Viviane

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 4,484 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Viviane

• 
  29

  Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.

  to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.

  metatron.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I allow for the benefit of the doubt until their work is disproved.

  Why? Would you do the same with someone predicting the end of the world, claiming they really honestly scout's honor decoded the date this time? Why would you wait for something this lacking in evidence to be disproved when it's in no way been proved?

  Did I, or anybody for that matter, use the word "conclusive?" I think you are first and only poster to use the word in this thread.

  You are 100% correct. Consider my question changed to "why do you consider this legitimate?". It's a distinction without a difference. Given the lack of details and evidence, why do you consider this legitimate, particualy considering all of the competing claims out there? Why does which word I mean make a difference here?

  Read the article through for their modus operandi.

  You shouldn't assume I didn't read the article. It could possibly be where my questions came from. I know, crazy, right, to read the subject matter before developing questions?
• 
  29

  Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.

  to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.

  metatron.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  That's my question. Without those details and verification by other scientists, what makes you say this is conclusive?
• 
  29

  Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.

  to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.

  metatron.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Ok, but how does *this* seem conclusive?

  1) Shawl of unknown origin

  2) Armchair detective manages to predict how all of this will turn out

  3) No idea how the DNA was extracted, how the descendants DNA was obtained, the quality of the sample or even what type of DNA was involved

  4) No published results for others to test and replicate

  5) Crytpic messages that leaves convenient clues

  6) This was in the Daily Mail
• 
  29

  Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.

  to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.

  metatron.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  How does this seem conclusive?
• 
  29

  Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/jack-ripper-unmasked-how-amateur-sleuth-used-dna-breakthrough-identify-britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html.

  to be accepted as fact, these claims will have to be replicated.

  metatron.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Absolutely. This story is one impossible chance and stroke of luck after another after an armchair detective had to vision to see that this all might work, after every one else missed it. It's even got cryptic clues and foreshadowing. Seems totes legit.
• 
  59

  Want to make Money $ with a Web Site?

  by sarahsmile in

  1. forum
  2. announcements

  has anyone had success with a high traffic website or blog ?.

  it might take a team of people to accomplish.. ads pay and people count, lots and lots of people.

  does jehovahs-witness.net make money every time someone looks at the web site?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Not mine :)
• 
  4

  October 4/5 2014 - Armageddon date!

  by abbasgreta in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my mother has waived her shunning of me as she is seriously ill. her elders have classed the situation as a 'dire family circumstance' and.

  all restrictions have been lifted.

  some crazy hypocritical reasonings on the elder's part but who cares?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  JWs are the master of "Free beer tomorrow" to keep people hanging on.
• 
  59

  Want to make Money $ with a Web Site?

  by sarahsmile in

  1. forum
  2. announcements

  has anyone had success with a high traffic website or blog ?.

  it might take a team of people to accomplish.. ads pay and people count, lots and lots of people.

  does jehovahs-witness.net make money every time someone looks at the web site?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  Here's the reality. Simon maintains a site people want to look at. That costs time and money. Ads are a way to recoup the overhead. If enough people want to look, so much so that he's making money on this rather than just covering expenses, so what?
• 
  5

  Do you have Chromecast?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you do have chromecast, are there any cool apps that you like?

  i was wondering can i get text messages on chromecast?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  I do, i use itnfor Netflix and streaming from a browser, mostly. I also have an Amazon fire TV. It works great.
• 
  32

  Science and Philosephy.- God

  by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.

  the rest is history.

  i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Viviane

  The phrase i said "sub-atomic matter including the original elements," was a list. I was listing the two for the purpose of over-emphasis. I was not trying to say that sub-atomic matter is made up of elements. I should have put a comma between them or just typed elements first to keep from mis-leading.

  As I said, it was wrong.

  Thats a seperate topic from the original statement within the post I said that nothing was false which only referenced the scientific quotes I used with that single post.

  It's extremely relevant. You keep making claims and keep being wrong (and admitting it) and yet try to claim you've not said anything false. At the very least it speaks volumes about your understanding what you're writing.

  I did, all of the elements in the human body can be found in stars whether they are small stars, large stars, or supernovae. I previously said "Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star." You denied it, please tell me which elements viviane, I must be overlooking them.

  But that wasn't your claim. Again, this goes directly to whether or not you understand what you are writing.

  Your specific claim was, in fact "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body", not simply that they can be found in stars. So, the claim that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in the human body is untrue. Stars don't create hydrogen. They are MADE from hydrogen. Hydrogen can be dispersed from stars exploding, but the hydrogen was the thing that formed the star in the first place.