Repost by Apxr 
rabbitears
17 y
1,864
R
Mercury Detox
Dental work and fillings, not a problem.
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
Hello Everyone!
There have been some very interesting posts that I feel everyone should get
a chance to look at. For that purpose, right now I'm re-posting one of them
here. Please keep in mind that this has nothing to do with a personal attack towards anyone. The issues in question go far beyond personal matters, I think, and they pertain to all of us, not just to one single person.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1013512#i
Hello again, Shroom.
As it can be read on the relevant post, my apologies to you on a personal level -and if and where they apply- have been submitted adequately, I think. According to your own expression you seem to be satisfied with the post. Also, a few days have passed since those posts in question were submitted, so maybe now it's a good time to continue analyzing them objectively a bit further, so that truthful information can be derived from them, from all of them.
First of all, I propose to resume actions where they'd been 'paused'.
Let's do so by examining this one post of yours, the one I had not examined at the time when this 'pause' occurred: [Please remember that this is not an examination on a personal level. This has nothing to do with sensibilities, I hope you [finally] understand]
So, we begin:
Re:
"
Apxer. I must say I am a little disappointed at the character assassination coming from you.
"
'Character assassination'. I think that's a "device" used in politics and by 'scoundrels' in the communications business, often at the service of politicians. I want nothing to do with politics, and this is not about politics or related filth either; far from it, it's about Truth, at least from my point of view it is.
"
I am sorry I don't have a PHD
"
Why feel sorry about it?
"
but do have a right to post my opinions about personal observations.
"
If you read my post(s) carefully, I believe I say the same thing, so it seems like we agree on this [Please note the words "personal observations" that you use correctly in this context]. Therefore, wherever "personal observations" pertain, none of my posts have anything do to with you or with anyone, I repeat.
However -I also repeat again-, anywhere where those very "personal observations" are displayed by anyone including yourself as if they were facts coming from an authority in the field -when in fact they're just "personal observations" made by an amateur, as in your case it seems evident that you are-, my posts are relevant and I stand by each word written until proven at fault, of course. In such case, I'd be ready as I am now to apologize properly and to correct my actions where necessary.
"
Am I 100% right all of the time? No. Is anybody?
"
This argument -I think- doesn't excuse you for misleading anyone, Shroom. If you feel that it does, please let's discuss it openly for everyone else to consider.
[By the way and for everyone's information, that argument above sounds like a weak form of an argument of logic known as 'Reductio ad Absurdum', an 'Informal Fallacy' of sorts. In it, you seek to prove me wrong by twisting the reasoning so that mine appears to be ridiculous or absurd because that truthful statement you're providing above is not. "Therefore" the logic goes "if the statement above is True, then Shroom is right and I can't be because he is". Doesn't work, Shroom, never has for about a thousand years, perhaps a bit more]
"
In the case of my review of the micrographs, I may have over-stepped some boundaries.
"
You "may have"? I don't think so. It seems that in fact you did, according to the owner of the Micrographs' own words. In my opinion, Shroom, and also in the opinions of others, you did "over-step [not just] some boundaries", and you should acknowledge it affirmatively.
"
I made my apologies, and expected to move on.
"
I believe that's not accurate. I may be mistaken, but I believe that I haven't seen any appropriate and/or polite apologies anywhere from you to those involved.
"
You made references to my ideas as sounding adolescent, yet you sounded off like a school child tossing insults and sanctimonious accusations not unlike a bully.
"
I think that could be questionable, Shroom. Your ideas, some of them, DO sound adolescent ["as from a teenager's mind", much like I put it], because they ARE immature ['Adolescent' also means 'immature'].
This display of immaturity of ideas that you show is evident on many of your posts, or so it seems. If in fact that's the way it is, then "my references to your ideas" are in fact correct, or they appear to be. You may try hard, Shroom, but hard is not enough in these matters of Life and Death. Many of those ideas of yours are immature or they appear to be so. That is a Fact.
In the same sentence above, you continue to say that I sound like "a school child tossing insults and [?] accusations not unlike a bully". Let's examine that latter part of the sentence one expression at a time, please:
You said: "you sounded off like a school child".
