What is the Force

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
The Force is and always be immeasurable,
impossible to truly understand.
We can feel it. Experience it. But we cannot grasp, control, mesure, or hope to do any of those things.

It's not like we'll ever figure out to.

The Force is more premordial...
It simply is.

Arent these attributes you assign to it just a description of the Human Condition? That definition of the Human Condition as being a blanket term used in the context of ambiguous subjects such as the meaning of life in birth, growth, death, emotionality, aspirations, conflict and moral concerns.

Perhaps the human condition naturally is to long for the Force. Many learn to ignore it. Or find answers elsewhere that explain it all away.

Or perhaps there are just a few that feel that pull their whole lives. Perhaps we, Jedi, are that few.

Who knows?

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
The Force is and always be immeasurable,
impossible to truly understand.
We can feel it. Experience it. But we cannot grasp, control, mesure, or hope to do any of those things.

It's not like we'll ever figure out to.

The Force is more premordial...
It simply is.

Arent these attributes you assign to it just a description of the Human Condition? That definition of the Human Condition as being a blanket term used in the context of ambiguous subjects such as the meaning of life in birth, growth, death, emotionality, aspirations, conflict and moral concerns.

Perhaps the human condition naturally is to long for the Force. Many learn to ignore it. Or find answers elsewhere that explain it all away.

Or perhaps there are just a few that feel that pull their whole lives. Perhaps we, Jedi, are that few.

Who knows?

Not sure what you mean by "naturally to long for the force"? Many learn to ignore what? Or find answers to explain what away?

At the risk of words being understood or misunderstood, taken apart, not being sharp enough to say what is meant, being rearranged, and getting lost in mappings of terminology and ontology:

Physics strives to understand matter, motion and the forces in space and time around us. So does the person who seeks to understand the Force.
It is therefore quite clear that the one who seeks to understand the Force will also find aspects of it that have already been, or have the potential to be described by physics.

However, physics eventually requires measurements. Experimental and repeatable tests. So it can find and communicate proof.
The concept of the Force goes beyond that. It is that thing that physics strives to understand, but has not completely done so yet. It also considers that there is something beyond what can be measured. And is therefore very hard to proof and communicate.

Einsteins equation shows that the shape of space time (space and time!) is linked to matter and its movement (the distribution of mass and energy). (see 34:45, 35:11 in the video). Because of this they might be able to explain much of the movement that what we can experience and measure, as determined by its location in space and time. And with that movement, much of the forces that surround us by their location in space and time. When you are cold, you go where it is warm, when you are sweating from the sun, you seek the shade. You talk to me, I reply. There are many such forces indeed.

But modern physicists will also tell us that a weakness of this theory is that it requires the energy and momentum to be defined precisely at every space time point. This is a weakness because Quantum theory (which has also passed every experimental test) has shown, that there is the uncertainty principle for quantum states. The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum (magnitude and direction of movement) can be known. This uncertainty is a proven physical fact. It means that there can be no total measurement. Because with any measurement at any time, there is something else that can not be measured at the same time. This may be because measurement requires a duality, the measurement, and something that is in relation to it. Here - there. Before - after. Cause - effect. Big - small. You - I. There is always interdependence in measurements.

But what happens beyond this interdependence? When there is no measurement and comparison, when there is no time? No movement? No space. Einsteins equation turns into the simple fact that 0 = 0.
When there is no comparison, no formulas, numbers or words have substance any more.

So no Force either at this point? It can not be measured. It can not be shown. Because beyond interdependence, nothing can be proven by measurement. But even without measurement, at each timeless moment, everything IS (still there).

It is possible to experience this in meditation. By direct, personal experience. The experiment, if you so want, is in you. In this part of you that observes, perceives, experiences. Perceives your perception of sense objects. That is why this one is hard to communicate. It can only be pointed to.

It is the insight that focusing our senses, our perceptions and measurements, can not give us the complete picture. That the total reality is more than what our senses attach to at any given point of time.

