Jump to content

WORDS FOR THE FUTURE, by John Titor


jmpet
 Share

Recommended Posts

jmpet,

 

Thank you for your response to my posts. All in all you're a good sport considering the "tone" that I took in my posts.

 

My point, obviously, had nothing to do with Titor. The point was that Rainman takes very strong positions...he's highly opinionated. But taking strong positions doesn't mean that he's derranged, delusional or out of line considering that we are a time travel forum.

 

Because this is the Internet he can take a strong position and there is no chance that he can bully you. And that was where I was trying to make an important point. No matter how strongly he states his position he can't bully you. You either agree or disagree but you get equal time. You can't actually be shouted down, as can happen in a live forum.

 

Titor is a fascinating subject even though Titor himself isn't as fascinating as the subject. Well over 99% of "everything Titor" has been written by someone other than Titor. The pundits are far more interesting than the character.

 

I'm glad to see that you don't bite on the Titor bullet. The political message is as valid as any other Internet/UseNet "alt.poli.sci" message even though the "physics" is beyond being simply weak.

 

Boomer had a political message that he wanted to deliver and he chose a sci-fi scenario based on "Alas, Babylon" as the stage upon which to deliver it. The story would have been far more interesting had Boomer known just a little more physics. Relative to the general time travel story where the "physics" is obviously made up on the spot he did a somewhat decent job. The physics was "gawd awful" but he at least knew what his chosen audience expected and he was able to throw some realistic sounding jargon at them. Jargon like "Dual Top-Spin Singularity". (This is yet another physics problem that I've reserved for "comment at a later time" over the years.)

 

However when Dave Trott began posting some serious questions to him he moved up his scheduled departure by a few weeks and did a quick "exit stage right" before Dave could do some serious damage. Having a real physicist suddenly appear on TTI was a bit problematic for Boomer. Dave asked a very simple, straight forward question. But because Boomer had no physics background he thought that the question was complex because Dave used some physics jargon like "null geodesics". It rattled his cage and he decided to move on. ;)

 

No matter what the Titorites believe, Boomer wrote some really piss poor physics. His understanding of physics is ridementary at best, incomplete and based on a lot of Internet/UseNet "alt.sci" myth.

 

Anyway, thanks again for being a good sport. :)

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As promised... I wouldn't want to leave you wondering about the answers to your important questions. :)

 

What is your agenda?

#1 - To question and/or stamp out information that is based in bad science which some are trying to pass off as scientific or factual. #2 - To discuss a science-based approach to understanding time, and perhaps achieving time travel (someday).

 

Why are you here?

I could be snide and say "to counter people who don't use good science" and that would be part of the truth. See above for the rest.

Why do you shoot anyone down that doesn't agree with you?

If you look carefully, you will see that I don't. Rather, I shoot down people whose theories don't agree with accepted science... or, who cannot provide even meager scientific validation for their theories. You being the emotional type you are is what causes you to perceive what I am doing as "shooting down people that don't agree with me."

Why are you such a jackass?

I learned early on in life that being a reflection for people I encounter is not such a bad philosophy. When I encounter good people, I reflect that good. When I encounter jackasses... well, you know the rest.

Are you truly that blind that you can't open your eyes and look objectively at something?

We had a discussion about objectivity before, and I presented you with equations that refuted your subjective claim (the wind power discussion). You never addressed my clear objectivity in that case, and as far as I can see each time I present objective facts you always ignore them and do not comment or further address them. I've also mentioned to you that if YOU really wish to be objective, that learning mathematics would be a very good first step. In fact, I think someone else here (timer) also was trying to point that out to you. But I guess you only consider how YOU think to be objective... and when you encounter a strong personality like me, you brand me as not being objective even though it is quite clear I am being more objective than you are (IOW by using math & science).

You really think there's only one way to see things- YOUR WAY, right?

No, and I have pointed this out before, and you have conveniently ignored that as well. My guide is science, and principles that have a solid foundation of evidence to their underlying theory. Not "my way" but "science's way". Get it?

And you teach people?