I think, Shroom, that any adult that reads these forums should be aware from my posts that my writing should be far from "a school child's", and I mean FAR. If this is the case, then that part of your statement is wrong. This means it's false.
[In contrast, my thoughts are or seem to be very much like a child's. Either they are or I like to think this way, maybe both. Ask yourself sometime why I said this; you may understand something]
"tossing insults"
If I have 'tossed' insults, I'd like to know where this happened and towards whom they have been 'tossed'. According to all my posts, which are right there for anyone to read, it's possible that I haven't insulted anyone, Shroom. If this single expression of yours is then false, I believe you'd owe me an apology for it, one that I don't need or want either [However, the fact that "I don't need it or want it" wouldn't negate the fact in that case that you'd still owe it to me anyway].
If we understand the meaning of "insult", which also means "disrespect", "rudeness", "contempt", "insolence", "impertinence" and "arrogance", according to my understanding of the word -which I'm sure should agree with dictionaries online or different-, it's possible that in fact it is you who has insulted others with some of your remarks. There seems to be strong evidence of it in this very forum.
In any case, Shroom, according to what's just been said, if I have not 'tossed' insults towards you or towards anyone else, then this part of your statement is also false. If, on the contrary, you have 'tossed' insults around, then you owe all those involved very articulate apologies for what you've done, to say the least.
So anyway, in order to save us all some valuable reading time, I'll remind you that only one single part of a 'conjunctive' statement needs to be false to invalidate the entire statement. There are two false expressions in your "insults" statement above. This means, in consequence, that your statement above is FALSE. What this means is that you're wrong in that thing you said about me, Shroom.
"
It seems like you prefer censorship over creative curiosity as prerequisite for attempting an opinion.
"
You may be wrong here too, Shroom. For the sake of readers I won't examine this sentence entirely, but it is a known fact that I do NOT prefer censorship. What you call 'creative curiosity' could be a reference that you make to something very different instead.
"
I would not have wasted time making a counter to all this crap, if you had been a little more objective, and refrained from personal insults PUBLICALY.
I have not done that to you or anyone else, out of respect.
"
The paragraph above merits no comment of mine. It's been copied only to provide the reader with a sequence. Where you say that "you have not done that to me or to anyone else", I say that either you have no idea what you've been writing at times, or you need to understand better the difference between True and False, because it seems like you have "done that" to me and to others, Shroom.
"
You seem to have much criticism for my work--
"
I'm very critical of every piece of supposed "knowledge" proposed as Truth, starting by my very own. I am -and hope to remain- my harshest critic.
"
but you cannot prove me wrong, because you offer no scientific opposition directly related to my findings.
"
Shroom, I CHOOSE not to prove you wrong, because what you're doing doesn't seem to be worth my time. I'm too busy with many other things that need my attention, to undertake it as my duty to examine critically every argument you post, however 'over-the-top' or fallible it may appear to be. There are better things to do.
[You should know that I've been asked by several readers both regular and not regular to the 'md forum' to "expose you" [in their words] on several occasions, and every time I've refused to do so kindly. I found myself forced to post something this time because I felt it my immediate responsibility to do so]
"
I will not oppose any challenge to my findings.
"
You can NOT oppose it, Shroom. Anyone here is free to challenge any argument. Rabbitears, others and I have challenged those 'findings' of yours [I think] politely and repeatedly on several occasions since 'day one'.
"
I will provide concrete evidence,
"
You have failed to provide this 'concrete' evidence you speak of. You continue to speak of it in future terms since 'day one'. Please keep in mind that "concrete" evidence is evidence as solid as the statement "The Sun rose yesterday".
"
and all records and samples to anyone willing to take on the task.
"
If you are to find "anyone willing to take on the task", Shroom, it's my understanding that your propositions should at the very least APPEAR to hold a minimum of merit(s) making them worthy of further consideration right from the start. If those arguments of yours make simple people like us question their validity, when it's a fact that none of us are experts in the field -just as we continue to say so over and over again-, how could you expect to find a true expert willing to even listen to your claims?
"Not gonna happen!" may be a likely answer to that question, I think.
"
You may make some points about my grammar, spelling, education etc.,--fine.
