(September 16, 2013 at 9:27 am)Drich Wrote: Again stimmy as I told RM 'proof' is meaningless if the people examining it don't know what they are looking at.
But that's not your call to make. Here's how it works: you deliver whatever you consider to be proof, or at the very least evidence. We assess your proof and dissect it, then report our findings. If your proof and/or evidence doesn't survive that process, you need to find something stronger that might.
All we are asking for is something, anything, to support the claims you make. If someone came to me for a job as a typist, the first thing I'm going to ask them to do is type something. If they claim they can type twenty million words a minute, it's not for me to say they're lying; but if they can't or won't demonstrate that, they're out the door whether I'm risking losing the world's record typist or not.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