Yes, indeed I do. Did you ever call the Aero department and confirm the courses I teach? That would be some objective evidence for you, wouldn't it? But you have to want to know the truth, even if it doesn't fit your personal agenda to attack and demean me.

Just like when GoodScientist started a thread to seek truths for time travel and you posted "good luck" instead of "I'll take you up on that offer"

That sounds like more of your spin. Could you please show me where I said this? Indeed, I have been contributing in that thread. He has not responded to some of my concepts in physics and math, and I have some differences in his recent leap to black holes. But all in all I think that thread is going quite well. Maybe we need some of your "objectivity" to set it straight? :devil:

What if John Titor was really a time traveller? One thing's for sure- the world wouldn't need aerospace engineers anymore.

If he was, the world is really in a bad way in 2036. And as Darby pointed out (thanks Darby) what you claim as "for sure" is actually not for sure. In fact, if all forms of engineers (I do not claim aerospace engineers are any more significant than other engineers) suddenly were gone from our society, the only thing that could be said "for sure" is that we would quickly descend into a decidedly untechnical, stone-age-like world. Who would design the wind turbines you so eagerly champion?

Either way we should celebrate- it's the end of YOU.

That is what makes it so fun to tweak your gourd... you always get emotional and go immediately for personal attacks. Meanwhile I stick to facts and your theories and harbor no personal ill will towards you at all. Such quotes as this from you make it all the more apparant that you are attacking me personally, while I am simply attacking the ideas of yours that have no foundation.

Why do I constantly have to rehash everything with you?

Because you constantly, and consistently, ignore the factual points I make about what you are doing. You once chastised me for "not responding" to things you post that I agree with. Wouldn't that just turn into a big session of patting each other on the back? Don't you think people can learn more (on both sides of a discussion) by focusing on, and exploring, the things they do NOT agree upon? And for every time I may have not responded to something you wrote that I agreed with, I could point out times where you did not respond to something factual I presented in response to an idea of yours that I questioned.

You are spinning information to meet some agenda. And even when confronted with it in this very thread, you deny it. You claim you are just getting Titor's words out, but then you feel the need to embellish them and footnote them. When I call you on this, you ignore it. Perhaps because I have pointed out your game? Clearly you are doing MUCH more than just getting Titor's words out... you are also trying to infer an interpretation of them and point to what you believe to be "validating evidence". If you addressed my points, and admitted in what you are doing, then you wouldn't have to rehash it. They call Bobby Slayton the "pit bull of comedy"... maybe you could consider me the "pit bull of science." :)

 

Why can't you just leave me the hell alone?

It's called freedom of speech. And once again I point out that I am not picking on you personally, but rather the things you try to pass off as science and/or fact. Of course, I could also look at the hate-filled words in this post of yours and claim to be a victim as well... Why don't YOU just leave ME the hell alone? :P But I don't really play the victim all that well. I like to take responsibility for my own affairs.

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Thank you for your response to my posts. All in all you're a good sport considering the "tone" that I took in my posts.<

 

I am pretty thick-skinned, but one thing I do not tolerate is people who callously dismiss people's opinions. I am sure Einstein failed lots of tests in school.

 

>The point was that Rainman takes very strong positions...he's highly opinionated. But taking strong positions doesn't mean that he's deranged, delusional or out of line considering that we are a time travel forum.<

 

I have no problem with his theories heck- I want to hear more. But he is trying to use his theories to supercede/debunk Titor's and well, first it's step one then it's step two- first you have to prove a theory is wrong ("not as true") then present a better theory to replace it and he has yet to do that. I could explain the universe without E=MC2 and it could work too, but E-MC2 just makes perfect sense- much more sense than "aether". But since he hasn't either debunked Titor or presented us with a better theory, he is in no position to bunk or debunk.

 

And before Rainman runs off and says "I have already presented my theory!" I say- present it again in simple words. Tell it to me like I am a nine year old. Let's play this out- Rainman's theory is right, he wins the Nobel prize, they teach his theory in school to the next generation. How does that teacher of the future introduce the class to his theory? What is his theory boiled down and can somebody please spoon-feed it to me?