"
I didn't mean to humiliate you in any way when I mentioned your grammar and/or education, Shroom -something I did just this once to the best of my recollection, by the way-. Far from it. I saw myself forced to mention those things because they seem evident from your posts and they do lend support to our opinion that you should not carry on as you have anymore. Furthermore and as it's already known, for the unintentional emotional consequence of this I have apologized and I do apologize repeatedly, and I also ask of you once more to understand that this has nothing to do with any attack towards you on a personal level, which means it's not meant to hurt you emotionally or personally.
[By the way, those 'problems' that you seem to display with 'your grammar' and 'your spelling' can be corrected "easily", in my opinion. Much of all it takes is hard work, discipline, a good attitude, determination, and perhaps a bit of direction, I think]
"
But if you suggest that I simply discontinue with expressing my views, however unscientific they may sound to you, then why is there a point to public forums where one has the "legal" right to do so.
"
I finally chose to point out your apparently weak use of grammar to bring this forward: Grammar and the way we use it implies detail. A minimum 'level of detail' is necessary to reach a 'state of abstraction' where the mind is able to think threaded thoughts. Science demands such abstraction. Therefore, any problem with Grammar is quite possibly a problem with the understanding and the pursuit of Science, because of such demands.
For this reason, my experience as a teacher suggests to me that anyone wishing to understand Science better should try to polish his or her Grammar first. If he or she find themselves unable to polish their Grammar beyond a 'certain point of excellence' after trying hard to do so with discipline and possibly a proper direction, I submit that causes 'beyond the usual' should be considered [AND corrected] first, before any attempt is made to continue further. Such causes sought out should also include, in my opinion, possible Physiopathological ones -perhaps among others of a different nature as well.
[A possible exception to this entire proposition could be found in the same case applied to a "foreign language". Nevertheless and in any event -I think-, the 'sense of logic' should remain intact and sharp]
Where you say "..But if you suggest that I simply discontinue with expressing my views..", you may have a problem with details, Shroom, at the very level of Grammar itself, both writing it AND reading it. That's something you should consider seriously, in my opinion.
Regarding that same conditional comment of yours, I think I've never suggested to you or to anyone that you should stop expressing yourself. I don't think I ever would either, because I believe that many things can be learned from many sources, even from unlikely ones. In fact, as I've said so before -I think-, that's [partially] my reason for reading and posting in these forums. The thing in question is very different, and if you still can't see it except in this 'twisted' fashion, you may be in trouble, Shroom [with a cause lying possibly within your organism]. Please consider.
"
Maybe you should advocate for "big pharma"
"
Maybe I should not.
"
who would be more than happy to see people like me under strict censorship! SHROOM
"
[This may be another example of a "Reductio ad Absurdum"-like argument.]
Shroom, "big pharma", as you put it [if you're referring to Pharmaceutical companies], might be more than happy to have "people like you" stating around [what I consider to be] nonsense, opinions and beliefs as if they were facts, in my opinion.
As I see it, it would only give them more ground to continue to push for laws against the "natural herbs and dietary supplements" industry -just like they're doing-. Also it could serve 'as leverage' for them to force themselves -by the use of those laws- against anyone that tries to do what they should be doing in the first place [and of course don't seem to be doing at all].
Finally and among several other examples I can think of, to have "people like you" stating fallacies around as if those were Facts, could also encourage them to continue to do the bad things they appear to be doing against all of us over and over again, as a result of the simple fallacy "We're right [the Pharm Industry] because obviously they're wrong [the rest of us]".
More
- Re: Repost by Apxr rabbitears
17 y
1,616
This is a reply to # 1,013,867
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1013241#i
Hello, Shroom.
Re:
"
I'm sorry too. I know you did not mean how the post sounded, your a scientist.
"
Well, I'm just a student of the Sciences, I like to think.
"
Thanks for being understanding of my emotional response,
"
You're welcome.
"
but let's try to keep things above the belt--agreed?
"
That sounds as if you were in some kind of boxing match. I'm not.
As I said before, this has nothing to do with 'lashing' against anyone.
To me, it doesn't make sense to need to agree on something which is simply not taking place.
Please keep in mind that I have offered conditional apologies to you not because I think I'm wrong and you're right or viceversa, or out of weakness, because that is not the situation. Many people could make the mistake of assuming this.
