Explanation on the R=U theory?

[Ryushikaze]

Ryukazaike, I don't know what your problem with me is maine, but you need to cut that sh*t out. All you're doin' now is b**ching at me cutting up what I say for a retort. Even when I'm just being aloof and off-topic, you attack me as if I was stating a 'postulate'.

Please. point out how I've 'attacked' you, aside from insisting that you stop special pleading for a horrendously aparsimonious postulate, the same as I would do to any other equally out there one.

Dude, it's been so fuggin' peaceful here for the past week. We didn't agree anything but we got along. Now here you go! Nickel, WTF is your problem with me?

You are attempting to support an extraordinary claim while attempting to beg out of having to provide evidence by calling this a 'discussion'.

You even opened up your post saying that this was regards to me.

Yes. Because I was responding directly to you.

Being a b**ch right now by trying to publicly embarass me, and I told you take it to the PM. I ain't gonna turn this into a 'flame-war' with you.

Then don't. I will not start the flame war. You, on the other hand, seem to have begun already.

"Dealt with your kind?" What are talking about dealing with my kind? You sound like a skinhead out to kill anyone that believes in R=U...

Your kind of debater. Seriously man, stop the persecution complex.

While you've been gone it's been peaceful and you're the perfect example of the why people don't talk about it or are afraid to talk about or why it hardely ever get DISCUSSED in a civilized manner. That's right DISCUSSED, not debated, discussed.

Even when discussed, it should still follow the proper rules of such- IE: burden of proof, avoiding all the logical fallacies, etc.

You're just looking for a fight dude, why? Petty, that's why! Otherwise, you'd have gone to th PMs like I said. You just want an audience why you cut people down.

No, I want it public so no one can hedge out, not to insult people. Please stop making appeals to my motive.

I've never attacked you.

You've called me a bitch on several occasions. You've appealed to my motives several times, and have actually refused to address my points as far as I recall.

All I've ever done is retaliate! Look back over the thread. Aight?! All you're doin' is bi-ching, trying to start a fight, and get this thread closed because you don't like the idea of people concieving the idea. We're having a good time Jack, at we least we were.

What I'm TRYING to do is to get YOU to start seeing that you need to provide evidence for your claims, and the more outrageous, the better evidence you need.

And don't ever tell me you're debating... All you're doing is insulting people. You're calling it 'postulate' or whatever out of pure biase

I'm calling it a postulate to be kind. It certainly does not have the heaps of empirical evidence which would be required to actually class it as a theory, like germ theory or evolutionary theory.

and that's why you only remark what you can counter post to not the other person's whole statement. So you get a STFU!.

You are making such a big deal out of me snipping the irrelevant portions of your post to save space when I've actually been in the habit of addressing ever in your posts.

Next time you wanna go at me instead of discussing the subject matter. Now, you take your @$$ on to the PMs like I told you to!

No. And I actually have been discussing the subject matter. Or trying to. You keep turning this personally.

P.S.:Don't be upset if I mis-spelled your name. Accidents happen.

There's a difference between a typo and a complete bollocks mangling of my SN. Especially since my SN is readily copiable from anywhere on this thread.

Now then, as for 'not aging', I don't see how Edea 'did not cosmetically age'. She looks exactly what a thirty year old woman would look like.

Yes, there IS pretty solid evidence against R=U. Sorceresses are not immortal.

And it seems like you completely misunderstand- You are the positive claimant. In a debate or any other exchange, it is the burden of the positive claimant- in this case, the R=U folks- to support their position with emperical evidence. It is not the burden of the negative case to provide evidence until such a time as the positive claim has provided theirs.