woows you're lying about my quote somehow creating your latest wp disrupt not what i'd call a responsible response either transgressing the boundaries eh shall we deconstruct so to speak the transformitive hermeneutics you've inserted into the lead of causality there is also a significant body of literature on this subject in the sciences including the influential work of bohr who noted that causality was incompatible with the alteration of what is observed by the act of observation itself certainly for descriptions at the atomic and sub atomic level and possibly in other arenas as well wp game lying to readers may be easier but see wp quote general guidelines never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false there is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles bohr typically refers to classical mechanics as causality and he stipulates a fundamental necessity that observations the results of scientific experiment must be described in classical terms the terms of complimentary pairs require different experimental arrangements it's well know that his fundamentalist epistemology lacked merit and although bohr was under no pressure to demonstrate the merits of complimentarity had it genuinely been a new means of scientific description it could have been generalized to the other sciences to which bohr vaguely alluded but never sufficiently elaborated it is of course you who has failed to address the substance of my rejection and it is you who has stepped up from petty lies and wp idht to the use of rhetorical devices as you seem to have learnt from my edit summary are you still beating your wife why is that wp cb i wouldn't want to insult the intelligence of your audience by explaining the absurd but as you're attempting to exploit the opportunity please be advised that cheep wp battleground tactics will be met with extreme ambivalence wp ratsass machine elf