 

>Titor is a fascinating subject even though Titor himself isn't as fascinating as the subject. Well over 99% of "everything Titor" has been written by someone other than Titor. The pundits are far more interesting than the character.<

 

And yours are among the most interesting.

 

>Anyway, thanks again for being a good sport.<

 

Oh, I ain't done yet! You have some awesome posts to your credit, you made some great points over the years and they all ring of the simple truth.

 

Would you or anyone else be interested in presenting a John Titor acid test? The point being once we are past that we can move into truly new terriroty- time travelling without it being told to us by Ralph Nader. One thought is making up a "fact sheet" for time travellers to fill out as step one of their wacko "I am a time traveller!" theory. For example:

 

1. What time did you come from?

 

2. Why are you here?

 

3. Why did you pick this website?

 

4. How did you get here? How does the machine work?

 

5. Can you offer immediate proof that you're a time traveller? Lottery numbers, Super Bowls, etc.

 

Ten questions or so that can dismiss most time traveller claims. Something that, after answered everyone will know what their angle is. All are welcome to contribute, the ten questions should be simple enough and complicated enough to where most claims don't pass this simple test.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>To question and/or stamp out information that is based in bad science which some are trying to pass off as scientific or factual.<

 

The way to do that is to present a better theory.

 

>#2 - To discuss a science-based approach to understanding time, and perhaps achieving time travel (someday).<

 

The way to do that is present a better theory. Then be able to explain it with simple words.

 

>I shoot down people whose theories don't agree with accepted science... <

 

Well most of your theories fly in the face of traditional science too, that does not qualify you as a quantifier.

 

As far as windmills go- yeah, if we had 600,000 of them, we would have enough electricity for every American. This is a fact, everytime I look out my window I am presented with that fact.

 

>I've also mentioned to you that if YOU really wish to be objective, that learning mathematics would be a very good first step.<

 

This is where I disagee. You don't need a PhD to understand graduate-level physics, because anything that makes sense can also be boiled down to simple words. You're saying that anyone who does not agree with your presentation is not smart enough to understand it so smarten up and I say make me: present it in simple words, catch my curiosity then I will have the motivation to "learn math". This is also known as teaching and last time I checked, science starts in first grade with "the Earth is round".

 

>Just like when GoodScientist started a thread to seek truths for time travel and you posted "good luck" instead of "I'll take you up on that offer"<

 

>>That sounds like more of your spin. Could you please show me where I said this?<<

 

The board "The Definitive Time Travel Investigation" starts with GoodScientist saying" Fellow TTI members, Here in this thread, the most thorough and probing, online time travel investigation will be conducted. We shall start off with affirming the basic physical and mathematical concepts behind time travel, before moving onto the methods of time travel, the paradoxes that result therein, and finally with our answer to the questions:

 

Is time travel possible?

 

How will it be made possible?

 

Is it practically possible?"

 

The very next post is yours which reads "I'm interested, GS. Thanks for starting this thread. Sounds like you will start out with a pretty good review of existing physics. I look forward."

 

>Who would design the wind turbines you so eagerly champion?<

 

It's very simple:

 

1. Pay someone to figure it out.

 

2. Give a lot of poor people jobs building it.

 

3. Once built, they run themselves for 30 years+. And since it's a proven technology (it really works), all you really need is a high school diploma to become a windmill techician.

 

>Why don't YOU just leave ME the hell alone?<

 

I ignore 80% of your posts, your respond to 80% of mine. Do the math.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he is trying to use his theories to supercede/debunk Titor's

1) Absolutely not. I have never used my theories to try to debunk Titor. My theories are totally separate from any discussion of Titor's story.

 

2) Titor had no theory. It was a story. Nothing in his story could be quantified as a real theory, as there was no mathematical foundation. Moreover, his story in not falsifiable, and thus could not be considered a "good theory" for that fact alone.

