i have proof!

[WilbyInebriated]

I, for one, think that, on the contrary, your talk is irrelevant and clutters the thread devoted to discussing a theory. I've already expressed that opinion in several different ways but you're ignoring it and continue with the irrelevances. I'm no advocate of @Tinsel Koala with whom, many are aware, I've had issues in the past. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, it has to be understood that when a theory is being discussed and in the course of that discussion certain inexactless in the terminology is uttered (as is usually the case) that should not divert the discussion into a talk about semantics and memorized definitions but the scientific discourse should rather continue unperturbed along its main course.

i don't care...because your opinion is irrelevant to my issue with tinselkoala. mint?

[Omnibus]

I know, but that's not a discussion. That defies the core essence of a debate.

[WilbyInebriated]

I know, but that's not a discussion. That defies the core essence of a debate.

tu stultus es... you are not necessary for a discussion between tinselkoala and myself.

[Omnibus]

If that's the case, you should leave this discussion dedicated to a theory and should carry on your discussion somewhere else. That's an elementary rule regarding the hygiene of a scientific debate.

[WilbyInebriated]

If that's the case, you should leave this discussion dedicated to a theory and should carry on your discussion somewhere else. That's an elementary rule regarding the hygiene of a scientific debate.

i'm not in a scientific debate you mental midget... i'm correcting tinselkoala's made up definition of coherent. i'm still waiting on his rebuttal. you're the one wandering off on tangents of logical fallacy and semantics. we've been over this son, try and keep up...