What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?

[Age]

Why are you reacting like this?

How am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?

I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.

you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?

You and I both know that in the English language, when you quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, that's how you express agreement. Remember?

you will have to provide proof of where I have said and written this. If this is what you believe I have done.

Are you able to do this for 'us', readers, here?

Until then my answer is, No.

[Age]

You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.

Special relativity is the theory that if an object is moving, its size appears to the observer to be different from its actual size... It says nothing at all about the nature of physical space...

What do you mean by 'physical space'?

And,

What do you mean by 'space'?

[Flannel Jesus]

How am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?



you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?

You and I both know that in the English language, when you quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, that's how you express agreement. Remember?

you will have to provide proof of where I have said and written this. If this is what you believe I have done.

Are you able to do this for 'us', readers, here?

Until then my answer is, No.

Ah but no means yes, in our stupid retard version of English, so you agree, in the days when this was written. Beautiful.

viewtopic.php?p=716149&hilit=Humorous+o ... on#p716141

[Age]

You and I both know that in the English language, when you quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, that's how you express agreement. Remember?

you will have to provide proof of where I have said and written this. If this is what you believe I have done.

Are you able to do this for 'us', readers, here?

Until then my answer is, No.

Ah but no means yes, in our stupid retard version of English, so you agree, in the days when this was written. Beautiful.

Have you gone absolutely insane here?

What are you even on about here saying and claiming, 'Ah but no mean yes'?

viewtopic.php?p=716149&hilit=Humorous+o ... on#p716141

There is absolutely nothing in there where I, supposedly, 'know' that in the "English" language, when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious and HUMOROUS, then that is how I express agreement. So, what you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' there only 'you know'.

For a while now you seem to have concluded some thing, believed that it is true, and then make comments in reply to what I write, but of which seem to have no actual bearing at all on what I have actually said, and meant, in this forum.

you may well 'believe', in the "english" language, that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not, and as far as I recall have certainly never even implied such a thing as that, let alone ever said nor stated it anywhere. 'I' certainly do not 'know' what you are saying and claiming at all here.

[Flannel Jesus]

you will have to provide proof of where I have said and written this. If this is what you believe I have done.

Are you able to do this for 'us', readers, here?

Until then my answer is, No.

Ah but no means yes, in our stupid retard version of English, so you agree, in the days when this was written. Beautiful.

Have you gone absolutely insane here?

What are you even on about here saying and claiming, 'Ah but no mean yes'?

viewtopic.php?p=716149&hilit=Humorous+o ... on#p716141

There is absolutely nothing in there where I, supposedly, 'know' that in the "English" language, when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious and HUMOROUS, then that is how I express agreement. So, what you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' there only 'you know'.

For a while now you seem to have concluded some thing, believed that it is true, and then make comments in reply to what I write, but of which seem to have no actual bearing at all on what I have actually said, and meant, in this forum.

you may well 'believe', in the "english" language, that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not, and as far as I recall have certainly never even implied such a thing as that, let alone ever said nor stated it anywhere. 'I' certainly do not 'know' what you are saying and claiming at all here.

Hilarious that you would say all this idiotic bullshit, in the days when this was written

You quoted me, you said what I said was humourous, and then you said "but I'm just agreeing with you", dimwit.

[Age]

Ah but no means yes, in our stupid retard version of English, so you agree, in the days when this was written. Beautiful.

Have you gone absolutely insane here?

What are you even on about here saying and claiming, 'Ah but no mean yes'?

viewtopic.php?p=716149&hilit=Humorous+o ... on#p716141

There is absolutely nothing in there where I, supposedly, 'know' that in the "English" language, when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious and HUMOROUS, then that is how I express agreement. So, what you are 'looking at' and 'seeing' there only 'you know'.

For a while now you seem to have concluded some thing, believed that it is true, and then make comments in reply to what I write, but of which seem to have no actual bearing at all on what I have actually said, and meant, in this forum.

you may well 'believe', in the "english" language, that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not, and as far as I recall have certainly never even implied such a thing as that, let alone ever said nor stated it anywhere. 'I' certainly do not 'know' what you are saying and claiming at all here.

Hilarious that you would say all this idiotic bullshit, in the days when this was written

You quoted me, you said what I said was humourous, and then you said "but I'm just agreeing with you", dimwit.

Firstly, I did not say and write what you just said and claimed I did.

Secondly, copy and paste the exact words that I used, and in the exact context in which I said 'that', or link 'us' to the exact one post where I said and wrote what I did, and then 'we' will be able to 'look at' and 'see' if 'you' have understood what I actually meant, or not.

Also, just because I, might have, said and wrote that what you said was humorous, and then said and wrote, but I am just agreeing with you', this in absolutely no way at all means that 'this' applies for ever situation forever more.

Just maybe it was in just one, and only one, situation only.

