely bickering of recent times!
Is that clear?
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
-
Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
If it were to happen, it would be a shame!
Fire someone who defends a scientific approach! It would be really very big, even for someone who does not sometimes show himself to be very diplomatic, when he does not make us laugh well with his sense of distributed.
You've already admitted that you were a "driving force" behind the ouster of Dedeleco, who also defended the scientific approach against all odds (I don't defend it, I see). If it were to happen again, I think it could do a fatal blow to the credibility of this forum! Lessdewatt has the right to say that he does not agree, especially since he has given technical arguments which seem unstoppable, since those opposite try hard not to answer! This is what is unacceptable: this contempt for criticism! This contempt which hampers all progress is called resistance to change. Difficult to do worse. I was entitled to the same regime by making suggestions which were far from being aggressive: same denial, same arrogance! And no personal attack, since I did this by MP. But no response!
Finally I wonder if you are not the sorcerer! Because you have already realized the enormities debited in these threads (thanks to your technical background) and you say nothing ... You first took it out on me at the time of Dede, and finally change your rifle. You're still a pretty ambiguous guy ... Almost as much as my apple when I try not to take a stand! But there I have trouble. I believe that responding with humor is not detrimental, since all the other solutions have failed to get a message across. There is therefore no reason.
If I didn't have you at the right one, I would say that it's you who must put in the fridge my big Mebon, putting a Canadian in the fridge is like putting a fish in water ^^
Fire someone who defends a scientific approach! It would be really very big, even for someone who does not sometimes show himself to be very diplomatic, when he does not make us laugh well with his sense of distributed.
You've already admitted that you were a "driving force" behind the ouster of Dedeleco, who also defended the scientific approach against all odds (I don't defend it, I see). If it were to happen again, I think it could do a fatal blow to the credibility of this forum! Lessdewatt has the right to say that he does not agree, especially since he has given technical arguments which seem unstoppable, since those opposite try hard not to answer! This is what is unacceptable: this contempt for criticism! This contempt which hampers all progress is called resistance to change. Difficult to do worse. I was entitled to the same regime by making suggestions which were far from being aggressive: same denial, same arrogance! And no personal attack, since I did this by MP. But no response!
Finally I wonder if you are not the sorcerer! Because you have already realized the enormities debited in these threads (thanks to your technical background) and you say nothing ... You first took it out on me at the time of Dede, and finally change your rifle. You're still a pretty ambiguous guy ... Almost as much as my apple when I try not to take a stand! But there I have trouble. I believe that responding with humor is not detrimental, since all the other solutions have failed to get a message across. There is therefore no reason.
If I didn't have you at the right one, I would say that it's you who must put in the fridge my big
Mebon, putting a Canadian in the fridge is like putting a fish in water ^^
0 x
Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 196 guests