Many have communicated that they have had this experience. The Krishnamurti talk in the meditation lesson of the IP describes it nicely. Buddhism teaches it. Jesus ascended beyond the mortal (time-based) world and became one with the eternal: "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Colossians 1:17)"

This timeless reality, in which everything and anytime is embedded, is the cosmic Force. And maybe, one day, physics will be able to bring together einsteins theory and quantum theory, just so how Einsteins theory was able to fuse newtons and maxwells understanding . And more aspects of the cosmic force may become explicit and describable to science.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
The Force is and always be immeasurable,
impossible to truly understand.
We can feel it. Experience it. But we cannot grasp, control, mesure, or hope to do any of those things.

It's not like we'll ever figure out to.

The Force is more premordial...
It simply is.

Arent these attributes you assign to it just a description of the Human Condition? That definition of the Human Condition as being a blanket term used in the context of ambiguous subjects such as the meaning of life in birth, growth, death, emotionality, aspirations, conflict and moral concerns.

Perhaps the human condition naturally is to long for the Force. Many learn to ignore it. Or find answers elsewhere that explain it all away.

Or perhaps there are just a few that feel that pull their whole lives. Perhaps we, Jedi, are that few.

Who knows?

Not sure what you mean by "naturally to long for the force"? Many learn to ignore what? Or find answers to explain what away?

I meant "naturally longing for". Dang phone is my own personal sith.

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
The Force is and always be immeasurable,
impossible to truly understand.
We can feel it. Experience it. But we cannot grasp, control, mesure, or hope to do any of those things.

It's not like we'll ever figure out to.

The Force is more premordial...
It simply is.

Arent these attributes you assign to it just a description of the Human Condition? That definition of the Human Condition as being a blanket term used in the context of ambiguous subjects such as the meaning of life in birth, growth, death, emotionality, aspirations, conflict and moral concerns.

Perhaps the human condition naturally is to long for the Force. Many learn to ignore it. Or find answers elsewhere that explain it all away.

Or perhaps there are just a few that feel that pull their whole lives. Perhaps we, Jedi, are that few.

Who knows?

Longing for what exactly, though? If it is immeasurable, how exactly do you interact with it? How do you know you are longing for It? You could be longing for:

A sense of purpose
A sense of connection
An experience of being alive
Etc.

But all of those have names already attached to it? I guess it makes sense that whatever this greater mystery is, you could conclude it is probably ineffable, and thus you could choose to call it "the Force" as a label for all this unknown.

But that is different from saying "a Force" exists as a distinct "thing" in the Universe.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Physics strives to understand matter, motion and the forces in space and time around us. So does the person who seeks to understand the Force.

I would disagree. Before you can make this statement you first have to define what “the force” actually is. If it is just matter, motion and forces in space and time then we already have a name for its study, it’s called Physics. So why do you assign it a special name?

Ambert The Traveller wrote: It is therefore quite clear that the one who seeks to understand the Force will also find aspects of it that have already been, or have the potential to be described by physics.

How can this be clear when you have not defined what you mean by The Force? Having the potential to describe something requires a predictive capability. What is your hypothesis here then that could be tested? If it has already been discovered then by all means please describe your data here!

Ambert The Traveller wrote: However, physics eventually requires measurements. Experimental and repeatable tests. So it can find and communicate proof. The concept of the Force goes beyond that. It is that thing that physics strives to understand, but has not completely done so yet. It also considers that there is something beyond what can be measured. And is therefore very hard to proof and communicate.

Ahh yes, measurements, what I was asking for earlier. But in this statement you now say the force goes beyond testability. A strange statement indeed. If it is beyond testability, how can you tell it from something that does not exist at all? I don’t believe physics has ever claimed it considers anything beyond what can be measured. If a thing “exists” and affects our universe it must interact with our corporeal reality in some way. If it does not, if it is beyond measure as you say, meaning it does not interact with us or affect us, then why do we care about it?

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Einsteins equation shows that the shape of space time (space and time!) is linked to matter and its movement (the distribution of mass and energy). (see 34:45, 35:11 in the video). Because of this they might be able to explain much of the movement that what we can experience and measure, as determined by its location in space and time. And with that movement, much of the forces that surround us by their location in space and time. When you are cold, you go where it is warm, when you are sweating from the sun, you seek the shade. You talk to me, I reply. There are many such forces indeed.