But, 'we' will never know until you provide the exact words, in the exact context.

Why even made you begin to even just start to assume, and believe, what you have here, now?

Also, how many sentences, or posts, were there between what I, supposedly, first said above, and, what I, supposedly, said, 'after'?

After all there could have been a 'whole other thread' even within the 'and then' part.

Furthermore, if you 'now' want to say and claim that there was so-called 'bullshit' in absolutely any thing that I have said here, or anywhere else, then be brave enough to highlight the exact part, AND, explain how and/or why 'it' appears as, or is, what you call 'bullshit'.

Otherwise, if, and when, you saying some thing is 'bullshit', then that rests on absolutely nothing at all other than 'you', alone.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's all on that same page of the thread. Read our exchanges up to where you said "I just agreed with you."

[Age]

It's all on that same page of the thread. Read our exchanges up to where you said "I just agreed with you."

So, either you are absolutely incapable of just linking 'us' to the exact post, you are absolutely incapable of just copying or pasting, you are too afraid and scared to do so, because you 'know' what will eventuate or for some other reason, you do not want to come across as a liar, or hypocrite, of there is some other reason why you will not prove what you say and claim is true.

[Age]

It's all on that same page of the thread. Read our exchanges up to where you said "I just agreed with you."

There is absolutely nothing in this whole Universe that even remotely shows nor concludes that when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous means that that is how I express agreement.

And, there is certainly nothing at all in that link that would even suggest so. There is absolutely nothing that even closely suggests what you imagine and believe here.

There never has been and never will be.

What 'you' actually 'read' and 'saw', to make you then 'comprehend' what you have here, 'I' do not know.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's all on that same page of the thread. Read our exchanges up to where you said "I just agreed with you."

There is absolutely nothing in this whole Universe that even remotely shows nor concludes that when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous means that that is how I express agreement.

And, there is certainly nothing at all in that link that would even suggest so. There is absolutely nothing that even closely suggests what you imagine and believe here.

There never has been and never will be.

What 'you' actually 'read' and 'saw', to make you then 'comprehend' what you have here, 'I' do not know.

You quoted me, said what I said was humourous, and then said you were just agreeing with me.

If you apologize for doing that, and promise never to do it again, and keep that promise, I will stop doing it to you.

Until then, you and I have a shared retard language where quoting someone and saying what they said is humorous is a reasonable thing to do to express agreement. Nobody knows this retard language but us, me and you, two retards.

[Age]

It's all on that same page of the thread. Read our exchanges up to where you said "I just agreed with you."

There is absolutely nothing in this whole Universe that even remotely shows nor concludes that when I quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous means that that is how I express agreement.

And, there is certainly nothing at all in that link that would even suggest so. There is absolutely nothing that even closely suggests what you imagine and believe here.

There never has been and never will be.

What 'you' actually 'read' and 'saw', to make you then 'comprehend' what you have here, 'I' do not know.

You quoted me, said what I said was humourous, and then said you were just agreeing with me.

Why will you not show 'us' what was actually said, and written?

Could you have taken what I actually said, and meant, out of context, or misinterpreted 'it' in any way? Or, is this not possible, to you?

If you apologize for doing that, and promise never to do it again, and keep that promise, I will stop doing it to you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Are you joking here?

Also, I could not care one iota what you do, or keep doing, here. And, especially in regards to 'me'.

And, were 'you' somehow 'hurt' or 'upset' here from what appears to be what you have just Wrongly imagined I was saying, and meaning?

Until then, you and I have a shared retard language where quoting someone and saying what they said is humorous is a reasonable thing to do to express agreement.

Once again your imagination and belief here appears to be so absurdly Wrong. And, the fact that you will not 'show us' what was, actually and exactly, said and written could be inferred as you have realized where, when, and how you have 'read' and 'interpreted' completely and utterly Inaccurately and Incorrect here.

Nobody knows this retard language but us, me and you, two retards.

Once more, you may well 'believe' that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not.

Just so it is absolutely clear; I do not agree with you here.

What you are saying and claiming here is all of your own making, alone, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have actually said, wrote, and meant here.

[Flannel Jesus]

I appreciate your humorous expression of agreement, fellow retard.

[Iwannaplato]

Why will you not show 'us' what was actually said, and written?

He did that, quite a while ago.

Could you have taken what I actually said, and meant, out of context, or misinterpreted 'it' in any way? Or, is this not possible, to you?

If you actually responded by giving information when he (and others in situations like this) did quote it directly, showed you, then this kind of non-response would look even stupider. You lack of memory is really rather convenient. You're asking stupid questions like this, again and again, to people who know they can make mistakes and have said so, is toxic behavior on your part. It implies things without taking any responsibility for asserting them openly. In English at the time this is being written. That is, in the era in which you conveniently cluelessly live.

