Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Confronting False Accusations.

  1. #1 Confronting False Accusations. 
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    The purpose of this thread is to deal with an accusation directed at me for "outright lying" by a fellow member of this community.

    I can take the occasional snide remark, and I have even let them slide from time to time, but being accused of "lying" isn't going to be one of them. On the off chance that this accusation being true, and that I am indeed guilty as accused, I have not only reported my own post for the moderator team's attention and evaluation, I've also decided to confront my accuser and the accusation publicly and not back down from it, and ask that TheScienceForum community bear witness and judge whether or not I have indeed lied.

    By the time some of you read this thread, we will have passed the ten day mark since the accusation against me has been made. The absence of action taken against me by the moderator team and their silence since I've made the report leaves me with no other option than to bring this matter up publicly if I am to clear my name in a manner that I'm accustomed to. In prelude to the creation of this thread, I've PM'ed a select few of people from both the administrator and moderator team - informing them on my course of action, and I have received permission from one of them to do so; since this is usually frowned upon on some forums I've frequent and managed before.

    The following thread is where the accusation against me is made, with post #211 (in my perspective) being where it began, and the end of our exchange in post #223 where I've reported my own post for moderator's evaluation. Feel free to browse through earlier posts before that for additional background.

    Muslims the new Holocaust?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    As I may have mentioned earlier, I will not back down from what I perceived to be a false accusation levelled against me, more so on the accusation of "outright lying". On this, I ask that TheScienceForum community including the administrators and moderators to evaluate my posts and speak up here. Am I guilty as accused?

    To my accuser if he is reading this, you will this chance to reevaluate the accusation you have levelled against me and do so in public. If you stand by what you have said ten days ago, I ask that you point out what the "lie" is, in which post number I have lied.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    The purpose of this thread is to deal with an accusation directed at me for "outright lying" by a fellow member of this community.

    I can take the occasional snide remark, and I have even let them slide from time to time, but being accused of "lying" isn't going to be one of them. On the off chance that this accusation being true, and that I am indeed guilty as accused, I have not only reported my own post for the moderator team's attention and evaluation, I've also decided to confront my accuser and the accusation publicly and not back down from it, and ask that TheScienceForum community bear witness and judge whether or not I have indeed lied.

    By the time some of you read this thread, we will have passed the ten day mark since the accusation against me has been made. The absence of action taken against me by the moderator team and their silence since I've made the report leaves me with no other option than to bring this matter up publicly if I am to clear my name in a manner that I'm accustomed to. In prelude to the creation of this thread, I've PM'ed a select few of people from both the administrator and moderator team - informing them on my course of action, and I have received permission from one of them to do so; since this is usually frowned upon on some forums I've frequent and managed before.

    The following thread is where the accusation against me is made, with post #211 (in my perspective) being where it began, and the end of our exchange in post #223 where I've reported my own post for moderator's evaluation. Feel free to browse through earlier posts before that for additional background.

    Muslims the new Holocaust?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    As I may have mentioned earlier, I will not back down from what I perceived to be a false accusation levelled against me, more so on the accusation of "outright lying". On this, I ask that TheScienceForum community including the administrators and moderators to evaluate my posts and speak up here. Am I guilty as accused?

    To my accuser if he is reading this, you will this chance to reevaluate the accusation you have levelled against me and do so in public. If you stand by what you have said ten days ago, I ask that you point out what the "lie" is, in which post number I have lied.
    In post 217 you resorted to ad-hominem instead of a logical argument. When I confronted you about in post 219, you responded with another ad-hominem AND an outright lie (in denying that you have resorted to an ad-himnem instead of using a logical argument) in post 221.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    I don't think diagnosing a clear issue (that xyzt can be very abrasive) is an ad hominem if it follows what are clearly examples of te aforementioned behavior. Nor do as hominems typically contain edifying reflections (scooby acknowledged xyzt's aptitude in physics). Even if scooby HAD committed an ad hominem, the ambiguity of what qualifies as a personal attack would make any attempt at accusing him of lying to be inane and otiose.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It looked like what was said in post 217 was indeed a personal attack. A well mannered one, to be sure, but still a negative comment directed at another poster personally, instead of at their idea.

    I think we allow a lot of this on the forum, so long as it's well mannered. Certainly it is allowed to refer to posters as cranks in the hard sciences if they demonstrate ignorance of the topic. (It sometimes happens too much, but it helps to warn lurkers so they don't read the posts thinking they are genuine information sources.)