 

You continue to suggest I have made claims that I have never made. I've never claimed to debunk Titor's story as it is not falisifiable. Rather, I debunk your extensions and interpretations using Titor's own words (and basic science). Furthermore, I simply point out where history has shown Titor to be incorrect. I've asked you before to cease using spin tactics to make it seem as if I have said something I didn't. Could you stick to facts, and not how you wish to portray me? A little less emotional bravado and a little more solid science should help you accomplish this.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well most of your theories fly in the face of traditional science too

Oh really? I haven't seen you falsify them one bit. Care to try? For that matter, I have seen no falsification of my concepts which, contrary to how you wish to paint them, are DERIVED from existing science with two mere extensions of vector concepts. Quite different than what you suggest.

As far as windmills go- yeah, if we had 600,000 of them, we would have enough electricity for every American. This is a fact, everytime I look out my window I am presented with that fact.

And yet I must point out that at no time have you ever presented a factual, scientific analysis to support your claim that a single one of those windmills can power 500 homes. Nope, you just can't do it.

The very next post is yours which reads "I'm interested, GS. Thanks for starting this thread. Sounds like you will start out with a pretty good review of existing physics. I look forward."

Exactly right. Nowhere did I say "good luck" or ever express any kind of thought that I was not going to participate. Now you see, if you go back and compare this with the words you were using to portray me, you will see the difference. More evidence of how you wish to put your spin on things.

It's very simple:

 

1. Pay someone to figure it out.

Yep. That would be engineers, now wouldn't it? Because you certainly have not demonstrated the math or analytical skills to do so. "Simple" to you always seems to be shedding the really hard work (or impossible work) to someone other than you. I know, you're just the big "idea guy".

3. Once built, they run themselves for 30 years+.

Another item I pointed out that you continue to ignore: Bearings will wear out well before 30 years, thereby reducing turbine efficiency. That is FACT which dismisses this statement you have made as fallacy.

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However when Dave Trott began posting some serious questions to him he moved up his scheduled departure by a few weeks and did a quick "exit stage right" before Dave could do some serious damage. Having a real physicist suddenly appear on TTI was a bit problematic for Boomer. Dave asked a very simple, straight forward question. But because Boomer had no physics background he thought that the question was complex because Dave used some physics jargon like "null geodesics". It rattled his cage and he decided to move on.

Trott: You said 6 curled up dimensions. The current theory suggests that there should be at least 7 curled up dimensions.

 

Titor: I may be mistaken but I thought it was pretty well established now that (N -10) was on track.

 

What's your opinion, darby - six or seven?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I disagee. You don't need a PhD to understand graduate-level physics, because anything that makes sense can also be boiled down to simple words.

You are free to disagree, of course. However, it is interesting to me how you can make such a broad statement without understanding the fundamentals of mathematics that you claim you don't need.

What you don't seem to understand is that mathematics is a language, and a very rich one at that. Furthermore, the casual language that we all use (and you seem to think anything can be described within) does not possess the formal constructs that the language of mathematics does to describe physical effects that you, as a human being, cannot even sense. This is where you argument for "natural language" over mathematics fails. Since you like Darby more than you like me, perhaps he can explain it to you in a form you might find more palatable. He did the same with another visitor to this forum who was saying the same things as you.

 

Let me give you an example: Radio waves cannot be perceived (at all) by the human senses. First, I would maintain that by your statement above, since one cannot perceive radio waves directly that they do not "make sense" to the human in our normal state. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt that somehow (even though you cannot perceive them) radio waves "make sense". By your statement, then you should be able to "boil down into simple words" the precise, technical nature of how radio waves are generated, propagated, and received. Of course, for your statement to be true, then this would mean NO mathematics (at all) would be required, and your simple language explanation would be all that someone needs to design and build either a radio transmitter or even a radio receiver. So how about you take a whack at it? I'm listening.

 

If natural language is all that is required, then are you saying that all people who have used mathematics to explain physics and/or create new technologies were wasting their time, as they never needed the math? Is that what you are saying? Because you have an awful lot of history that would be standing against you if that is what you are saying.

