98.4.103.219

First User

« I » don't defend ip edits and I don't need advice, as I've been editing for more than a dozen years. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Synchronicity

You promised some sources defending Synchronicity scientific nature, I have found many sources that are opposed and cannot find a reliable apology. 37.47.92.48 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your ignorant comment is mistaken. I never said that Synchronicity was a scientific concept, nor for that matter do I consider the psychoanalysis of Freud and Jung to be science. Stop trolling me because you obviously aren't sophisticated enough to understand that serious thought about things, truth seeking is a larger activity than science proper. The fact that Jung very clearly makes clear that the concept in question is outside of and opposed to causality and therefore outside of science as such appears to be lost on you. I have nothing to apologize for and I have not resisted you imposing your POV on the article, which fact you could have gathered from the above statement. Have at it. What I did allude to were sources that talk about things outside of science proper that form and shape scientific thought but aren't science themselves. This apparently is above your head and I'm not your clerk to find these things and supply them to you. This response is meant to be a class action to supplement the opening statement on this talk page for the many users like you. If I wanted to create an article about Synchronicity with my views I'd do so in my domains. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point, the entire ¶ that was the basis of this activity has been deleted which is an appropriate action imo. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice if you are now using this ip: retain these threads and start a new one indicating your authorship. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

---