Now reading (The Book Thread)

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by Avatar, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Your ISBN # is bogus. Amazon site in Canada and the US does not work. Oh it does as an accounting text in Canada.

    Anyway in my book it is page 19.

    So your point ?

    By the way; take a GOOD HARD READ , read ; as in read the full context ; of the final paragraph; over and over again ; until you get Graham's point.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Reissue copy


    Obviously


    No I didn't lie ; read the context that surrounds " spaceships " ; or is that to hard for you ?

    You are miss leading ; deliberately; consciously; Graham's thinking and point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    So what?
    You claimed that the ISBN was bogus - that's clearly not the case.

    Then you should have said that first, rather than "nothing about aliens" and "Where are you getting this nonsense?".

    Yet there IS mention of "spaceships and the like".
     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    The number is clearly not from the original book.

    Sure

    But Graham doesn't go along with this theory at all ; His thinking ; pushes this aside. And looks at an advanced beings which were Human.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  9. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    What nonsense?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    "Clearly not from the original book" isn't the same as "bogus".
    Right, the one I gave isn't from the original book.
    Yet what do we find?
    The number you gave:
    9780385258289
    Displaying page 1 of 1
    And
    the number I gave:
    0-517-88729-0
    Displaying page 1 of 1
    (Numbers checked here).
    But, obviously, a book printed TWO YEARS EARLIER than the one you're using is "less original".


    Beside the point: they're in the book and that's what James remembered.

    Yup, he rejects one set of drivel and makes up his own.

    Um, I was quoting you. Post #565.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    How would you know what Graham is talking about ?
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    Because I own the book and have read it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How clever of you to ignore the rest of my post... I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything different.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    I see ; you have read the book ; good ; care to discuss any part of the book you disagree with?
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    Because that's easier than discussing the fact you've made sh*t up and posted it as fact?
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Or because it's easier for you ; dywddyr; to harp on and on about what was not made up. By me .

    The context in which your claims are surrounded by makes your claims nit-picky to say the least.

    So if it makes you feel better ; continue

    I hope however we could just discuss this book ; in all its pages ; or those you; dywdyr; want to discuss.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2016
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    So my ISBN being bogus was NOT made up by you?
    The ISBN that I gave referred to a book that isn't the "original" (despite being published two years earlier than the one you have)?
    Etc...
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Two years later; yours is 1996 ; mine is 1995

    Well what can I say ; put the ISBN# through Chapters and Amazon ; you get what I said before. What can I say other than what I said.
     
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    So when dywddr ; can we move on and discuss the context of the book ?
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    Actually no: as post # 607 shows.
    While the CONTENT of your book may well have been published FIRST in 1995 the EDITION (or printing) of the book itself wasn't done until '98.
    And, as I also stated in the post where I first gave quotes, mine also claims 1995 for the content.
    PS: 1995-1996 is one year.

    For a start you could admit that made up the statement about mine not being "the original".
    And also admit that you checked only two sources and gave up as soon as they confirmed your mistaken view.
    Amazon.com gives this, Amazon Canada (contrary to your claim) gives this.

    Not the thread for it, and I see no reason to discuss anything with a demonstrated liar.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    You know dud; whoops ; dywyddyr ; that in the end we will get to the book content.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Really? Typical arrogant brashness.
    Perhaps if you had the courage to admit you were wrong?
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,534
    No point.
    Every time we have engaged in a discussion about what is written in a book (of this ilk) that we've both read you have
    A) shown that you've failed to bother checking its veracity,
    B) seriously misunderstand large portions of it,
    C) and argued in the face of "facts" given in the book that your interpretation is the correct one.
    D) failed to read around the subject (i.e. all you "know" is what is in that book, and have no idea of the larger picture of even woo topics).
    You have persistently taken the attitude that science is wrong and that anyone who "bucks the trend" is automatically 100% reliable and 100% correct (within your personal misunderstanding of the text).
     
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Give examples from A to D

    Science is wrong ? Depends on the Science; and the science presented perspective.

    I will disagree where I think it is warranted ; now if I disagree where I disagree ; that is science ; exploring ideas .
     

Share This Page