If you could go back in time but didn't know what year would you go?

[coachTanthony]

Yes

No

Other ( maybe let me explain in the comments )

see poll ( pass the hand sanitizer )

[hellionthesagereborn]

Having studied history my entire life. . . . . FUCK NO! For almost all of history you where starving to death, and when you where not starving to death you where being murdered for what ever you did have, and when you where not being murdered for what ever you had you where being enslaved, and when you where not being enslaved by individuals you where being conscripted i. e. enslaved by the government, to fight wars or build random shit, and when you where not being conscripted you where dying of disease, and when you where not dying from a disease thats okay the physicians would make sure you died from the treatment for the non fatal disease. FUCK NO!! The past was awful in all respects.

[Guardian45]

Well-said!

[OfDeath]

You need to learn the difference between where and were. Fuck, you're an idiot.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath For most of history their was no set spelling, its completely arbitrary and only exists because it made it easier for use in print medium. In short, your acting like a child over something that is completely irrelevant, its sad that you feel the need to do that in a desperate bid for attention and validation. If being able to spell correctly makes you feel intelligent rather then actually being intelligent fine, but don't take your problems out on me because I do not care and never will.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Guardian45 Thank you!

[OfDeath]

It isn't just incorrect spelling, you're using the wrong word altogether and you did it 6 times. 6!
That is something an elementary school child would be on top of. What is your excuse? You can't blame the same error 6 times in one short paragraph on autocorrect. You are a fraud. I have my doubts that you've ever actually opened a history book in your life.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath Not really. Some of the greatest authors in history misspelled words (and it is a misspelling). Hemingway for instance was notoriously bad at spelling so was F. Scott Fitzgerald and many others. As I said, spelling is arbitrary and meaningless, if it mattered then you would be asking what I wrote rather then bitching that I didn't write it "correctly". Yet my message was understood clearly and effectively so the words did precisely what I needed them to do. Again, your trying to claim that memorization of a random series of symbols is intelligence in an attempt to elevate yourself above others and that is a clear sign of insecurity on your part.

See I'm intelligent and I know it, so I don't need to go to strangers and tell them that they are inferior to me because I am secure in my intellect and my abilities, you however cannot say the same. As for history, I've read historical documents, I study history in my free time and I was reading at a college level when I was in grade school. I read the Iliad when I was eight and spent most of my life studying anthropology and mythology which by extension means I was studying history (as well as just studying it for my own enjoyment). Meanwhile what have you done other then try and insult and belittle complete strangers in a vain attempt to assert your perceived superiority over some one you don't know in a vain attempt to prove that you mattered? If you want to prove your intelligent, it starts with having proper priorities and not being a pedant. If you wish to be wise, it starts with self reflection and humility. Try that first before you start attacking people you don't know simply to try and make yourself feel better about yourself.

[OfDeath]

Make as many excuses as you want, but there is no valid excuse other than mental disability for a grown man who claims to be educated, not to be able to spell at an elementary school level. You obviously haven't learnt the difference between then and than either. Or you're and your. This is very basic stuff. I'm sorry but if you haven't learnt this by now but still embarrassingly claim to be intelligent, you obviously don't have a clue. Your uproarious hypocrisy by asserting that I should engage in self reflection instead of lashing out to "feel better about myself" after responding in the manner you did, doesn't exactly vindicate you either. Quite the opposite. You are an embarrassment to yourself.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath Never claimed to be "educated", I stated, accurately, that I have studied history my entire life. Also again, if other grown men where terrible spellers and considered to be the greatest writers of all time, then I feel like I'm in good company. Your a pedant, you need to validate yourself by criticising others because deep down inside you have nothing of real value.

No study at any point in time has ever suggested spelling equals intelligence, one could argue quite the opposite actually (as memorization and strict adherence to arbitrary rules (almost all of which have many exceptions) is a sign of rigid thinking). the fact that this is all you have to distinguish your self from others is a sign of a marked lack of intellectual ability on your part. If you had true intelligence as you imply with your attack on others, you would simply use that instead of trying to go after some one because of their spelling which again we know has no correlation to intelligence: spellingsociety.org/.../spq84-1image-bulletin.pdf

Regardless, I'm not interested in being insulted by some one I don't know just so they can tell themselves that they are better then me (whom they don't know) so they can fill the void inside themselves. So I'm done with this (what ever this was).