Those conditional apologies apply where your feelings pertain, but not where your actions lie. What this means is that I hope you do realize that I still stand by everything I've posted, because no part of it is personal, as it's said in the posts themselves several times, I think. All of it has to do, on the contrary, with the careless way you're trying to approach science and trying to appear "scientific", when it's obvious that you are not.
I also hope you realize that by being offended by my posts, it seems evident that you are in fact one of those 'sensitive individuals' you mentioned before. If you are one of them, then the same excuse you used for others could apply back to you.
I could have used that weak excuse of yours very easily against you right here, yet I chose not to because I do consider it to be weak and faulty, and also inappropriate.
I still sympathize with your enthusiasm, Shroom, but your irresponsible approach to remarks, if any, and your disrespect -if any takes place-, must be challenged without delay, in my opinion.
"
As for the micrographs, I did not see mention of the apparent arthropod.
"
?
"
Do you think it may have been incidental, or could this be a manifestation of the over-all infestation.
"
My thoughts on this case are contained in the notes relevant to it. I think they've been posted already.
More
- Re: Repost by Apxr shroom
17 y
1,414
Mercury Detox
Dental work and fillings, not a problem.
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Wormwood, Clove, Clarkia, Turmeric, Epsom Salt, Uva Ursi, Goldenr...
This is a reply to # 1,013,867You know what Doc? You could go easy on the words, or word and other word, "I think". Do you want to know what I think? I think, you think--too much. To disect every sentence, cut and paste and drag every point out in looong winded sentences, kills the interest of the reader. Even science needs to be presented in "fun ways" sometimes.
This response has done nothing for your readers, who, by-the-way, would certainly not have the patients to mull through all your literal literature if you did this to everyone.
And, this brings up an important point as well: everything you have said could easily be applied to 90 percent of people who post on these forums. I guess I must have privilige to be singled out. Oh, and I say all of this without emotion or intentions of eliciting emotion from you, I think.
Apxr, I do like you and respect you. But 'please' take it from a business person, this banter which has been going on does nothing good for promoting what you do---which I endorse as a legitimate and noble service. Shroom- Re: Repost by Apxr apxr
17 y
2,215
RR
This is a reply to # 1,014,058Hello again, Shroom.
I believe you're addressing me with this post, although my post was placed in its respective position and it's where I expected a reply. Well, I'll reply here then:
By the way, if the post below is too long, I invite you to try it out in short parts, and to break down sentences like food for digestion where necessary. It helps.
First of all I'd like to remind you and everyone else that this method I use of answering a poster sentence by sentence ensures that threads are followed properly, that no argument is left unexamined and no question is left unanswered. I believe it's polite, it's accurate, and it leaves little room for doubt. I also believe that such precision is the least that should be demanded from anyone attempting to pursue the sciences. If you're not able to follow the posts with attention and to reply properly, Shroom, it's only logical and understandable.
Therefore, here is my reply:
Re:
"
You know what Doc?
"
Shroom, if you're referring to me by that handle, I must point out that I haven't extended you that courtesy. It's one reserved mostly for rhrplus' clients. In that case, please keep your distance and address me properly as I have done with you all the time.
"
You could go easy on the words, or word and other word, "I think".
"
I'm not so sure I understand what you're saying. Anyway, whatever the above means I suppose I could do it, but I happen to respect grammar and coherence, so I will NOT do it, Thank you.
So now you'll show me how to use grammar improperly, huh? I don't think so.
"
Do you want to know what I think?
"
No. Outside Facts, outside any opinion constructive for the forum and outside politeness towards others, not really. Of course you're free to say it anyway, just as I was free to answer to your question above honestly.
"
I think, you think--too much.
"
Do you think that much, of me? I'm really excited by this smart answer.
After all the posts where the matter of Truth is being discussed -or so I've thought-, this happens to sum your thoughts, how about that? I believe the rest is evident.
"
To disect every sentence, cut and paste and drag every point out in looong winded sentences, kills the interest of the reader.
"
How could you be sure it kills everyone's interest? You can not be, of course.
