Double Helix

Tot you said no more posting?

From the very beginning I’ve told you already the argument is on the length of travel, distance, not “near” but you consistently disagree with this. How can we be discussing what is near and far if your definition and mine differs so much? My 180 is created by you when you deemed that I am using perception as definition. Twisted facts. What I am trying to prove in my relativity of near is just to refute your insistence of me saying yes to your question. The conclusion that I made in there which you did not care to notice;

"Therefore my answer to you that day holds no water to supports not your “watevar theory” of the argument we are having now."

Never once did I state that I did not agree with you on that day. And when I did say that I’ve agreed on the “near” of yours, again here you’re implying that I am agree to your statement as a full and bring in a conclusion which suits your own.

You’ve also been using the “near” to build your argument. While rejecting my notion of using range to define “near”, you set upon using perception as a tool of judgement.

The supposed Aaron’s theory which is not his, it’s totally mine and I’ve know of the actuality but for joke purposes did I infer it that way.