    It's possible that you two disagree about what counts as "ad hominem", in which case denying that you've committed an ad hominem might not be the result of dishonesty, but just the expression of a genuine belief. Best you two just kiss and make up. Or failing that, maybe hug and make up. Or.... maybe just a handshake and a promise to be more friendly in the future?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    In post 217 you resorted to ad-hominem instead of a logical argument. When I confronted you about in post 219, you responded with another ad-hominem AND an outright lie (in denying that you have resorted to an ad-himnem instead of using a logical argument) in post 221.
    Good.

    Now that you have named the exact post number and the nature of the "lie" you have accused me of; members of TheScienceForum community and the Admin/Mod team can see for themselves whether you have correctly identified if and whether an ad-hominem is present, whether a "lie" is present, and also whether I have written anything or suggested anything resembling a "denial".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It looked like what was said in post 217 was indeed a personal attack. A well mannered one, to be sure, but still a negative comment directed at another poster personally, instead of at their idea.
    I ask that you read post #215, #216, and lastly #217. What was I replying to in post #217?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I have a question for xyzt

    Would suggesting that someone is excessively proud constitute an ad hominem fallacy?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Simply criticising someone (or someone's posts) is not an ad hominem.
    And criticism is all I see in scoobydoo1's post #217.

    xyzt has a long history of stellar posts in the hard science forums.
    But in the "new Holocaust" thread, his posts drew a "Think you've shown more than enough obvertly bigoted and ill informed comments to earn a week off." suspension.
    There is obviously a difference in xyzt's ability to discuss the two very different subject areas.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Simply criticising someone (or someone's posts) is not an ad hominem.
    And criticism is all I see in scoobydoo1's post #217.

    xyzt has a long history of stellar posts in the hard science forums.
    But in the "new Holocaust" thread, his posts drew a "Think you've shown more than enough obvertly bigoted and ill informed comments to earn a week off." suspension.
    There is obviously a difference in xyzt's ability to discuss the two very different subject areas.
    This was because I exposed Lynx_Fox biases towards muslims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    I like to address this portion of your post which I did not earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's possible that you two disagree about what counts as "ad hominem", in which case denying that you've committed an ad hominem might not be the result of dishonesty, but just the expression of a genuine belief.
    My accuser has stated the below quoted post #221 contains "an outright lie (in denying that...". I like for you or anyone here to point out which of the two color sentences that I've written in there that resembles a lie and/or a denial. Is it the Red or Blue?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    So, when you run out of logical arguments you resort to personal attacks.
    That last post wasn't a logical argument because you have not made one that requires an attempt on my part in the post I've replied to. It is however heartfelt impression I have had of you which includes an observation of your ability to apply logic on Physics related subjects, but not so much on others subject matter.

    As to whether I have made any personal attacks on you or anyone else here in this thread, feel free to report the guilty post for moderator attention, or ask your fellows whether or not you have misidentified it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I like to address this portion of your post which I did not earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's possible that you two disagree about what counts as "ad hominem", in which case denying that you've committed an ad hominem might not be the result of dishonesty, but just the expression of a genuine belief.
    My accuser has stated the below quoted post #221 contains "an outright lie (in denying that...". I like for you or anyone here to point out which of the two color sentences that I've written in there that resembles a lie and/or a denial. Is it the Red or Blue?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    So, when you run out of logical arguments you resort to personal attacks.
    That last post wasn't a logical argument because you have not made one that requires an attempt on my part in the post I've replied to. It is however heartfelt impression I have had of you which includes an observation of your ability to apply logic on Physics related subjects, but not so much on others subject matter.

    As to whether I have made any personal attacks on you or anyone else here in this thread, feel free to report the guilty post for moderator attention, or ask your fellows whether or not you have misidentified it.
    The red sentence is your lie.
    The blue sentence is your ad-hom, having failed to give a logical answer to my arguments.
    Do you have so much difficulty in understanding what you are doing or do you really enjoy digging yourself deeper and deeper?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    The red sentence is your lie.
    "That last post wasn't a logical argument because..." refers to my post #217, which was made in reply to your post #216 wherein you wrote only the following (before you've edited it to include one additional last sentence - check the time stamp from both our post).

    "Wait until Jemaah Islamiyah starts paying you visits. Then you will not be so smug anymore."

