is it time?

Dee

@maxx

*****

up to you. 

No it’s not you , you made an accusation and you cannot prove it 

****anyone can see it is of the same work including the admin of this site. 

Prove it then , you haven’t a clue you honestly believed Kant uttered these words 

***** im not going to read 2 books to find one passage, 

But how do you know the words are there then? Caught again?

*****it is the same author@D

You keep saying , tell you what why not prove it the admin know you’re a compulsive  

Dee

@John_C_87

Maxx is a compulsive if the piece I posted is from Kant between the two of you’s prove it?

Dee

@John_C_87

I haven’t questioned general relativity, you totally misunderstand my piece ,why’s that? 

Dee

@maxx

****** however one can easily go online and  type in what kant says about time and space and metaphysics  it was written by him and anyone with a bit of knowledge of reading the similarities of an author can see this

Prove it then seeing as it’s easy? You’ve never read Kant you probably thought Kant was a was a type of vegetable 

Dee

@John_C_87

Meaning the subject is too deep for you 

Dee

@John_C_87 ;

Don't explain yourself, tell what s not being told to you

maxx

I just showed you .  you cant even say you are wrong when you are.  do we need an referee? if I could find where to report you on this site I would and I will as soon as I can.  anyone who reads kant and then reads what you posted; saying that you wrote it, will  know you are a .  why do you not own up to it for eventually I will find the passage and then what a fool yu will be made to be.  if it is not kant, then it is in the similar era for ive read plenty of that stuff, and what you posted was not yours.  
@Dee

John_C_87

Dee What is not told to, I. 

The meaning of the subject proposition is shallow, vast. Similarity is members moving always after the energy of movement takes place with number that third quantity or greater movement is called answer. You are stating fact of numbers that do not move answer yet still relocate resource to keep numbers as the proposition anyway.  Vast shallow is noting but not depth being vastly spread thinner.  (n 1 n ) when, (n < >n), or (n = n).

Dee

@maxx

**** I just showed you .  

You didn’t , you posted up one of Kants books and cannot show the page you said I plagarised, why’s that?

****you cant even say you are wrong when you are.

You mean because I exposed you as a ?

***do we need an referee?

Please get several , they will agree that if you think Kant wrote what I posted you’re a complete  

 ****if I could find where to report you on this site I would and I will as soon as I can.

Let me help message Aarong he’s the boss and prove to him what you cannot to me 

  *****anyone who reads kant and then reads what you posted; saying that you wrote it, will  know you are a

Prove it then post the page word for word , you said if one did a google search one would know so prove it?

.  ****why do you not own up to it

Own up to admitting to a piece I wrote ....sure ....I admit I wrote the piece 

****for eventually I will find the passage and then what a fool yu will be made to be. 

Go for it , you said it was easy to do so , so why not do it?

**** if it is not kant, then it is in the similar era for ive read plenty of that stuff,

Ahh right it’s not Kant now Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha ......You’ve never read a book on philosophy in your miserable life 

 ****and what you posted was not yours.  

Prove it?
@Dee

maxx

jhn  I implore you to read a bit of the first chapter of kants book; prolegomena.  just a bit; you can find it easily online;  and then go up to the block post that dee posted and claims are her words  I ask you to give your learned opinion on if they are kants words or dees@John_C_87

maxx

oh do not worry,  it is not your words.  if it is not kants I will find it.  I am sure it is though@Dee

John_C_87

maxx said:

jhn  I implore you to read a bit of the first chapter of kants book; prolegomena.  just a bit; you can find it easily online;  and then go up to the block post that dee posted and claims are her words  I ask you to give your learned opinion on if they are kants words or dees@John_C_87

I did google the post....I will also try to read some of the book...As Dee is using a topic base for generic semantic it is simply just symbolic of an co-operation however.

John_C_87

"You’ve never read a book on philosophy in your miserable life."

And never in any of my enjoyable lives. In any kind of commitment to reincarnation a wait for the philosophical attune with living is denial to a hold of someone else's breath to better understand breath.