 

If you don't want to tackle the radio waves challenge, then check out THIS ILLUSION and describe to me how this works without math and with only simple words.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I latch on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the "other stuff" that doesn't ring true to me.

Then this would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science.

No man is an island. (Donne -1624)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I am sorry. Apparently my "cut and paste" must have been wrong. Let's try it again:

 

"Some of the 'truths' discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime. I latch-on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me." RainmanTime 3/22/04

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking quotes out of context again, are we? (You will note the context of that quote was about life after death, and did not deal with mathematical or scientific validation of concepts, but rather material another poster was presenting) So does this quote explain why your natural language is better than math? I'd really like to see your validation of such a wonderful theory.

 

Otherwise, you've just got a hard-on for me and are trying to attack me personally, rather than substantiate your own claim.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RainmanTime writes:

 

>Taking quotes out of context again, are we?<

 

No, actually it's pretty much plain as day. Here's that forum:

 

http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=18393&Forum=All_Forums&Words=thetazone&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=18393&Search=true#Post18393

 

Your quote (this one):

 

"Some of the "truths" discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime. I latch-on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the "other stuff" that doesn't ring true to me."

 

is a direct response in reference to him comparing his theory with yours. I'd do the copy&paste thing, but I wouldn't want to further be accused of distorting truths.

 

Hope the issue has been cleared up, now let's get back to your science.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I wouldn't want to further be accused of distorting truths

That is exactly what you were doing with that quote.

 

now let's get back to your science

No, you see, before you took my quote out of context, you were going to be the one to show me how language beats math in explaining radio waves (or some other equivalent problem). Or do you just spout off BS without any intent to back it up with facts?

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laydeeezzz and Gentlemen!

 

In this corner, armed with a Massive Space-Time theory, waring a pink bikini, is ... Rainman Time!

 

And his opponent on the opposite corner, armed with a baseball bat, waring ancient Kiwi war paint is ... Jimpet!

 

spacer.png

 

The crowd tenses! The bell is about to ring!

 

Then Creeds say's, …'Hey Nitescott! … Why did you get me a hotdog with brown ketchup? I hate brown ketchup!'

 

'Sorry man!' NS replies, 'I was in a hurry to get the beer and cornchips before the fight! … Here, have a cornchip!'

 

 

"Captain's log, stardate 41358.2. I am nailed to the hull." J.L.Picard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>No, you see, before you took my quote out of context, you were going to be the one to show me how language beats math in explaining radio waves (or some other equivalent problem). Or do you just spout off BS without any intent to back it up with facts?<

 

You're right, where would we be without facts. Here are the facts:

 

1.) On 3/20/05, Thetazone started a thread called "Death is not the end!" which is his take on the universe. The opening comment is about 5 pages and ends with "Awake now, my brother, my sister, work thou with me so that all shall hear the whisper of the 'One' Eternal, Ever-Present Love and Wisdom. Let us all go into the one Home, that Sanctuary wherein all are one family praising our Eternal Loving Father-Mother-God Who gave us birth, born in His image and likeness."

 

2.) Roel van Houten then posted

 

"DEATH IS NOT THE END[?] Says who? I beg to differ."

 

3.) Then RainmanTime posted on 3/22/04:

 

"Let me try to approach this from a rigorously logical and scientific point of view:

 

Once you "define" something you also (by exclusion) also define everything else that does not consitute that something.....right? So when I point to the cloudless sky on a bright, sunny day, and I say "that is blue", then I also define all things that are NOT blue. This is a fact of binary logic that cannot be escaped. So now let's apply it to the definition of "physical reality".

 

In my writings on the 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime, I put forth the explanation that these 3, integrated elements (Mass, Space, and Time) are what constitute the sum total of all PHYSICAL REALITY. But now, if I define these in this manner, by exclusion I have also defined something else... and that is NON-PHYSICAL reality.

