Posted: May 3rd, 2013, 3:25 am
The first one : It looks clean and tidy, but the shade of blue isn't as vibrant as the other one that I mentioned before.
The second one : It looks very simple, and the large writing is good. The shade of blue is better.
If I had to choose I'd say the second one. For me, so far, it's a race between the one that I suggested before and the second one.
I've seen your other site and I like it. Yes I agree with everything you say about those pseudoskeptics. The difference in mindset between those people and normal people, people who are willing to combine "evidence" and intuition, anecdotal evidence, and gut feeling, and just basically have a well rounded method of thinking, and are openminded, is massive. It's like night and day. They're on a completely different wavelength, and it's very hard to get them to understand anything beyond their rigid, left brain thinking. I really don't like those people, they act like such smartasses but their intelligence is limited. There's no way of interacting with them other than to troll them. I used to try and have debates with them but they're impossible, so now I just have a laugh winding them up. They're closedminded about god, conspiracies, spirituality, alternative medicine, and so on and so on. They're completely hopeless. And they're so politically correct. I really don't get on with them at all.
When I was at school there was a kid who played the piano and violin. He was considered to be accomplished, on in a way he certainly was. But I'm a musician too and so was my friend. One day we tried to work with him, and he couldn't do anything unless it was written down in sheet music form. Everything had to be explained to him in a technical way. I thought to myself "sure, he plays instruments and he's technically very good, but that is not a musician". No disrespect to him but that's how it was. It's the same with those so called skeptics. The difference between their perceived intelligence and their actual intelligence is large.
They laugh at David Icke, Alex Jones, Rupert Sheldrake, Graham Hancock, Michael Tsarion, and anyone with another point of view, but those people are proper scientists, researchers, and thinkers. I've watched a few debates between atheists and theists, and although I don't care if people don't believe in god, the arguments that the atheists use are just stupid. Richard Dawkins asks, if there's a creator then who created the creator? What a stupid, juvenile, badly thought out question. Another argument is that if there's a creator, it would have to be infinitely complex in order to be able to create everything, but, as we all know, in nature, things start off simple and evolve to complexity. He's totally missing the point. I can't even be bothered to explain why.
By the way when are you thinking of making the changes to the forum?
The second one : It looks very simple, and the large writing is good. The shade of blue is better.
If I had to choose I'd say the second one. For me, so far, it's a race between the one that I suggested before and the second one.
I've seen your other site and I like it. Yes I agree with everything you say about those pseudoskeptics. The difference in mindset between those people and normal people, people who are willing to combine "evidence" and intuition, anecdotal evidence, and gut feeling, and just basically have a well rounded method of thinking, and are openminded, is massive. It's like night and day. They're on a completely different wavelength, and it's very hard to get them to understand anything beyond their rigid, left brain thinking. I really don't like those people, they act like such smartasses but their intelligence is limited. There's no way of interacting with them other than to troll them. I used to try and have debates with them but they're impossible, so now I just have a laugh winding them up. They're closedminded about god, conspiracies, spirituality, alternative medicine, and so on and so on. They're completely hopeless. And they're so politically correct. I really don't get on with them at all.
When I was at school there was a kid who played the piano and violin. He was considered to be accomplished, on in a way he certainly was. But I'm a musician too and so was my friend. One day we tried to work with him, and he couldn't do anything unless it was written down in sheet music form. Everything had to be explained to him in a technical way. I thought to myself "sure, he plays instruments and he's technically very good, but that is not a musician". No disrespect to him but that's how it was. It's the same with those so called skeptics. The difference between their perceived intelligence and their actual intelligence is large.
They laugh at David Icke, Alex Jones, Rupert Sheldrake, Graham Hancock, Michael Tsarion, and anyone with another point of view, but those people are proper scientists, researchers, and thinkers. I've watched a few debates between atheists and theists, and although I don't care if people don't believe in god, the arguments that the atheists use are just stupid. Richard Dawkins asks, if there's a creator then who created the creator? What a stupid, juvenile, badly thought out question. Another argument is that if there's a creator, it would have to be infinitely complex in order to be able to create everything, but, as we all know, in nature, things start off simple and evolve to complexity. He's totally missing the point. I can't even be bothered to explain why.
By the way when are you thinking of making the changes to the forum?