[OfDeath]

Trying to turn the fact I pointed out your glaringly obvious ineptitude into slight on my own intelligence, might tell you useful information about yourself. You have a demonstrated resistance to accepting criticism. You flat out deny your incapacity to emulate even an average elementary school student's ability to use correct grammar is a sign of cognitive malfunction. You even claim having a good memory is a sign of rigid thinking! If you made a minor error here and a rushed oversight there, it wouldn't be a problem and would reflect average ability. However, you repeatedly (6 times!) made a rudimental error in a very short paragraph which tells me you actually don't know any better. Furthermore, the specific error you made 6 times, requires deliberation and is not subject to the pattern of autocorrect. This is further proof of incompetence. Since that, every one of your responses has contained similar errors. These errors are not only spelling mistakes but are also grammatical mistakes. If you have been studying history as long as you say, you would've read a lot. Someone who read that much should've picked up a better understanding of basic grammar skills than what you have. The fact you haven't is a demonstrated inability to retain information and recognise and repeat patterns which are both signs of intelligence.
If you hadn't so emphatically exposed yourself as a complete moron, I wouldn't have said anything. Consider my criticism constructive. If you're offended, it is frankly your own fault. You needed this.

[RACSKC0B]

Fuck it, I want in on this too.
Feel free to point out all of my mistakes, I too won't care. The simple fact that you're policing one user's posts for grammatical errors, and no one else's is highly questionable.
It does suggest that because you've interpreted his claim that he has studied history his entire life, to therefore mean that she feels intellectually superior to anyone is your mistake.
What's more, hellionthesagereborn is absolutely right, about grammar and spelling not being a measure of intellect. Which is why there are no IQ tests that I'm aware of that have even one question pertaining to either.
No IQ test that im aware of has maths equations, or requires you to recall arbitrary dates, or even specific facts to measure one's intellect.
I'm sure you're aware of this though as you have clearly taken most of the common ones, I would guess so you can tell yourself that you scored high on them and agree therefore justified in doing things like this.

[OfDeath]

@RACSKC0B An elementary school level mistake 6 times for a man in his 30s who claims to be "intelligent and know it" followed by a multitude of similar errors in his following responses is questionable to say the least. Especially since he claims to be well read, which if was the case, he should've picked up the basics of grammar. The fact he hasn't done so is telling. This is basic pattern recognition and utilisation which is measured on IQ tests.
You must be new here. Hellionsage is well known on this website for having a superiority complex and people like him need taking down a peg every now and then. He's one of the most truculent and obstinate people on g@g.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath What ever you need to do to validate yourself. I never suggested anything about your intelligence, only your own perceptions of yourself. The fact that your knee jerk reaction is to presume I'm attacking your intelligence shows your insecure about it.

@RACSKC0B Thank you.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath Now your argument might have had merit IF I had argued that I'm smarter then other people (it wouldn't, spelling is still completely irrelevant. In fact studies have shown you can completely misspell words and people will still be able to read them so long as the first part and last part are close enough to the original word), but I didn't. In fact after you attacked me multiple times I simply stated that I know I'm intelligent so I don't need to go around attacking people to try and validate myself as you are doing. That is not the same as me claiming to be smarter then others and gloating about it (I have never done that nor would I, I didn't get intelligent by telling people I was intelligent, I became intelligent by studying and listening to the wisdom and knowledge that other people have to offer because every one knows something I don't, every one is better at something then me (clearly your better at spelling then me, congratulation, if you asked me if I was a good speller I would have told you no, I'm awful at it which is ironic considering how much I read but it is what it is. Your the one who wanted to make things personal and attack me so I can only presume (I think accurately) that its because your insecure about yourself. You feel you have no value so in order to silence that voice you attack others.).

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm truculent (fancy) and just because I have stated you are wrong doesn't mean I'm being obstinate. I am happy to debate because that is how I ensure I am not in an echo chamber, if you do not test ideas out against others you end up holding onto ones that are not correct, so I do debate in order to makes sure I keep my mind sharp and objective.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath As for being obstinate, I've changed my opinions before, lots of times in fact. I was raised christian, became gnostic, then atheist, then finally agnostic. Thats four different opinions that have changed over my life and that is just from my religious views. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I refuse to change my opinion, it means I don't agree with you and perhaps you haven't provided as good an argument as you think (I usually provide scientific papers to back up my claims so clearly I can't be all that obstinate if I'm providing objective data). I'm also more then willing to admit when I have stated something that is incorrect (I've done so multiple times, even when its some one like yourself who believes he is superior to all others, who points it out. Its annoying having to admit being wrong to some one like you who desperately needs to attack others and is everything you claim I am, but I have done it because to me the truth is far more important then my pride).

If I don't agree with you, why do you think that its because I'm just stupid and stubborn and quick to fight people and not that perhaps maybe, just maybe, your the one who was mistaken? Did that ever occur to you, that maybe your the one who is obstinate and refuses to accept when they are wrong? Maybe you didn't provide as good an argument as you think? Of course that never crossed your mind, your ego wouldn't allow you to admit that maybe your not as good as you think you are (ironically, I am paranoid that I may be wrong, hence why in most of my discussions I can and do present multiple scientific papers because I don't trust myself anymore then I trust you (because humans have ego, pride, tribalism, ideological beliefs and personal biases that get in the way of their thinking).).