If you apologize for doing that, and promise never to do it again, and keep that promise, I will stop doing it to you.

Are you joking here?

Also, I could not care one iota what you do, or keep doing, here. And, especially in regards to 'me'.

It is easy to lie about what one is feeling on the internet.

And, were 'you' somehow 'hurt' or 'upset' here from what appears to be what you have just Wrongly imagined I was saying, and meaning?

Again implying things that need not be brought up. Typical narcissist behavior. If you are a narcissist... who knows? But this couching such things in questions is typical covert narcissist behavior at the time this is being written.

Until then, you and I have a shared retard language where quoting someone and saying what they said is humorous is a reasonable thing to do to express agreement.

Once again your imagination and belief here appears to be so absurdly Wrong. And, the fact that you will not 'show us' what was, actually and exactly, said and written could be inferred as you have realized where, when, and how you have 'read' and 'interpreted' completely and utterly Inaccurately and Incorrect here.

At the time this is being written writing 'I disagree,' handles such assertions quite well. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Nobody knows this retard language but us, me and you, two retards.

Once more, you may well 'believe' that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not.

¨But of course that was what you said you had done. He didn't simply interpret you saying that as meaning that...you explained that that was all you were doing. And he quoted all this. He did that work already.

Just so it is absolutely clear; I do not agree with you here.

What you are saying and claiming here is all of your own making, alone, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have actually said, wrote, and meant here.

No, it was an excellent telling you what you asserted earlier a past that you, as usual and conveniently, cannot remember.

The only substance in this post is 'I do not agree with you'. But writing all this junk and repetitive, overblown ways of lolling and saying that, might produce more text from him. More text you can ask him 'is is possible that your interpretation.......' and other idiotic questions and more things you can imply your poor sophomoric taken one course in psychology ad homs regarding, rather than actually asserting them.

And my best guess is that you actually have no idea you are doing these things. I would guess that there are doubts at the edge of conscious that you choose to ignore, cognitive dissonance and the like, and you are certainly responsible for all the convenient and toxic implications and assumptions you make about people. However, what makes this perhaps more tragic, for you, is that you can manage to be generally honest when you deny all sorts of obvious things people point out to you.

And this is a little negative miracle and an important one we deal with in other people quite frequently.

So, thank you for unintentionally giving us lessons that we can use in other places in our lives.

This post was not necessarily intended to have Age or 'age' or **age** or Ken or anyone posting under Age as the target audience, primarily because whereof the will not look and feel, he remains silent.

[Age]

Why will you not show 'us' what was actually said, and written?

He did that, quite a while ago.

you are Correct.

I apologize profusely "flannel jesus".

Instead, why do you not show 'us' only the actual couple of sentences that you are referring to, exactly?

Could you have taken what I actually said, and meant, out of context, or misinterpreted 'it' in any way? Or, is this not possible, to you?

If you actually responded by giving information when he (and others in situations like this) did quote it directly, showed you, then this kind of non-response would look even stupider.

I have, already, informed "flannel jesus" that there is absolutely nothing in what it supplied and provided that is even remotely close to what it saying and claiming here.

You lack of memory is really rather convenient.

Now, what are you on about, exactly, here?

You're asking stupid questions like this, again and again, to people who know they can make mistakes and have said so, is toxic behavior on your part.

And, once again, I have informed you, again and again, that what you see and class as 'toxic' , others do not.

It implies things without taking any responsibility for asserting them openly. In English at the time this is being written. That is, in the era in which you conveniently cluelessly live.

But, 'it' does not imply any such thing at all. Although, and of course, you can infer absolutely any thing of your choosing. Which, again, will be influenced by your already obtained and 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions.

If you apologize for doing that, and promise never to do it again, and keep that promise, I will stop doing it to you.

Are you joking here?

Also, I could not care one iota what you do, or keep doing, here. And, especially in regards to 'me'.

It is easy to lie about what one is feeling on the internet.

LOL you could not be more CLOSED here, even if you wanted to be.

However, you maybe somewhat correct here "iwannaplato". It could be easier to lie about the feelings within one on the internet. But, if you laughingly think or believe that I am lying here, then you are being absolute STUPID here.

And, were 'you' somehow 'hurt' or 'upset' here from what appears to be what you have just Wrongly imagined I was saying, and meaning?

Again implying things that need not be brought up. Typical narcissist behavior. If you are a narcissist... who knows? But this couching such things in questions is typical covert narcissist behavior at the time this is being written.

LOL I am not 'implying' any thing here. I am telling "flannel jesus" that its claim that when I quote you posters here and say what they say is humorous means that I am agreeing with them is an absolutely Wrong misinterpretation made up by "flannel jesus" and believed by "flannel jesus".

Until then, you and I have a shared retard language where quoting someone and saying what they said is humorous is a reasonable thing to do to express agreement.