    Which is neither qualifies as a logical argument nor an argument of any sort, hence the subsequent portion of the red sentence being "... you have not made one that requires an attempt on my part in the post I've replied to." Are you curious as to just how many within TheScienceForum Community and/or the Admin/Mod team would think differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    The blue sentence is your ad-hom, having failed to give a logical answer to my arguments.
    Is your original post #216 - an argument, much less a logical argument that as I've pointed out above "requires an attempt on my part?"?

    Do you recall what your post #216 was replying to? Follow the breadcrumb trail backwards, and we can all see where the "break" occurred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Keep digging yourself. Have fun!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Keep digging yourself. Have fun!
    You do realize that this form of taunting attempts do not work on grownups right?

    Everyone here can see that I have made an effort to clear my name, and all because of what? An assertion that is the accusation you have levelled at me. Your shortcomings at applying logic on matters outside of Physics related subjects is no excuse for the sort of behaviour you have exhibited here. As I have advised you before elsewhere, if you do not trust your own judgement because you aren't able overcome your personal limitations, ask someone from within the Community or even IRL that you can trust and has a good grasp on logic to examine whether or not you have erred.

    Have you wondered why so few have spoken up here? Our Community has members who have made it their "responsibility" to crack down on BS and the occasional indefensible claims, and yet, we have yet to see their presence here in this thread - a thread created in the Site Feedback section dedicated to "Confronting False Accusations" made by you against me. Why is that? Give it some thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    You cleared your name, and now you know his style.
    His Post #13 here is the same as his Post #216 in the other thread.
    This is a relatively minor matter as things go around here.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Politics itself has no axioms! -Me-

    Hence the ability of the science minded to internally compartmentalize logic away from political opinion. The NAZI's did have some damn good scientists.

    Lately I try to avoid the politics sub-fora in general.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It is very clear that scoobydoo believes that his remarks did not constitute an ad hominem. This may or may not be true. That, however, is irrelevant. xyzt has accused scoobydoo of an outright lie. Making false statements one genuinely believes to be true is not lying. I fully accept that scoobydoo believes that his statement was not an ad hominem and therefore it is incorrect to accuse him of lying.

    I make no comment on whether or not the remark was, in fact, an ad hominem.

    In an ideal world xyzt would acknowledge the accuracy of my comments, scoobydoo would regret having become intense over a storm in a tea-cup and everyone could get back to laughing at Young Earth Creationists. I fear a different future is in store for all of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    *stuff*
    Howdy stranger!
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,268
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    *stuff*
    Howdy stranger!
    Like and agree!!
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    ^I've been away for a while (computer broke), but it appears that John's been away for a while also.
    So, Howdy!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Since my account has not been suspended as I've requested, I'll take this opportunity to make one final contribution to the forum I've received so much from, and also to make a couple of points clear. I apologise for the poor format this is written in, but I do not think I want to invest anymore time and effort into clearing my name.


    ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆ ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆


    Argumentum Ad Hominem is commonly referred to as an ad hominem attack - also known as an attack against the person. Contrary to popular misconception, it isn't always and necessarily fallacious. It only qualifies as "fallacious" when utilized to undermine a premise and an argument that is presented by way of disputing it based on the characteristics of the person who presents it/them.

    Emphasis on "argument" presented.

    As Shlunka and RedPanda has correctly identified, "diagnosing a clear issue with..." and "criticism" alone does not fulfill criteria being of an fallacious ad hominem attack, especially when it isn't used to undermine or dispute an argument. And in the case of this incident, what my accuser has mistook for an ad hominem attack at the time my post was made - was an expression of his shortcomings in matters that aren't physics related when it comes to the application of logic and conforming to a logical form to satisfy the criteria of presenting a logical argument. For additional references, refer to the following links.

    1. What is an ad hominem? What isn’t?
    2. What is an Ad Hominem Fallacy? | Strange Notions
    3. Argumentum ad hominem - RationalWiki
    4. Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆ ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆


    My accuser's post #216 "Wait until Jemaah Islamiyah starts paying you a visit. Then you will not be so smug anymore" neither qualifies as a logical argument nor an argument of any sort, especially when read in sequential order from the top down.

    In post #211, he stated that "It is easy to be PC when you live in a place that is not a terrorist target", of which I've replied in post #215 to both correct and inform him that he was mistaken - in that the country where I reside "has been selected as a target", and I have even provided references to the Mas Selamat incident; with no regards to how that information may be perceived as embarrassing or humiliating, to the extent that I myself have even characterized it as "the single biggest blunder in Singapore Law enforcement history; so much so that they and the governing body became a laughingstock to this day". I have not and will not withhold information that is publicly available, even if my accuser may not have been made aware of it. That is how an honest conversation with another party should be conducted. If I have had some vested interest in "scoring points" I would not have provided it; that is how I normally operate.

