The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Katman]

Just like there are those that laugh at children who think they see faces in the clouds....

Did you watch the video?

[TheDemonLord]

Did you watch the video?

And that sailed over your head, like a cloud in the sky

[Katman]

And that sailed over your head, like a cloud in the sky

But did you watch the video?

[Banditbandit]

Correct me if wrong, I think that's just a map of the tusumami wave.
Notice the "cm" scale on the right.

Yes - you are right. This site makes that clear (the site I found it on was wrong)

This also shows how far the pollution has spread

https://climateviewer.com/2013/10/22...pacific-ocean/

[Woodman]

And yet there will still be many on here that will view all those events as nothing more than unconnected coincidences instead of a carefully choreographed series of events.

Are they a series of unconnected coincidences? and have you proof* that they are not?

*proof not to be confused with opinion.

[TheDemonLord]

But did you watch the video?

Why do you ask?

What did I say that had any reference to the Video?

[Katman]

Why do you ask?

What did I say that had any reference to the Video?

I assumed that the inference of your post was likening those who saw everything as unconnected coincidences to the adults in your 'analogy', and likening those who saw them as a series of carefully choreographed events to the children who saw faces in clouds.

Feel free to correct me if that wasn't what you meant.

[TheDemonLord]

I assumed that the inference of your post was likening those who saw everything as unconnected coincidences to the adults in your 'analogy', and likening those who saw them as a series of carefully choreographed events to the children who saw faces in clouds.

Feel free to correct me if that wasn't what you meant.

You were so close and then you took a sharp u-turn and missed it entirely.

[Katman]

You were so close and then you took a sharp u-turn and missed it entirely.

Well in the absence of an explanation I'll just have to conclude there wasn't actually any point to your post.

[Banditbandit]

Well in the absence of an explanation I'll just have to conclude there wasn't actually any point to your post.

Are you suggesting this thread is moved to the pink zone?

[TheDemonLord]

Well in the absence of an explanation I'll just have to conclude there wasn't actually any point to your post.

It's hilarious - you can see Patterns of global conspiracy, but you can't see an inferred reference to the Human ability for Pattern Recognition and its development from Children to Adults.


Maybe you'd understand if it was posted on one of your Conspiracy sites or in a Youtube Video....

[Katman]

It's hilarious - you can see Patterns of global conspiracy, but you can't see an inferred reference to the Human ability for Pattern Recognition and its development from Children to Adults.

In other words, the point of your post was exactly as I figured.

So, did you watch the video?

[Banditbandit]

It's hilarious - you can see Patterns of global conspiracy, but you can't see an inferred reference to the Human ability for Pattern Recognition and its development from Children to Adults.

The human propensity for pattern recognition has been suggested as one of the beginnings of religion - we see faces in the landscape - and propose the existence of "other" beings ..

[TheDemonLord]

In other words, the point of your post was exactly as I figured.

I did say you were close, did I not - but then you missed the most important point - not only was I implying that most people grow out of this (which you got) - but also the deeper meaning about being wary of seeing patterns in randomised datapoints where no patterns may actually exist.

So, did you watch the video?

No - again, I thought this was obvious - since I neither referenced the video or made any mention of it.

[Katman]

I did say you were close, did I not - but then you missed the most important point - not only was I implying that most people grow out of this (which you got) - but also the deeper meaning about being wary of seeing patterns in randomised datapoints where no patterns may actually exist.

Well you're wrong - again.

If your only intention was to point out the idea of seeing patterns in random occurrences there was no need for the bit about 'adults who laugh at them'.

The only reason for the inclusion of that bit was your inference that anyone who sees events as part of a carefully choreographed plan is to be likened to a child while those who see everything as a totally random series of coincidental events is likened to an adult.

Hence why I asked - have you watched the video?

The fact that you haven't watched it means you're still happy to present your arguments from a position of ignorance.

Well done you.