"I never understood a single book of philosophy I read."

maxx

basically kant was talking about metaphysics and if it were a true science in which according to him is; which makes no sence in her posting his words out f context because she just didnt understand his wording@John_C_87

Dee

@maxx

*****  they are kants words or dees@John_C_87

They are still mine 

Dee

@maxx ******  ok dee, you've been reported for plagerizing 

Ok Maxx , You’ve been reported for lying. You’ve made a claim and have failed repeatedly to back it up 

*****and ive posted to them both your so called words as well as your claim to it.

Still my words , prove otherwise?

 ***** plus screen shots of kants work compared to what you say you wrote@Dee 

Yet you stated if one put the words into google search it would reveal if it were Kants words , so how come you cannot prove it?

It works for ever single other book so why not the one you propose 

Dee

@maxx

***** basically kant was talking about metaphysics and if it were a true science in which according to him is;

This is hilarious 

***which makes no sence in her posting his words out f context because she just didnt understand his wording

Who is she? Still not Kants words please prove your claim?

Dee

@maxx

YOU'RE REPORTED AGAIN FOR LYING PROVE YOUR CLAIM

maxx

doesn't bother me.  they can find the passage as easy as I can.  anyone ca tell they are not your words.  as well, you simply do not belong on this site.  3/4s of your posts are nothing more than insults. according to the terms of services with this site, "lying" is not listed, although rude insulting behavior and plagiarizing is. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

**** doesnt  bother me.  

Reported again 

*****they can find the passage as easy as I can.  

Yet you still cannot so why don’t you post it?

****anyone ca tell they are not your words.

Prove it 

  *****as well, you simply do not belong on this site.  

You own this site?

****3/4s of your posts are nothing more than insults. 

This all because you do not comprehend a statement I made wow!

****according to the terms of services with this site, "lying" is not listed,

Reported again for calling me a  

 ****although rude insulting behavior and plagiarizing is

Maybe you should stop dong it then 

Dee

@maxx

You will be receiving a warning , for consistently lying 

maxx

Dee said:

@John_C_87

Since knowledge of the objects in space and time is a priori, the architectonic of practical reason can not take account of our a priori knowledge, but practical reason (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) excludes the possibility of our understanding. The thing in itself proves the validity of our faculties, but the discipline of practical reason stands in need of, insomuch as metaphysics relies on our ideas, our experience.We can deduce that the Ideal of pure reason, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory, as will easily be shown in the next section. Our understanding, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori, by means of analytic unity. It is obvious that our experience depends on, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the paralogisms of practical reason. Has it ever been suggested that we can deduce that there is no relation bewteen our judgements and the intelligible objects in space and time?   ((((now JOHN   read the 7th line of that block statement that she claimed she wrote; the part aboiut the author saying how it can easily be explained in the next section.  that is write out of a book)))))))

Dee

@maxx

****

you should read what you pretended to write more carefully, for you are the .  lines 7 and 8. "as we shall see in our next section" 

Our next section is referring to the next section of my piece 

*****this is straight out of someones book  no one will believe you anymore 

It’s not , you’re reported again for making false accusations ....back your claim up 

Dee

@maxx

**** sure   no one will believe you again 

No you mean no one believes you me and others are actually laughing that you think Kant said this 

***this is out of a book. 

It’s not 

 **** god  what a ,

Yes you are 

****  you can hardly chew bubble gum and walk at the same time,

Says a guy who believed they had T V in Atlantis 

****let alone understand kant or Descartes 

Which is why you didn’t get involved in my debate on Descartes as someone told me you asked them wax he a pop singer 

I’ve reported you again

 @Dee

maxx

and as well anyone can tell when something has been copied and pasted,  that is why is shows up in block form and in darker letters. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

I’ve reported you yet again for making false claims

**** and as well anyone can tell when something has been copied and pasted,  that is why is shows up in block form and in darker letters. 

Ha , Ha well prove it then you said a google search would prove you right so do it?