You might have added instead that it kills the interest of "some" readers, particularly "some" not able to follow ideas in sequential or random order. Ring a bell, anyone?
And by the way, how come you're mentioning this to me only now after all this time? Why not the courtesy of having done so before? Surely you never had a problem with it during my long email replies to you -which I have in store right from the beginning, by the way-, in which you had to humble yourself in private and ask very Basic stuff on Microscopy and whatnot. I wonder if your "fans" know this. Where's this "humility" gone to? Did you get what you needed from me and so it's not necessary to hide yourself anymore just like it happens during overwhelming infestations?
It seems like you've been hiding thoughts about me for a while, Shroom. Not nice, not nice at all. You should be ashamed of yourself. At least for me, this is clear evidence that you can not be trusted. I wonder what this has to say about your "research".
"
Even science needs to be presented in "fun ways" sometimes.
"
There's a difference between "fun" and "funny". By the way, you have no qualifications or merit to say how science should or should not be presented, so I see you in no position to give me any "science lessons".
I could point out several references on "the Proper Introduction of Science for individuals with different backgrounds and interests", but I won't. Not worth my time anymore. You're not worth my deference, Shroom.
"
This response has done nothing for your readers,
"
You have no way of knowing this, unless you know for sure who "my" readers are. Even if you did, everyone should know that I have no intentions of keeping a fan-base of "my" readers. I couldn't care less about it. What I care about in this forum is how to spot the microbe and how to kill it. I may be seeing one right now.
"
who, by-the-way, would certainly not have the patients to mull through all your literal literature if you did this to everyone.
"
Patience with a 'C' and an 'E', Shroom, thanks. After all, CZ is about education, isn't it?
Many readers will not have the time to go through any of my posts if they don't need to look for a certain answer hard enough, or simply if they just can't. If you're unable to read through a simple set of answers in a post, once again this is yet more evidence that you can't handle great amounts of data. If you can't, don't try to generalize it for everyone thus hiding in the crowd. After all, it's not everyone over here that's trying to pretend something they're not.
"
And, this brings up an important point as well: everything you have said could easily be applied to 90 percent of people who post on these forums.
"
I hope it applies to everyone starting by myself. If it's my honor to have words I've said applied to everyone, the better a person I am for it. For that reason, I hope that what I say applies easily to the entire planet, especially where it pertains to Health, to Microbes and on how to kill them where necessary. How does this affect you?
"
I guess I must have privilige to be singled out.
"
Don't feel that privileged, Shroom. You're not important. Truth is. You keep seeing this as something personal against you. Are you alright with the way you process information, or does this need to be said in some other way? This is NOT personal. Never been, never will be. This only "lends credence", as someone put it, to the poster's question: "Shroom, What do you get off on!!", asked here:
http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=1014142
Of course this happened, as we all know, when you intruded into the forum with an unwarranted and possibly absurd "diagnosis" that easily could have landed you in jail in no time, in my opinion, had the client chosen to follow such ill advice. I had to laugh, I must confess.
"
Oh, and I say all of this without emotion or intentions of eliciting emotion from you, I think.
"
Well, now you're thinking. I think we're making progress.
Shroom, with your weak grammar there is no way you could provoke emotions in someone who LIVES for examining things objectively, I think. I can feel sad, though, for someone not worthy of my mention anymore. After all, I'm not one of the parasites I must study.
I think, of course..
Therefore I am. Ever heard of that before? Look it up. The internet is here to type from, as our poster "friend" put it.
"
Apxr, I do like you and respect you.
"
I don't particularly care how you feel about me, Shroom. Is this not evident? Do you think I need to be seen as a "good person"? Do you think I care how readers view me on a personal level? Once again, this is not personal. Is anyone out there counting how many times I've said this same thing to this guy and he's not getting it? People here need professional support rather than "goodness" as a personal quality. How you still don't understand this is beginning to elude me. Do you write under medications, I'm forced to ask?
However, alright. Let's consider the above personally, if you wish:
Re:
"
Apxr, I do like you and respect you.