You are conflating the concept of causality here. Causality in quantum physics is quite different than causality in philosophy or even classical physics for that matter. Under Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect cannot occur from a cause that is not in the past meaning causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time.

However philosophically speaking causality is what connects one process, the cause, with another process, the effect. A process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. In this context causality has nothing to do with laws of nature but an abstraction that indicates how our world progresses.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: But modern physicists will also tell us that a weakness of this theory is that it requires the energy and momentum to be defined precisely at every space time point.

A weakness in the theory? Can you show even one citation that backs this claim up that physicists will tell us this is a weakness?

Ambert The Traveller wrote: But what happens beyond this interdependence? When there is no measurement and comparison, when there is no time? No movement? No space. Einsteins equation turns into the simple fact that 0 = 0. When there is no comparison, no formulas, numbers or words have substance any more.

So no Force either at this point? It can not be measured. It can not be shown. Because beyond interdependence, nothing can be proven by measurement. But even without measurement, at each timeless moment, everything IS (still there).

How do you know this? Have you studied something that has no time, movement or space? Where would you even get such a thing to study? If you can’t study it how can you come to the conclusions you have? The fact is that we don’t know what it was like before the plank time of the Big bang so your assertion here that it must have been the way you describe is just a “god of the gaps” argument from ignorance.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: It is possible to experience this in meditation. By direct, personal experience. The experiment, if you so want, is in you. In this part of you that observes, perceives, experiences. Perceives your perception of sense objects. That is why this one is hard to communicate. It can only be pointed to.

It is the insight that focusing our senses, our perceptions and measurements, can not give us the complete picture. That the total reality is more than what our senses attach to at any given point of time.

I understand you to be speaking here of experience. Not a thing embedded in physical laws or a force field or an energy source but the action of accumulating history through the process of existing in time and being alive.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Many have communicated that they have had this experience. The Krishnamurti talk in the meditation lesson of the IP describes it nicely. Buddhism teaches it. Jesus ascended beyond the mortal (time-based) world and became one with the eternal: "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Colossians 1:17)"

Just because many have claimed it does not make it true. This is bandwagoning. Krishnamurti is a hack as far as I’m concerned and I don’t believe Jesus ever even existed let alone “ascended” (whatever that means). And using the bible to prove the bible is a circular argument and meaningless.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: This timeless reality, in which everything and anytime is embedded, is the cosmic Force. And maybe, one day, physics will be able to bring together einsteins theory and quantum theory, just so how Einsteins theory was able to fuse newtons and maxwells understanding . And more aspects of the cosmic force may become explicit and describable to science.

So if the force is just the act of experience as you describe above, then why do you feel the need to try and link it or intermingle it with something like physics, a concept you obviously barely understand and are at best just making wild assumptions about. Why can’t people just admit to themselves that the force is a completely subjective creation of the mind and that’s all it is? The experience is real, right? So why this need to try and embed that in corporeal reality by trying to make it a "thing"?

Ambert The Traveller wrote: This uncertainty is a proven physical fact. It means that there can be no total measurement. Because with any measurement at any time, there is something else that can not be measured at the same time. This may be because measurement requires a duality, the measurement, and something that is in relation to it. Here - there. Before - after. Cause - effect. Big - small. You - I. There is always interdependence in measurements.

The "duality" you speak of is called conjugate pairing. Far from being a mysterious curiosity, uncertainty is an inevitable mathematical consequence of quantum theory. It would quite literally contradict itself without uncertainty. Two observables are conjugates of each other if and only if a state of one can be transformed into a state of the other via a Fourier transform. Because of that, of course, there can only ever be as many as one quantity paired to another. Different times and places have no uncertainty between them, neither do you and I, or different sizes. Knowing where "here" is does in no way preclude you from knowing where "there" is, but because momentum is essentially (i.e. barring a constant) a time derivative of location, the order in which you measure them matters, and as you narrow down the variance of one, the variance of the other diverges. Causation is a philosophical problem, both in the sense that it is posed by philosophical considerations and in the sense that they are the only ones that can say anything allegedly sensible about it and stay fashinable. From a scientific perspective, I don't know what the terms cause and effect would even mean.
All in all, I think that we would do well not to try and pretend like our mystical or even supernatural beliefs have a basis in nature. It only works until someone comes along who may know what one is talking about, but it's not like one is sounding any less silly in the meantime...