 

You don't have to believe it...and so far you have maintained this stance. But I am telling you that it is a mathematical, logical fact that it IS there, simply because we all agree that Objects, Space, and Time define our notion of physical reality. We are getting into the realm that Alan Turing pioneered when he defined the "Turing Machine". He showed that an IDEA (concept, algorithm) can be thought of distinctly from the MEDIUM in which that idea is expressed. Thus, the PROCESS by which binary mathematics are executed can be defined independent of the machine that performs them.

 

Ideas...concepts....processes...algorithms. All of these (and more) are the "stuff" of non-physical reality. And again, while you may not believe it (and I do not want to try to force you to believe it), there IS a part of you (half of you, to be precise) that is NON-PHYSICAL. Some people refer to this collection of your non-physical parts as your "Meme Pool"...with deference to Richard Dawkins who first defined the concept of a Meme as the information equivalent to the Gene.

 

Are you with me???? Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime "

 

4. Roel van Houten replied to your comment by adding:

 

"Hi Ray,

 

We've discussed the 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime. I think it's logical and in a way you've provided us with scientific facts that back your theory. But...

 

In reply to:

 

You don't have to believe it...and so far you have maintained this stance.

 

I'm not trying to maintain a stance. Sure, I have my own believes, but I'm open to new ideas. It's not a matter of believing. I'm confident that there's much more in the universe that we can currently imagine or perceive. The reason I replied to this thread was because of the way Thetazone tries to force what he calls "immutable" upon us. I don't know about you, but I personally don't like it when people claim their believes to be the absolute truth.

 

5. To which RainmanTime replied:

 

"Yes, I am with you. I do see how folks can get a bit peeved at the way he presents his material. In a similar way, this is often what gets me ticked at Creedo.

 

Some of the 'truths' discussed in the writings that thetazone has shared are aligned with the same sorts of things I am discussing in Massive SpaceTime. I latch-on to those fragments that further refine, or frame, my own thoughts. I leave the 'other stuff' that doesn't ring true to me."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very good. You have factually shown how you have taken it out of the context of THIS THREAD. Well done. You have also shown my logical rationale for the existence of non-physical entities.

 

Now, how about you stop ignoring the issue that you have provided no rationale for your dismissal of mathematics? And try explaining radio waves to me without the math. Or you can just admit that you cannot support that belief.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

 

The bell rings!

 

It's the end of round one. The crowd is calm and waits for the response from RMT.

 

'Actually this brown ketchup is alright!' Says Creedo.

 

'At least you will know if any blood gets splattered on your dog!' Replies Nitescott.

 

 

"Captain's log, stardate 41358.2. I am nailed to the hull." J.L.Picard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Now, how about you stop ignoring the issue that you have provided no rationale for your dismissal of mathematics? And try explaining radio waves to me without the math. Or you can just admit that you cannot support that belief.<

 

I believe that TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously your own material is not good enough to bolster your own ideas.

 

I believe that TPM of MST = (Triplex Physical Matrix) of (Massive SpaceTime) would define your opinion, which could be (and likely is) indefensible as scientifically verifiable fact. What you describe is a call to anarchy, not science.

And that would be where you fall on your face, for it is defensible. The fact you cannot speak the language of mathematics does not mean it is indefensible. Tensors are higher dimensional concepts which are not amenable to simple language as you like to use. Yes, that's right, you the guy who complains that I am not objective about higher dimensionality. Your ideas of higher dimensionality cannot be described accurately without tensors. But I'd love to see you try.

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

 

Round two!

 

Jimpet dives in and rips a piece of flesh from RMT.

 

The crowd collectively … 'ooooowwwws!'

 

'Did you see that?' Yells Nitescott to Creedo,

 

'See what?' Replies Creedo, … 'My dog has squeezed out of my bun! Give me a hand buddy; I was really enjoying that dog!'

 

Nitscott was now aware that Creedo hates violence in sporting frameworks.

 

'Hmmm' … he thinks

 

"I aint taken dat sheet from you Jimpet!"

 

Screams Rainman as he pounds him to the floor!

 

spacer.png

 

 

"Captain's log, stardate 41358.2. I am nailed to the hull." J.L.Picard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...