They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.
So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t. I’m merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn’t figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they’re wrong.
They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I’m not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is… juvenile.
I’m not “defensive” in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you’re projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.
You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That’s a personal attack.
I did not.
I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.
You’re directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?
I’m merely pointing what the text states.
I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.
I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.
No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.
It does.
You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.
Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t. I’m merely explaining to you what it said, since you couldn’t figure that out yourself.
Please contact the authors of the article if your want to tell them they’re wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.
Reading comprehension, indeed.
The author’s suggestion wasn’t valid and therefore wasn’t a suggestion at all.