And maybe, one day, physics will be able to bring together einsteins theory and quantum theory, just so how Einsteins theory was able to fuse newtons and maxwells understanding.

Maybe. Special relativity is already accounted for, but there is, admittedly, no quantum theory of gravity, and maybe some day there will be. Maybe QED/QFTs are the way to go, maybe it'll be something slightly new. And maybe by that point Jedi and followers of other religions will find peace despite the shortages in their own or in mankind's knowledge, and live out their spirituality (if they must) without attempting to abuse those gaps for the privilege...

Without wanting to get too 'meta' I think we are still comparing apples to oranges - so to speak. In a more analytical sense, pyschologists have identified different levels that people can operate at and conduct conversations on. This diagram summarises the different levels we can have this conversation on:



So far, we can see this thread has had posts that can be categorised as red, blue, orange, green, yellow and maybe some turquoise.

Within this framework it is very difficult for posts of different categories to understand / communicate effectively with each other - especially for those of earlier stages to understand those of later stages. Indeed - research suggests that if your worldview is at an earlier stage than yellow you are likely to reject this entire framework.

The question of 'What is the Force?' only even makes sense at certain levels (e.g. purple, red, blue,yellow, turqoise - not, orange or green). It's not surprising that those addressing the question with an orange or green hued answers are struggling to understand what those answers coming from other levels, are getting at. Those interpretations aren't wrong - all interpretations are incomplete - but we are still talking about 'different parts of the elephant' (to reference another conversation).

Loudzoo wrote: Without wanting to get too 'meta' I think we are still comparing apples to oranges - so to speak. In a more analytical sense, pyschologists have identified different levels that people can operate at and conduct conversations on. This diagram summarises the different levels we can have this conversation on:

[image]

So far, we can see this thread has had posts that can be categorised as red, blue, orange, green, yellow and maybe some turquoise.

Within this framework it is very difficult for posts of different categories to understand / communicate effectively with each other - especially for those of earlier stages to understand those of later stages. Indeed - research suggests that if your worldview is at an earlier stage than yellow you are likely to reject this entire framework.

...

Just before I can prove myself "insufficiently developed" to have this conversation, do you happen to have a link to the paper this... "diagram" is based on? The link in the lower right corner is alas not to any research, but to a web and print design service provider. I tried googling AQAL, and it seems that the whole thing routes back mostly to one man (and but a few followers) who did study but not acquire any academic credentials and was not a psychologist by trade since then. It seems, also, rather than being published in journals of psychology, instead to be mostly ignored or openly rejected by experts in the field and independent scholars alike. Since I am wholly unqualified to make any kind of balanced or well-informed assessment of this myself, what evidence can you point me toward that would have me suspect that mainstream academia may be treating this model unfairly?

The AQAL is Ken Wilber's version of Spiral Dynamics, which was developed by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan from the work of Clare Graves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Edward_Beck#Spiral_Dynamics). This is the book:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w7PwBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=spiral+dynamics+academic+paper&ots=ox_sWLh3pL&sig=KQBc8_sPK1KQyJh9CxntepFkgQg#v=onepage&q=spiral%20dynamics%20academic%20paper&f=false

Some academic papers:
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/10878570010335912
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0029655401456685
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/036215371104100308

That graphic has not appeared in an academic journal as far as I'm aware - but the subject itself is well covered in the literature.

As far as I am aware Beck, Cowan and Grave were / are professional, academic pyschologists. I'm not sure how to describe what Ken Wilber 'is' - an author?

Spiral Dynamics has been applied in Education, Politics, Management, Personal Development etc etc. It definitely has problems and valid criticisms have been fairly made. It is also horribly susceptible to mis-use and misinterpretation. I'd go so far as to say it's quite dangerous - but plenty of useful things, are.