    Now comes contentious posts of #216 as previously mentioned, and #217 where my accuser has stated that an ad hominem was present.

    My accuser initially responded in Post #216 with just these two sentences "Wait until Jemaah Islamiyah starts paying you visits. Then you will not be so smug anymore". My first reaction was bewilderment followed by a slight shaking of my head. It still does even now - reading it again and again. What could possibly be going through his mind when he wrote it?

    No matter how many scenarios I ran through his reply through my mind, the conclusion was always the same. That it was a non-argument, a null-statement, or perhaps one of his vicious barb. If we replace the terrorist organization "Jemaah Islamiyah" from that sentence with another form of harm-doers; such as a rapist or murderer perhaps, how does one make sense of that? And being "smug"? How does one reply to something like that?

    And that leads us to my post #217 wherein my accuser stated that an ad hominem was present.

    You know something? I have had a good impression and a certain level of respect for you due to your knowledge on the subject of Physics, and while you may come across as abrasive at times when speaking on that subject, my impression and respect for you had never changed.
    Here, I've expressed my respect for his knowledge on the subject of Physics; even though he can be rather abrasive at times.

    I just thought you should know that it has been somewhat of a uphill struggle to stay that way and remind myself to look past the attitude you have exhibited here and focus on the content of a post and not on the poster.
    Here, I expressed having conflicted feelings in holding on to an earlier impression of him.

    Your applied logic in matters related to Physics is fantastic, but that haven't been of the same rigor and standard in matters of other subject.
    Here, I ackowledge his positive attribute, but also expressed dismay and disappointment that the attribute did not manifest in non-Physics related subject/topic; specifically in the politics thread where all this took place.

    The content in your last couple of posts here in this thread hasn't been much to go on to for that impression to not change.
    Here, I gave reasons why that is.


    ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆ ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆


    And that brings us to his subsequent response in Post #219; where he mistook my heartfelt impression of him for an ad hominem. Expecting a "logical argument" on my part when none was called for or even required. Even if by some miracle, my reply can be argued to qualify as a personal insult, it will not and does not qualify as an ad hominem attack because the post which I've replied to was not an argument by any stretch of the imagination (to me at least), and if there is no invalidation of an argument replied to because of the lack of an "argument" to begin with, it simply isn't an argumentum ad hominem. And you folks know the rest,

    1. the accusation of committing an ad hominem,
    2. the accusation of "outright lying",
    3. and the accusation of denying that I've made the two.

    Without bringing about the many philosophical attempts at defining what constitutes as "lying", we'll go with the conventional definition of having an intent and acting to deceive - with the purpose of conveying a believed false statement to another person with the intention that the other party accepts as true. Too complicated? Try digesting this. The Definition of Lying and Deception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    There is more that can be said, elaborated, and argued if need be. But to be frank, I just give a damn anymore. All this I've done to clear my name for the entertainment of One. And all it took was an assertion by him that - I have lied. Oh what fun indeed.


    ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆ ◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆


    This is where we part ways, for this forum has left a bad taste in my mouth. For those who have spoken up, I thank you. For those who have kept silent, no I harbour hard feelings. Goodbye.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your name has been cleared. It is the official view of this forum that you did not lie. If the Ayn Rand character formerly known as a bunch of letters still thinks you were lying that is his problem. I hope you will reflect on this and, after a break, return to make further contributions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your name has been cleared. It is the official view of this forum that you did not lie. If the Ayn Rand character formerly known as a bunch of letters still thinks you were lying that is his problem. I hope you will reflect on this and, after a break, return to make further contributions.
    Hear! Hear!
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Scooby doobie doo, where are you? There's a mystery to solve now.

    It is good to step away from the computer once in a while. Just do come back please!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. False vacuum
    By Enjgine in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 13th, 2012, 02:27 AM
  2. is it true or is it false
    By bgjyd834 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 30th, 2011, 11:02 AM
  3. True or False?
    By Shubee in forum Physics
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 20th, 2010, 02:14 PM
  4. Am I alone in a false Universe.
    By samcod75 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 10:58 AM
  5. Am I alone in a false Universe
    By samcod75 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21st, 2008, 03:05 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •