Fixed the internet, called it my Home.

[Ayasano]

Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father.

Actually, that would be "tatăl".

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father.

Actually, that would be "tatăl".

Fenghuang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun Wukong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tatAl_lutokether
requiem meiuqer
know thyself of the feather
tempus edax rerum e pluribus unum
amenhotep atum annu unna muta petohnema
munu subirulp e murer xade supmet
rehtaef eht fo flesyht wonk
rehtekotul_laTaT:tItOr-RoTiT;
101101:010010!!:$#-#$:!!010010:101101
010010;101101=;-=+=-;=101101:010010
101101:010010:$#!....!#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#1&0#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#0&1#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#!__!#$:010010:101101
010010;101101=;-=+=-;=101101:010010
101101:010010!!:$#-#$:!!010010:101101

 

[Ayasano]

Well, I gave you a chance, but you didn't take it, so at this point I'm going to have to agree with the consensus that you're either a troll, on a drug trip, or a schizophrenic off his meds, or all of the above. Let us know if you decide to be more coherent and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Well, I gave you a chance, but you didn't take it, so at this point I'm going to have to agree with the consensus that you're either a troll, on a drug trip, or a schizophrenic off his meds, or all of the above. Let us know if you decide to be more coherent and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

And I gave you my right hook and your only response was antagonism, proving my point. Thanks bud, for signing your effigy and epitaph.
Come back when your response isn't senseless conflagrence;
protip: summation of consensus is a sentence and you're way off mark.

Proper discussion isn't assuming the worst or being a jerk towards someone; it's seeing what they have to say: and so far, the only thing you can do is bully.

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Well, I gave you a chance, but you didn't take it, so at this point I'm going to have to agree with the consensus that you're either a troll, on a drug trip, or a schizophrenic off his meds, or all of the above. Let us know if you decide to be more coherent and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

By the way, showing you completely ignored me:

Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father.

Actually, that would be "tatăl".

Fenghuang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sun Wukong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tatAl_lutokether
requiem meiuqer
know thyself of the feather
tempus edax rerum e pluribus unum
amenhotep atum annu unna muta petohnema
munu subirulp e murer xade supmet
rehtaef eht fo flesyht wonk
rehtekotul_laTaT:tItOr-RoTiT;
101101:010010!!:$#-#$:!!010010:101101
010010;101101=;-=+=-;=101101:010010
101101:010010:$#!....!#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#1&0#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#0&1#$:010010:101101
101101:010010:$#!__!#$:010010:101101
010010;101101=;-=+=-;=101101:010010
101101:010010!!:$#-#$:!!010010:101101

By the way, further proof you blatantly ignored what I said:
Me:
"Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father."
You:
"Actually, that would be "tatăl""
Me:
"tatAl_lutokether"
then I gave a picture showing Kether at the top, A at the bottom.

So really, what you're doing is telling me I'm not coherent just because you don't want to listen to what I have to say, or even come close to analysing it, or even... -shock- reading what I said! Thanks for that remark, it truly proves your antagonism.

 

[Ayasano]

Well, I gave you a chance, but you didn't take it, so at this point I'm going to have to agree with the consensus that you're either a troll, on a drug trip, or a schizophrenic off his meds, or all of the above. Let us know if you decide to be more coherent and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

And I gave you my right hook and your only response was antagonism, proving my point. Thanks bud, for signing your effigy and epitaph.
Come back when your response isn't senseless conflagrence;
protip: summation of consensus is a sentence and you're way off mark.

Proper discussion isn't assuming the worst or being a jerk towards someone; it's seeing what they have to say: and so far, the only thing you can do is bully.

Now, see, was that so hard? I just want a discussion without textual diarrhea and pictures with no explanations.

What exactly was your "right hook"? Was that a specific part of what you were posting earlier? From what I can tell, most of what you've posted is religious paraphernalia with very little scientific content, so it's somewhat difficult for me to understand what you're getting at.

By the way, showing you completely ignored me:

By the way, further proof you blatantly ignored what I said:
Me:
"Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father."
You:
"Actually, that would be "tatăl""
Me:
"tatAl_lutokether"
then I gave a picture showing Kether at the top, A at the bottom.

So really, what you're doing is telling me I'm not coherent just because you don't want to listen to what I have to say, or even come close to analysing it, or even... -shock- reading what I said! Thanks for that remark, it truly proves your antagonism.

Actually, I took that as you ignoring what I said and trying to work my correction into your writings, hence why I didn't respond to it. What exactly was the image and text you posted supposed to mean in the context of time travel? Again, I see little to no scientific content in your writings, aside from the odd link to an unrelated article or out of context word.

I'm honestly trying not to be antagonistic, it's just difficult when you refuse to explain yourself in a manner I can understand.

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Well, I gave you a chance, but you didn't take it, so at this point I'm going to have to agree with the consensus that you're either a troll, on a drug trip, or a schizophrenic off his meds, or all of the above. Let us know if you decide to be more coherent and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

And I gave you my right hook and your only response was antagonism, proving my point. Thanks bud, for signing your effigy and epitaph.
Come back when your response isn't senseless conflagrence;
protip: summation of consensus is a sentence and you're way off mark.

Proper discussion isn't assuming the worst or being a jerk towards someone; it's seeing what they have to say: and so far, the only thing you can do is bully.

Now, see, was that so hard? I just want a discussion without textual diarrhea and pictures with no explanations.

What exactly was your "right hook"? Was that a specific part of what you were posting earlier? From what I can tell, most of what you've posted is religious paraphernalia with very little scientific content, so it's somewhat difficult for me to understand what you're getting at.

By the way, showing you completely ignored me:

By the way, further proof you blatantly ignored what I said:
Me:
"Do you know what Titor means in Romanian?
The Father."
You:
"Actually, that would be "tatăl""
Me:
"tatAl_lutokether"
then I gave a picture showing Kether at the top, A at the bottom.

So really, what you're doing is telling me I'm not coherent just because you don't want to listen to what I have to say, or even come close to analysing it, or even... -shock- reading what I said! Thanks for that remark, it truly proves your antagonism.

Actually, I took that as you ignoring what I said and trying to work my correction into your writings, hence why I didn't respond to it. What exactly was the image and text you posted supposed to mean in the context of time travel? Again, I see little to no scientific content in your writings, aside from the odd link to an unrelated article or out of context word.

I'm honestly trying not to be antagonistic, it's just difficult when you refuse to explain yourself in a manner I can understand.

Religious paraphernalia? Do you think this is the first time the internet has been around? Time Travel isn't new, it's been around for eons.
There is a great deal of wisdom to learn from theosophy. Do not ever dismiss what you do not understand.
Kabbalah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Caduceus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese dragon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ayasano]

Religious paraphernalia? Do you think this is the first time the internet has been around? Time Travel isn't new, it's been around for eons.
There is a great deal of wisdom to learn from theosophy. Do not ever dismiss what you do not understand.

Theosophy takes the notion "God did it" and treats that as an adequate answer, and so I reject it. Everything can be explained via natural laws and science without the need for a "divine", you just have to ask the right questions.

As for time travel being around before now, yes, I believe that. Current theories of what time travel would entail support a single timeline with loops within it (Closed timelike curves) which leads to the idea that the entirety of time has already happened. So the universe, all the way from the beginning to the end (if it doesn't in fact loop around) is full of time travellers, an entire civilization descended from us, but hidden from us, yet still affecting us. (So as to avoid an ontological paradox, I imagine. Somebody has to invent time travel)

 

[JDHollisterTitor]

Religious paraphernalia? Do you think this is the first time the internet has been around? Time Travel isn't new, it's been around for eons.
There is a great deal of wisdom to learn from theosophy. Do not ever dismiss what you do not understand.

Theosophy takes the notion "God did it" and treats that as an adequate answer, and so I reject it. Everything can be explained via natural laws and science without the need for a "divine", you just have to ask the right questions.

As for time travel being around before now, yes, I believe that. Current theories of what time travel would entail support a single timeline with loops within it (Closed timelike curves) which leads to the idea that the entirety of time has already happened. So the universe, all the way from the beginning to the end (if it doesn't in fact loop around) is full of time travellers, an entire civilization descended from us, but hidden from us, yet still affecting us. (So as to avoid an ontological paradox, I imagine. Somebody has to invent time travel)

"Theosophy takes the notion "God did it" and treats that as an adequate answer, and so I reject it."
No, it is an adequate answer, it just is not antiquated as a juxtaposition for every question because, what fun is there in that? You are misunderstanding the concept of theosophy -- there have been numerous historical accounts of the divine and there is a great deal greater than what you can comprehend, so appreciating God is appreciating all things, for God is all things, and you simply can not reject that fact because -- although it may seem as though circular logic due to the failure of the English for logical dictum, it is still beyond true.

"So the universe, all the way from the beginning to the end (if it doesn't in fact loop around) is full of time travellers, "
Okay, see, now you're just taking the beauty out of things with scientific rhetoric. If you paint everything in black and white, it will give you a massive headache.
The universe, and every other universe (there are more than one) are completely and utterly populated. Not by "Time Travelers", by Living SOULS.

You would be interested in
Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Taoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you'll find a "time traveler" if you step outside, and take a walk on the wild side.

Pro-tip: You are a time traveler, you've just forgotten it, apparently...



"I'm glad you came," said Chalmers. He was sitting by the window and his face was very pale. Two tall candles guttered at his elbow and cast a sickly amber light over his long nose and slightly receding chin. Chalmers would have nothing modern about his apartment. He had the soul of a mediaeval ascetic, and he preferred illuminated manuscripts to automobiles, and leering stone gargoyles to radios and adding-machines.
As I crossed the room to the settee he had cleared for me I glanced at his desk and was surprised to discover that he had been studying the mathematical formulae of a celebrated contemporary physicist, and that he had covered many sheets of thin yellow paper with curious geometric designs. "Einstein and John Dee are strange bedfellows," I said as my gaze wandered from his mathematical charts to the sixty or seventy quaint books that comprised his strange little library. Plotinus and Emanuel Moscopulus, St. Thomas Aquinas and Frenicle de Bessy stood elbow to elbow in the somber ebony bookcase, and chairs, table and desk were littered with pamphlets about mediaeval sorcery and witchcraft and black magic, and all of the valiant glamorous things that the modern world has repudiated.
Chalmers smiled engagingly, and passed me a Russian cigarette on a curiously carved tray. "We are just discovering now," he said, "that the old alchemists and sorcerers were two-thirds right, and that your modern biologist and materialist is nine-tenths wrong."
"You have always scoffed at modern science." I said, a little impatiently.
"Only at scientific dogmatism," he replied. "1 have always been a rebel, a champion of originality and lost causes; that is why I have chosen to repudiate the conclusions of contemporary biologists."
"And Einstein?" I asked.
"A priest of transcendental mathematics" he murmured reverently. "A profound mystic and explorer of the great suspected."
"Then you do not entirely despise science."
"Of course not." he affirmed. "I merely distrust the scientific positivism of the past fifty years, the positivism of Haeckel and Darwin and of Mr. Bertrand Russell. I believe that biology has failed pitifully to explain the mystery of man's origin and destiny."
"Give them time." I retorted.
Chalmers' eyes glowed. "My friend." he murmured, "your pun is sublime. Give them time. That is precisely what I would do. But your modern biologist scoffs at time. He has the key but he refuses to use it. What do we know of time, really? Einstein believes that it is relative, that it can be interpreted in terms of space, of curved space But must we stop there? When mathematics fails us can we not advance by—insight?"
"You are treading on dangerous ground," I replied. "That is a pitfall that your true investigator avoids That is why modern science has advanced so slowly. It accepts nothing that it cannot demonstrate. But you—"
"I would take hashish, opium, all manner of drugs I would emulate the sages of the East. And then perhaps I would apprehend—"
"What?"
"The fourth dimension."
"Theosophical rubbish!"
"Perhaps. But I believe that drugs expand human consciousness. William James agreed with me. And I have discovered a new one."
"A new drug?"
"It was used centuries ago by Chinese alchemists, but it is virtually unknown in the West. Its occult properties are amazing. With its aid and the aid of my mathematical knowledge I believe that I can go back through time."
"I do not understand."
"Time is merely our imperfect perception of a new dimension of space. Time and motion are both illusions. Everything that has existed from the beginning of the world exists now. Events that occurred centuries ago on this planet continue to exist in another dimension of space. Events that will occur centuries from now exist already. We cannot perceive their existence because we cannot enter the dimension of space that contains them. Human beings as we know them are merely fractions, infinitesimally small fractions of one enormous whole. Every human being is linked with all the life that has preceded him on this planet. All of his ancestors are parts of him. Only time separates him from his forebears, and time is an illusion and does not exist."
"I think I understand," I murmured.

 

[Ayasano]

"Theosophy takes the notion "God did it" and treats that as an adequate answer, and so I reject it."
No, it is an adequate answer, it just is not antiquated as a juxtaposition for every question because, what fun is there in that? You are misunderstanding the concept of theosophy -- there have been numerous historical accounts of the divine and there is a great deal greater than what you can comprehend, so appreciating God is appreciating all things, for God is all things, and you simply can not reject that fact because -- although it may seem as though circular logic due to the failure of the English for logical dictum, it is still beyond true.

Anecdotes make for poor evidence. It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's still absence of evidence. I reject one or more gods/goddesses (because Abrahamic religions aren't the only ones around) because thus far observation and experimentation has failed to provide any evidence for their existence, while we have plenty of evidence for the notion that a deity isn't required to make the world go around. (Pre Big Bang aside, but we're getting there: The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking )

"So the universe, all the way from the beginning to the end (if it doesn't in fact loop around) is full of time travellers, "
Okay, see, now you're just taking the beauty out of things with scientific rhetoric. If you paint everything in black and white, it will give you a massive headache.

Actually, I find the concept beautiful, because it provides explanations for a lot of things, like Fermi's Paradox. It all just sorts of fits together, without the need for parallel universes to explain away paradoxes. There's beauty in simplicity.

The universe, and every other universe (there are more than one) are completely and utterly populated. Not by "Time Travelers", by Living SOULS.

I would agree that there most likely are other non-time-traveler civilizations out there, accompanied by their own post-time-travel civilizations, in the same way as us. I was not implying that we're the only ones. As far as multiple universes go, there is some evidence for that, but we don't know for sure yet. Nor do we know whether those universes would be created by a timeline split, or just begin entirely seperately. (Most likely the latter, if the imprints on the cosmic background radiation are any indication)

You would be interested in
Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Taoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you'll find a "time traveler" if you step outside, and take a walk on the wild side.

Pro-tip: You are a time traveler, you've just forgotten it, apparently...

Religion on the whole doesn't interest me that much, I prefer to approach the world from a logical and experimental viewpoint. (Though I am familiar with all the things you linked, as like I've said before, I like to soak up knowledge in case it ever becomes useful)

It's interesting that you put time-traveller in quotes. Are you referring to the fact that we all travel through time at a rate of one second per second? Or is that related to the long quote at the end of your post?

By that pro-tip do you mean my future self will discover time travel, or that my past self was already capable of it naturally somehow? (I'm guessing the long quote was also related to that)