In our case specifically, it might offer an explanation as to why we have been going round and round in circles for over 20 pages of posts. Its not about where on the scale anyone 'is' - its about where the conversation is happening. Everyone here is developed enough to experience The Force and to speak of it, but we are going to clump into groups of similar experience who have broadly the same interpretation. We can have a discussion purely on an 'Orange' level - but we will quickly conclude that The Force doesn't exist. We can have a discussion purely on a 'Red' level and that might be quite 'Sith-like'. On a yellow level - everyone will pretty much agree and be willing to integrate different individual experiences and emphasis into their own picture.

People move up and down the levels all the time depending on the subject, their emotional state, their situation - so its not about the person inherently, and it is certainly not about value. It's about where the conversation is being held.

Personally speaking I can understand the 'Orange' level quite well. Some days, I am totally on board with the green level. What sends me to the red level is people relentlessly dragging what might develop into a yellow conversation, back to an orange one!!

If Orange (or red, or blue, or purple) is your thing that's fine - but let’s all try and understand the perspectives of others too!

Gisteron wrote:

Ambert The Traveller wrote: There is always interdependence in measurements.

Two observables are conjugates of each other if and only if a state of one can be transformed into a state of the other via a Fourier transform. Because of that, of course, there can only ever be as many as one quantity paired to another. Different times and places have no uncertainty between them, neither do you and I, or different sizes. Knowing where "here" is does in no way preclude you from knowing where "there" is, but because momentum is essentially (i.e. barring a constant) a time derivative of location, the order in which you measure them matters, and as you narrow down the variance of one, the variance of the other diverges.

Thank you for this excellent description of interdependence as expressed in quantum theory. So, here we have observables and quantities. And we have an order of measurements. And we find, that when we narrow down the first measure, the
variance of the second one diverges. Which means that the more we know about the first one, the less we can say about the second one.

From there, the following lines of thought may arise:
1) As I am doing the first measurement, what can really know about the second? While I am defining a quantity or force or any other concept, what all is it that eludes capture due to the increasing variance of what my definition does not capture? 2) There is also the observer effect - the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon.

But the observer is still measuring, comparing at this point.

3) What is there when there is no measure at all? The ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics stated, that physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured (see Wikipedia or better for a reference). It even went as far as saying that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.

The act of measuring and conceptualizing the observed, giving them definite properties, causes a division between the observer and the observed. This takes away the sight that the observer and the observed in fact are one.

At this point we may be able to get a glimpse that underlying all the measurements and concepts, there is something else. A unity of everything. Depending on your context and available concepts you may want to name this unity the cosmic Force, God, the Dharma, the unknown (particle/wave state?), or the elephant. Halleluja.

In any case, any attempt of defining it will again introduce conceptualization and variance, and the challenge to agree on a common measurement.

Ambert The Traveller wrote: Thank you for this excellent description of interdependence as expressed in quantum theory.

I did no such description.

So, here we have observables and quantities. And we have an order of measurements. And we find, that when we narrow down the first measure, the variance of the second one diverges. Which means that the more we know about the first one, the less we can say about the second one.

No. Uncertainty exists only between conjugate pairs of observables, like frequency and time (though from a theoretical perspective that example is a poor one as there exists no time operator) or momentum and location. It is not general. It is also not exactly about knowledge. "Uncertainty" is frankly a quite sloppy translation of "Unschärfe", a word that means something more like un-sharpness, fuzziness. It's not that you are ignorant of when a note is playing because you happen to know it's pitch exactly, nor are you ignorant of its pitch if it is a single oscillation, a single clap. Rather, the mere ability of the note to have a definite frequency is itself equivalent to it carrying on forever rather than playing at any time, because only an infinitely playing note can be assigned one and only one pitch unambiguously.

From there, the following lines of thought may arise:
1) As I am doing the first measurement, what can really know about the second? While I am defining a quantity or force or any other concept, what all is it that eludes capture due to the increasing variance of what my definition does not capture?