"
Shroom, you don't like me and you do NOT respect me. Why not say "Apxer" now, for example? I like things CLEAR, and I love it when masks finally fall off. Pretty much the way I feel when I get to reveal some hidden organism for all to see. I'm glad you can now begin to speak from your heart, so that it is finally exposed. I hope and trust that you'll continue to do so. I'll be ready to reply each and every time without emotion, without a personal reference or insult and from the heart, as I've always done to the best of my recollection. Replies and posts and Science from the Heart I always have done before, which is why I have nothing to add or to change. You, on the other hand, are now Revealed. The MD Forum is the Micrograph that's been taken of you and the Microbe Detectives are the ones exposing the words until now hidden in your heart. I challenge anyone anywhere to say that this is not so, especially those "anonymous" souls in other forums that seem to stand by you with words that need facts.
It seems that you and others have confused courtesy with blindness. I've seen you coming right from the beginning. I can see people like you coming miles away, and I see them everyday. What surprises me is stuff like this coming from an artist. Well, not that surprising, if "Art does come from the Heart" as they say. Don't forget that I've seen your art, IF it is your art. I know very well what it reveals about you and about what you hold inside, because Art is good for this purpose. Beauty [and ugliness] are not just in the eyes of the beholder, you know. That's a "comfortable fallacy" as I call it. Do not assume what you know not.
You assume that I'm weak and that I can be insulted "subtly" because I'm polite. You also assume that you can come here into a personal forum and post whatever you like and diagnose whichever condition you wish without being examined and questioned. Not gonna happen. You are wrong, and you better back off. This is the language such people understand, the language of dogs. Well, so it is then. Back off or deal with the Level.
Oh, and stop assuming that we're peers on the scientific level, because you're not my peer and we are NOT equals in science. You're my inferior in that regard, and you better acknowledge it. If not, remember any of those emails mentioned above which I'll be happy to provide as "concrete" evidence. Like that word? I trust all this is well "above the belt", how about it?
"
But 'please' take it from a business person, this banter which has been going on does nothing good for promoting what you do---which I endorse as a legitimate and noble service. Shroom
"
Which business person would that be, Shroom? Surely not yourself. If you handle business with the same precision you handle your "research", you must be starving, I think. For that reason, if you're the "business person" in question, no thanks, I will NOT "take it" from you.
'Banter' is not what's been happening here, at least not from my end. All I've said I've said very seriously and believing what I say and standing by it 100%. Could your intentions now revealed speak differently about yourself? Could any of your obvious 'defenders' stand firm and confront this evidence openly, a double-faced bunch at least one of them if you ask me?
If I've displayed courtesy it's been out of respect and politeness, not out of weakness or stupidity. Funny how mediocre minds usually tend to think that way. If you hold rudeness and you display it towards me you will get it right back, because I don't take "it" from anybody. Never have, never will.
In my immediate and firm response to your intrusion on a person's right to facts and to precision [that person being a client of rhrplus], for several days I've been trying to convey with politeness the reasons for my concerns regarding how opinions continue to be presented as facts from ordinary people such as yourself, whom elusively suggest "authority".
In return to that response of mine, what I've seen instead is a twist of reason, insults, disrespect and shameless attempts from fans to call these posts of mine and other posts "vicious attacks" against you on a personal level. I've also witnessed how rhrplus as a service is being threatened right in front of many silently "idle" readers, and at least how one MD forum reader/client and also the forum's rightful owner are challenged rudely and with no consideration.
To top it all, while all this happens you're being applauded and "accoladed" with some symbolic remark as some "cool dude" [NOT], for coming here to insult our intelligence with nonsense in the first place. Now we're just supposed to sit back and relax, is that it?
The MD Forum is against twisting the Truth, or it should be. For twisted half-truths we have enough on our hands with politicians, with lawyers and with "Parasites" themselves, which happen to "twist" things around so that they appear differently from the way they really are. Why, they'll even twist themselves into a knot. That's how they consume us and survive and it's why we're looking to expose them, all of them.
If you're coming here to disguise insults with 'pseudofacts' plus "expertise", as you're trying to do so now, I suggest that any and all moderators take notice and examine EACH SENTENCE you try to pass as facts, all of them, from this moment forward and through all your posts already published. If we're all here about "educating instead of medicating", I need to know beyond a doubt what kind of education we're about, because I don't wish to be seen among purveyors of lies. In that case, I have better places to visit and better things to do.