Once again your imagination and belief here appears to be so absurdly Wrong. And, the fact that you will not 'show us' what was, actually and exactly, said and written could be inferred as you have realized where, when, and how you have 'read' and 'interpreted' completely and utterly Inaccurately and Incorrect here.

At the time this is being written writing 'I disagree,' handles such assertions quite well. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

But, there is no use saying, 'I disagree', to one who believes that 'no' equates to 'yes' and who believes that it uses and speaks so-called 'retard language'.

Nobody knows this retard language but us, me and you, two retards.

Once more, you may well 'believe' that when 'you', (or 'I'), quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, then that is how 'you', (or 'I'), express agreement. But, 'I' certainly do not.

¨But of course that was what you said you had done.

I have never ever even remotely said nor implied absolutely any thing close to 'this'.

And, if you want to 'disagree', then you provide what I have actually said, meant, and done 'that'.

If you do not, then why not?

He didn't simply interpret you saying that as meaning that...you explained that that was all you were doing.

And, show 'us', EXACTLY, what you 'interpret' I, supposedly, explained that 'that' was all I was doing.

See, if you can be brave enough and able to, this time, to show the readers what 'your interpretation' is of what 'that' was, exactly, that I was all I was, supposedly, doing.

And he quoted all this. He did that work already.

And, once again, for the DEAF and BLIND as you seem to be, absolutely, I have, already, informed "flannel jesus" that there is absolutely nothing in all of what it quoted that 'says' what it claims I have said and meant.

I wonder how many more times you will need to be told of 'this' before you will comprehend and understand 'this'.

Just maybe if you were not so CLOSED, then you would have seen 'this' before.

Just so it is absolutely clear; I do not agree with you here.

What you are saying and claiming here is all of your own making, alone, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any thing that I have actually said, wrote, and meant here.

No, it was an excellent telling you what you asserted earlier a past that you, as usual and conveniently, cannot remember.

you, really, have been absolutely BLINDED and DEAFENED by your own made up BELIEFS here "iwannaplato".

And, you will prove this irrefutably True, by you also not being able to provide absolutely any thing at all to back up and support 'your belief' here.

ONCE AGAIN for the DEAF here. I have never ever said, claimed, nor meant that just because I quote someone and say how what they say is hilarious, or humorous, and that 'this', in and of itself, means that I am in agreement with them.

If absolutely any one believes I have, then they are proving to be absolute IMBECILES. And, the Fact that the two who believe things here, that is; "iwannaplato" and "flannel jesus" have both not provided any actual thing that proves them Right and me Wrong just shows how much more IMBECILIC these two are being here.

The only substance in this post is 'I do not agree with you'. But writing all this junk and repetitive, overblown ways of lolling and saying that, might produce more text from him. More text you can ask him 'is is possible that your interpretation.......' and other idiotic questions and more things you can imply your poor sophomoric taken one course in psychology ad homs regarding, rather than actually asserting them.

Now, here is a prime example of, 'writing all this junk and repetitive, overblown ways of lolling and saying that, might produce more text from him. More text you can ask him 'is is possible that your interpretation.......' and other idiotic questions and more things you can imply your poor sophomoric taken one course in psychology ad homs regarding, rather than actually asserting them', itself.

I copied and pasted what you actually said and wrote here "iwannaplato", just so you might read this again. Just so how you can 'see' how self-claimed "english teachers" write, and speak.

Also, what you might also 'see' here is 'projection', itself.

And my best guess is that you actually have no idea you are doing these things.

Once again, you allude to some 'thing', but never actually say 'it'.

Are you aware that one could also say that their 'best guess is that you actually have no idea you are doing these things', as well?

I would guess that there are doubts at the edge of conscious that you choose to ignore, cognitive dissonance and the like, and you are certainly responsible for all the convenient and toxic implications and assumptions you make about people. However, what makes this perhaps more tragic, for you, is that you can manage to be generally honest when you deny all sorts of obvious things people point out to you.

And this is a little negative miracle and an important one we deal with in other people quite frequently.

So, thank you for unintentionally giving us lessons that we can use in other places in our lives.

This post was not necessarily intended to have Age or 'age' or **age** or Ken or anyone posting under Age as the target audience, primarily because whereof the will not look and feel, he remains silent.

Are you aware that for a so-called "english teacher" you write very clumsily, and with no other intended purpose than to just try to put 'the other' down?

Which, for one being a so-called "teacher", is very contradictory and very hypocritical. And, this is without even going into all of the inconsistencies that you have expressed here.

[accelafine]

Are you aware that for a so-called "english teacher" you write very clumsily, and with no other intended purpose than to just try to put 'the other' down?

Which, for one being a so-called "teacher", is very contradictory and very hypocritical. And, this is without even going into all of the inconsistencies that you have expressed here.

He's an English teacher? That's terrifying but also not surprising. He can't write for crap.