If the state expressed as a superposition of your quantity's/observable's eigenstates is integrable, then the other basis you can Fourier transform it into will be the basis of the one quantity that will "elude capture". After all, by doing the measurement you are filtering out all but a few components. To stick with the music example, if you are filtering out the pitches of your piece of music, the narrower a frequency band you let pass through your filter, the less you will be able to identify when in the track the note you are narrowing in on was playing.

2) There is also the observer effect - the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon.

But the observer is still measuring, comparing at this point.

I'm beginning to feel this is way, way off topic...
Suppose you have a bucket of water you wish to know the temperature of. Suppose also that the water is not exchanging heat with either the bucket or the environment. Now you drop your thermometer in the bucket. In general, the thermometer will not at first have the same temperature as the bucket. the two will exchange heat, equilibrate to a common temperature that you can read off the thermometer's display. To the extent to which you can trust your thermometer, you can trust that the temperature of the water now matches the one displayed. However, it is no longer the same temperature the water had before the measurement. Since you had several pounds of water but maybe a drop or so of mercury, it will be so close that that tiny discrepancy will not matter for your purposes.
Now imagine you do the same, but to a mere glass of water. You can still trust the measurement to reflect the initial temperature, but you know that trust must come with caution.
Now you measure a single drop of water. There is no telling how much your thermometer has changed the water's temperature. That reading, though accurate in the end, is almost certainly entirely unrepresentative of the sample's initial temperature and you know it.
This is the observer effect. You cannot measure anything without interfering with it. In many cases that interference is much weaker than the signal you are trying to capture, but if there was none at all, you wouldn't be measuring anything. It is not important whether there is a mind absorbing information either. You can automate the measurement, store the data on a hard drive and let it be displayed on a screen at a later date. The magnetic domains of your computer's hard disk will not suddenly swap between the screen displaying the numbers for noone to see and finally your reviewing them. The observer effect already occurred during the measurement and has nothing to do with your knowledge.

3) What is there when there is no measure at all? The ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics stated, that physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured (see Wikipedia or better for a reference). It even went as far as saying that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.

At the end of the day, what matters is how well the model predicts observations. I don't have a serious objection to people trying to make things more complicated than they need to be just because their intuition gets in their way, but these interpretations of quantum mechanics are not themselves the theory. They can either get in the way or not get in the way, but genuine understanding of matters of science begins and ends with constructing the predictive model. Its subsequent interpretations hardly aid at all in that. They are fine to make if one so desires, one just should take care to not confuse them for the theory itself.

Gist, that is one of the coolest descriptions of the uncertainty principle I have ever seen! Nice job, I am stealing that!

I like this

"we can conceive of no radical separation between forming and being formed, and between substance and space and time…the universe is conceived as a continuum [in which] spatio-temporal events disclose themselves as "stresses" or "tensions" within the constitutive matrix…the cosmic matrix evolves in patterned flows…some flows hit upon configurations of intrinsic stability and thus survive, despite changes in their evolving environment…these we call systems."
~ Ervin Laszlo

Yea that's cute. But quoting others incoherant ramblings is really meaningless. What does that mean to you and when you describe it be prepared to defend it.

Yeah that's cute, but it's posted there to provoke thought about the topic.

Adder wrote: Yeah that's cute, but it's posted there to provoke thought about the topic.

Ahh avoidance of the subject matter because you dont really understand the content. Cute as well. How about you actually give us YOUR opinion.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: Yeah that's cute, but it's posted there to provoke thought about the topic.

Ahh avoidance of the subject matter because you dont really understand the content. Cute as well. How about you actually give us YOUR opinion.

You love the false equivalency don't you! How about your replies have relevance to the topic instead of these daft derails.

Adder wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: Yeah that's cute, but it's posted there to provoke thought about the topic.

Ahh avoidance of the subject matter because you dont really understand the content. Cute as well. How about you actually give us YOUR opinion.

You love the false equivalency don't you! How about your replies have relevance to the topic instead of these daft derails.

Oh man... so I'm derailing now. Ok. Whatever. Come on back when you want to provide a real opinion instead of cut and paste someone elses, mr robot. Beep beep...hows that for relevant?