With this MD Forum attempt, as far as I'm concerned I'm looking to yield the best education possible, full of facts and nothing beyond it. If I'm not to question each and every argument that you or anyone choose to affirm particularly here on this MD forum -which is supposed to be a personal one-, just in order to avoid "offending you", then what on earth is the reason for this forum in the first place, and what am I as a Real Researcher doing in it? What's next then, a nice kick in the butt right here on this forum for us to kindly step aside and out from it including the owner? You guys must be out of your mind.
Maybe you'll be allowed to carry on unquestioned in other forums, but here that is NOT going to happen, at least not while I'm around, so you better back off. I, for one, have no time to waste on things like these, but I must and will question everything when they demand to be questioned here AND anywhere. I MUST do this for the sake of Truth, because Truth is what we all need the most. Everyone better listen to this that I just said. If you're human, reader, it has everything to do with to you, so pay close attention and read it again. At least on this planet, "Truth is what we all need the most".
I urge you and "your friends" to remember this, Shroom, that Truth is what we all need the most, especially when your "theories" fail and you find yourselves cycling on illness. When that happens, because it will, it's a FACT, maybe you'll be coming back here to us for some answers, as it's happened before already -IF we're still here, that is-. Then, I THINK, we'll have a little chat about Truth first, I think, and you will have to apologize.
I'll be here.
[Remember, it's] Apxr.- Re: Repost by Apxr #70428
17 y
1,625
This is a reply to # 1,014,581Apxr post - "First of all I'd like to remind you and everyone else that this method I use of answering a poster sentence by sentence ensures that threads are followed properly, that no argument is left unexamined and no question is left unanswered.
In my opinion, this way you get a very clear understanding and an answer. Something Shroom could learn for his posts.
----
Shroom seems to have a problem with "handles" on the forum. He thought I was Monique, I am 70428. Concentration Shroom.
----
Shroom - "To disect every sentence, cut and paste and drag every point out in looong winded sentences, kills the interest of the reader."
A reflection on Shroom's concentration levels I think. So if he reads a long post does he just "skim" through it and miss out half the information? Concentration again. For me, posts such as these have me hooked.
----
Shroom - "I guess I must have privilige to be singled out."
Apxr - Don't feel that privileged, Shroom. You're not important. Truth is. You keep seeing this as something personal against you. Are you alright with the way you process information, or does this need to be said in some other way? This is NOT personal. Never been, never will be. This only "lends credence", as someone put it, to the poster's question: "Shroom, What do you get off on!!", asked here:"
How many times does Apxr need to repeat himself, he's made himself VERY clear.
----
"Is anyone out there counting how many times I've said this same thing to this guy and he's not getting it?"
I WAS counting, but I've lost count. All I know is it should have "registered" with Shroom by now!
----
Apxr to Shroom - "You also assume that you can come here into a personal forum and post whatever you like and diagnose whichever condition you wish without being examined and questioned."
I seem to recall Shroom felt I had more of an e-coli problem in my micrographs. The gall!! Dangerous. It seems we are not permitted to question him, it's "above" him.
----
Apxr - "With this MD Forum attempt, as far as I'm concerned I'm looking to yield the best education possible, full of facts and nothing beyond it."
To be APPLAUDED. Like I have said before, Apxr (and
http://www.rhrplus.com)
are RARE finds.
----
Apxr - "I urge you and "your friends" to remember this, Shroom, that Truth is what we all need the most, especially when your "theories" fail and you find yourselves cycling on illness. When that happens, because it will, it's a FACT, maybe you'll be coming back here to us for some answers, as it's happened before already -IF we're still here, that is-. Then, I THINK, we'll have a little chat about Truth first, I think, and you will have to apologize."
I think this is inevitable.
70428.
- Re: Repost by Apxr #70428
17 y
1,625
- Re: Repost by Apxr #70428
17 y
1,414
This is a reply to # 1,014,058Shroom
Do you get it now?
Truth is what we all need the most".
70428.
- Re: Repost by Apxr apxr
17 y
2,215
RR
- Re: Repost by Apxr rabbitears
17 y
1,616
fetched in 0.0780 sec, IP =172.71.1.193, y=1