Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

i'll accept that as another tacit admission that you cannot provide a cogent reply... 

still keeping score chet? that's another loss for omni in case you lost track...

No, that's not your win because I gave you ample set of examples about the differences in approach. As for the concrete cases it's up to you to look for such and I'm not admitting anything in telling you this. That's another example of your flawed thinking -- wishing the imagined to be real.

[WilbyInebriated]

No, that's not your win because I gave you ample set of examples about the differences in approach. As for the concrete cases it's up to you to look for such and I'm not admitting anything in telling you this. That's another example of your flawed thinking -- wishing the imagined to be real.

yes it is my win, and no, you didn't give any examples of a different type of logic being used. which is exactly why it is my win...
your tacit admission has already been accepted. if/when you can show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case, then your tacit admission will be allowed to be withdrawn.

i've repeatedly asked you to show some, ANY evidence of your claim... you cannot, so you refuse.

[Omnibus]

These very serious flaws in thinking, an example of which we see demonstrated by our friend, overwhelming among the representatives of the soft sciences in concert with the dishonesty of the very few competent in the hard sciences make it so that society is conditioned to accept violation of CoE only if it sees a self-sustaining device. Under normal conditions, provided sciences functioned according to the scientific method (a method they only pay lip service to nowadays) violation of CoE would heve been accepted in the mainstream long ago. There are categorical proofs for CoE violation which should already be in the standard literature used in colleges and universities. And what's even worse, the direct practical application of already discovered machines producing excess energy, hasn't yet found its place in the radar screens of the R&D labs, conditioned by the severe suppression of this important finding through propaganda and intimidadation. And, of course, aided by  the deliberately muddled thinking of the scientific part of society, as mentioned.

[Omnibus]

You repeatedly asked me about something I already repeatedly answered. I know you want very much  the win to be yours but it isn't, unfortunately.

[WilbyInebriated]

These very serious flaws in thinking, an example of which we see demonstrated by our friend, overwhelming among the representatives of the soft sciences in concert with the dishonesty of the very few competent in the hard sciences make it so that society is conditioned to accept violation of CoE only if it sees a self-sustaining device. Under normal conditions, provided sciences functioned according to the scientific method (a method they only pay lip service nowadays) violation of CoE would heve been accepted in the mainstream long ago. There are categorical proofs for CoE violation which should already be in the standard literature used in colleges and universities. And what's even worse, the direct practical application of already discovered machines producing excess energy, hasn't yet found its place in the radar screens of the R&D labs, conditioned by the severe suppression of this important finding through propaganda and intimidadation. And, of course, aided by  the deliberately muddled thinking of the scientific part of society, as mentioned.

these very serious flaws in thinking demonstrated in this thread (and others) by omnibus are par for his course. cogent arguments are rarely supplied in rebuttal to another persons point(s) and are instead supplanted by a wild variety of logical fallacies. when called on this, he retreats to his favorite fallacy of all argumentum ad nauseam, where he repeats the same thing over and over till you are sick of hearing it.