Bet you can’t 

Right so block letters me something is ...plagarised Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

maxx

oh dont worry, im getting close  took snapshots of it and am posting it until someone can find it   as well I can post something so close to it by kant that the resemblance is proof
.  @Dee http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/spacetime.htm  

Dee

@maxx

You’re reported again

**** oh dont worry,

I’m not 

***** getting close  took snapshots of it and am posting it until someone can find it   as well I can post something so close to it by kant that the resemblance is proof

Good luck with that .....reported again 

Dee

@YeshuaBought

**** You don't have the right to report them, because they did nothing wrong. 

He accused me of plagiarism  which is a blatant lie 

****You sure do love to report anyone who calls you on your dishonest agenda.

Prove what I say is dishonest ......you’re reported for making false accusations and trolling 

Dee

@YeshuaBought

I’ve reported you again for trolling .....How can you even claim to be a Christian?

Dee

@YeshuaBought

**** I have the right to freedom of speech,

I agree 

****so you DON'T have the right to report me.

I do have that right especially when you called me dishonest  , you’re now involved in a hate campaign with @maxx I’ve reported you again .....keep it up 

maxx

everyone knows that she didnt right it.  heck go read it for yourself.  its in black block form and was obviously copied and pasted. this was written by kant, or wolff or hobbes or hume or one of the 17 centuary philosophers. there are many of them that wrote upon the same subject at that time.  its just a matter of time and weeded it out.  its on the first page of this post,  go read it. you can easily tell she didnt write it@YeshuaBought

maxx

why dont you just own up to I.  you know you didnt right it. once I or someone finds the passage , are you still going to make that claim?
@Dee

Dee

@maxx

You’re reported again 12 times now .....

**** why dont you just own up to 

Own up to writing it , I keep telling you I did 

****you know you didnt right it. 

You know I did which is why you cannot prove it , post a debate up and try and prove me wrong bet you won’t 

?

***once I or someone finds the passage ,

Bet you never find it because Kant never said it prove me wrong but you can’t 

****are you still going to make that claim?

The claim I wrote it , yet because I did 

maxx

it will be found.  kant, humes, wolff, hobbs and so on.  I can take it to the college and  show it to a professor.  you did not write it. it is not your work. @Dee @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Reported again 


***** it will be found.  kant, humes, wolff, hobbs and so on. 

It won’t as it’s not 

*** I can take it to the college and  show it to a professor.  

Do that ......they will laugh at your stupidity which in fairness is probably a running joke 

****you did not write it. it is not your work.

I did ,it is ....prove otherwise bet you can’t ?



Dee @Dee

maxx

its not your work.  I dont care how many times you report me.  I reported you once for plagerizim . once found out you will lose your account faster than I for stating it. ill find it.  a filthy harpy like you could not produce such a statement.  prove me wrong..  give me another of your so called wonderful works of philosophy about meta-physics.  come on  the world is waiting for you to prove you can do it again.   of course not@Dee

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought ;

reported again that’s 7 times now keep it up 

I have done nothing wrong, i have the right, to freedom, of speech.

Dee

****I have done nothing wrong,

You accused me of dishonesty which you failed to prove ...   You're also involved in a hate campaign by siding with another to wrongfully accuse me .....I'm reporting you again

****I have the right, to freedom, of speech.

I never denied that , you do not have the right to accuse me of dishonesty without proof .....You're an appalling example of a Christian what part of the words of Jesus do you actually follow 

In a months time you will do your usual and say sorry it's always the same with you .... Ricky is a million times a better Christian than you ....,You should hang your head in shame but no doubt will just continue your rabid attacks 

maxx

the more she reports the less admin will listen for they know she is doing it out of hate.  I reported her once.  I will not report her again untll i can show admin enough evidence and then she will lose her account according to the term of serviceYeshuaBought

YeshuaBought

maxx said:

the more she reports the less admin will listen for they know she is doing it out of hate.  I reported her once.  I will not report her again untll i can show admin enough evidence and then she will lose her account according to the term of serviceYeshuaBought

Who me?

