No disaster in the scale of that which is seen in the movie 2012, will happen in 2012. The basis of the 2012 mania is some galactic alignment hogwash. As an amateur astronomer, I find all this "doomsday via galactic alignment" eche che a bit of a nuisance, because those who are frightened about it are merely those who are not equipped with adequate information about the reality behind such events. In the meantime, the production company who made this movie will rake in tons of money based on people's fears...sounds familiar? (hears the sound of coins falling on a plate/net on Sunday)
-RODION
Last edited by rodsky; 10-22-2009 at 05:23 PM.
[QUOTE=rodsky;5777391]No disaster in the scale of that which is seen in the movie 2012, will happen in 2012. The basis of the 2012 mania is some galactic alignment hogwash. As an amateur astronomer, I find all this "doomsday via galactic alignment" eche che a bit of a nuisance, because those who are frightened about it are merely those who are not equipped with adequate information about the reality behind such events. In the meantime, the production company who made this movie will rake in tons of money based on people's fears...sounds familiar? (hears the sound of coins falling on a plate/net on Sunday)
-RODION[/QUOTE
Im not sure about the galactic alignment crap, but the floodings, they surely will. Though as I said, not in your time.
I just hope this movie turns out really well. I think it was a genuine move to promote this movie with Adam Lambert.
Let's see now, the last time I checked, my "time" includes the timespan/timeframe between 2009 and 2013. So how can that statement ("not in your time") be logical in the context of this thread, when this thread is indeed talking about an event that is supposed to occur in THAT timeframe (2012)?
Let's examine my statement again:
Why should I be afraid of an event that I know will not happen? By this statement, I'm referring to the catastrophic scenes that you see in that movie of entire shorelines tilting, and etc. So I'm scratching my head here because I can't figure out why the notion of "flooding" was included in my statement.
-RODION
Last edited by rodsky; 10-22-2009 at 05:53 PM.
kita mo sa documentary ani kato kang nostradamus...
kulbaan pd ta dah.....
can wait to watch the movie...![]()
It just means that the "floodings" will not happen sometime in the NEAR future. It may not happen in your as well as my lifetime.
There's still something wrong with your logic there. My statement is in direct response to the title of the thread, because I know that nothing like the scenes in the movie will happen in 2012. You statement, "there's a high probability that it will happen" seems to be saying that something will indeed happen in 2012, yet will happen at a "later" date (not in our lifetimes)? You know what that sounds like? It's like saying "Ok guys, my birthday is actually today but it will happen tomorrow, not today."
Compare the two statements:
Statement 1: "Ok guys, my birthday is actually today but it will happen tomorrow, not today."
Statement 2: "Based on high probability, something will surely happen by 2012, but it will not happen in our lifetimes (not in 2012)."
Parallel.
-RODION
Last edited by rodsky; 10-22-2009 at 06:05 PM.
Now let's get something straight here. You forget that your "environmental" angle is STILL out of context from the vantage point of quoting my post. I mean, just think about it--if you just made your post, expressed your ideas as a standalone, independent remark, about "the environment" do you think I would even have bothered to react to it? This reaction is about YOU using my quote as a springboard.
This whole thing started because you quoted me, but the quote was off-tangent, and no matter how you turn it inside out or upside down, the way you quoted me is still off-tangent, because my post was still within the context of the topic (the movie 2012, which is about the Mayan Calendar/prediction). If you offered this explanation at the moment you quoted me, we could've even avoided this whole dance, but you persisted (I can't even figure out why you don't see the reason why I reacted in the first place). The thing is kasi, you could have just made that comment without using my post as a springboard. By using my post as a springboard, you're coming off as someone making a wise-a$$ remark, at somebody's expense.
Again, para klaro. If you made a post stating your views as an independent post, rather than quoting me, then there would have not been any issue, because it would have been discussing about a totally different issue (i.e your environmental angle), rather than continuing the gist of the topic at hand (2012, the Mayan Calendar, etc.).
Bakit ba ang hihilig ninyo mang-mock ng tao (i.e. "mr. Amateur Astronomer") pag napipikon kayo ha?
-RODION
Last edited by rodsky; 10-22-2009 at 10:13 PM.
Similar Threads |
|