Dee

@maxx

The actual subject is too deep for you so you’re sulking , remember you asked was Descartes a rapper?

As Lewis taught us in a classic series of articles, remarkably ahistorical analytic metaphysics always lead to some strong epistemic closure principles 

****the more she reports the less admin will listen for they know she is doing it out of hate.

Lets see about that , prove I plagarised post it up as a debate topic bet you won’t 

***  I reported her once.  

I’ve reported you 15 times now 

****I will not report her again untll i can show admin enough evidence

Yep , exactly what I keep asking for so go on do it 

***and then she will lose her account according to the term of serviceYeshuaBought

I think you will find that it will be you losing your account 

Dee

@YeshuaBought

**** You don't have the right to lie

Prove I plagarised a piece you are falsely accussing  me ......So prove it 

, ****and you don't have the right to make false reports.

I haven’t , I told admin you and @maxx are falsely accussing me ......Prove your claim?

 ****As anyone cam see, you are dishonest,

Again prove your claim .......To listen to a hypocrite judge others is hilarious you ain’t no Christian 

 ****and I have the absolute right to say so. 

No you don’t have the right to spread malicious lies and engage in a hate campaign 

****Who do you think you are?

I know who I am someone asking a pair of haters to simply prove that I plagarised a piece ......why don’t you do it?

maxx

im still waiting dee.  lets see another of your so called post about meta physics on time and space.  in the same genre and style.  go ahead lets see you do it

Dee

@maxx

Reported again 

**** im still waiting dee.

Oh you mean you still haven’t proof of your claims? 

  ****lets see another of your so called post about meta physics on time and space.

Well seeing as you still don’t understand the first one , where your proof?

  ****in the same genre and style.  go ahead lets see you do it

But you still cannot prove your claim why’s that when you said a google search would reveal all?

Dee

@YeshuaBought

You’re reported again 

**** I don't have to prove anything, because I am not making a claim. I never accused you of that. 

You said I was dishonest so  what was I dishonest about 

****I just said that freedom of speech, is a human right. 

And I keep agreeing 

****You are dishonest,

Prove it?

****and acting like a troll,

Yet you’re the one who’s stalking and trolling me 

*****and I will keep saying so, until you knock it off.

Yes knock of your stalking and trolling 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

Youre reported again , you claim I’m dishonest but say  you don’t have to prove it yes you do 

I don't have to prove what is public record, and I have the right to freedom of speech. I have reported you, for being dishonest yet again. i have the absolute right to call you dishonest, and you don't have the right to report my free speech. i will never agree with you, so stop being so dishonest.

Dee

@YeshuaBought

I’ve reported you again , I told Aarong  all about you and your hate campaign and how you and others claim he will do nothing about it as you claimed “ you’re good friends with him” all on the public record 

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

I’ve reported you again , I told Aarong  all about you and your hate campaign and how you and others claim he will do nothing about it as you claimed “ you’re good friends with him” all on the public record 

I have done nothing wrong, and you don't have the right to report me, because I have the right to freedom of speech. I have the absolute right to call you dishonest, because you are, as your public statements, indicate. If you don't stop trolling, i will keep reporting you. I will never agree with you, and will call you dishonest, as long as you keep replying to me, so deal with it.

John_C_87

assume that a person is sent to a planet.  now, using a time machine they also send me,  but 1 year before the other person.  we are both alive  but a year apart in time. does this suggest that the past exists independently of the present? 

Presuming time exists, presuming the machine mentioned is not just a clock, presuming a year is 365 days, and once you and anyone else leave the orbit held by earth, the two people not matter who can not be a year apart. However we know time exist, we do not all know can time be plagiarized? Yes.? Can the metric system be plagiarized? Time is a system of geometry which yields result 00:00:00 having moved to a new location it is upon you to recalibrate time to make the calculation of synchronizing just  how far ahead or behind from anyone else you become
.