[OfDeath]

There it is. The predictable dummy spit. You should go see someone because you're on the spectrum for sure.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath Well you didn't answer the question or provide a rebuttal just insults as per usual, that does imply that I have hit the nail on the head and you are just to, to quote you "one of the most truculent and obstinate people on g@g." which is why you cannot admit being in the wrong here (you came to me to insult and belittle me, not the other way around). But again, this is rather meaningless, your ego won't let you admit to your own feelings of inadequacy and so you will never be happy and will always look for some one you think is "beneath you" to insult and belittle (but it will never make you truly happy). So I'm done here.

[OfDeath]

The desperate defence you put up after being criticised is all the argument I need.

[RACSKC0B]

Actually, I am on the spectrum.
I'm in my 40s, I don't read fast, or spell well.
Just the same, I'll do exactly what you're claiming @hellionthesagereborn is doing (so far with no supporting facts, just your misinterpretation of his opinion, regarding a completely fictional scenario, that has never happened, and will not ever happen to anyone ever [please note that at no time have you even tried to dispute any of the things he pointed out as to why going back in time is a bad idea,... because all of the things he mentioned are true, which then does suggest that he has done more then just required reading in high school, and for all intensive purposes has in fact studied history his entire life] yes we get it, you won a spelling bee, and you know what an apostrophe is for, great) as I was saying, you're beneath me, I'm intellectually more gooder then you.

[RACSKC0B]

@OfDeath
Knock knock

[hellionthesagereborn]

@RACSKC0B I have studied it, so much in fact I can even tell you how the romans where convinced if you drink the blood of a gladiator it would cure you of epilepsy, or the fact that another "cure" for various diseases was honeyed people. They would have a person who was already at deaths door and feed him honey which would pull the moisture out of his body and "preserve him" then drench the entire body in honey also to preserve it (also why in some arthurian legends king arthur was covered in honey, to preserve his body) then they would turn them into a candy of sorts and that was suppose to cure people of disease. Another involved fermenting human brains in cow manure. You really have to wonder about what the hell made ancient man think this was a good idea.

Also I don't really know you, but this line right here, " I'm intellectually more gooder then you." directed at a grammer nazi makes you awesome no matter what OfDeath says. (I honestly think he is still pissed at me because I disagreed with him on one of his questions (He acted elitist their too though so I dont feel so bad about it).

[OfDeath]

Lol there's a difference between a "grammar Nazi" and someone pointing out a repeated mistake made because of ignorance, which a native English speaker, well read in history and who completed elementary school should know. So the barb is undeserved to say the least. Pointing out studies that didn't find a correlation between spelling and grammar and intelligence is nothing but special pleading in this context. You're also not accounting for the fact of writing intelligence which if isn't a form of intelligence, it isn't anything. It is true that you wouldn't measure someone's intelligence on their grammatical accuracy anymore than you would measure a brain surgeon's ability to differentiate the amygdala from the cerebellum based on her ability to play the violin. However, in the context of someone who spends as much time reading as you say you do, depressingly basic grammar should come naturally to you unless there's something wrong.

[OfDeath]

To be fair to you, perhaps there is. The indicators that you're on the spectrum are certainly there. I've already pointed out, anyone who hasn't picked up on such rudimentary grammar by their mid 30s who is a native English speaker and had access to adequate education wouldn't exactly be thought of as intelligent but the tautology is only due to your own incomprehension while giving you the benefit of the doubt for just being plain obdurate which is frankly undeserved. The reason for my scepticism is undeniable. As far as your knowledge of history goes, yeah it's ok. However, I did know about the Roman belief that cannibalism could cure epilepsy and I assumed it was common knowledge to be frank. The value and broad range of uses for honey would be part of the same category. It would seem like your alleged expertise in history is more likely to be the result of owning and having read a couple of Ripley's "believe it or not" books. That's still better than not having read them all the same. So, you might be able to pass yourself off as genuinely knowledgeable to some (evidently to people such as RACSKCOB who weren't to know any better), but not to I. As far as bringing up your response to one of my questions in the past goes, if I remember correctly (which I do), you posted some links in support of your opinion which I emphatically refuted with other links which were both more recent and from more reputable sources. Your response was denial, refusal to admit error and it was doubtful that you actually even read my response, given the content of your replies. You followed this up by making a question of your own which called my integrity (unsuccessfully since you were clearly wrong anyway) into question. Everyone should be warned about your uncouth character and you only deserve the same treatment.

[RACSKC0B]

@OfDeath
Knock, knock...

[RACSKC0B]

Please let me tell the knock knock joke.
If you won't do the knock knock joke, then will you please explain the many ways that a "Grammar Nazi" is different?

[OfDeath]

@RACSKC0B Well, a grammar Nazi is someone who ruthlessly calls out the smallest mistake. Things like a "who" instead of a "whom" or a misplaced or lack of an apostrophe to denote ownership or pointing out where there should be a capital letter etc at every opportunity. That's different from pointing out a glaring, repeated, rudimentary error which is not only the wrong spelling but causes it to be the wrong word and the mistake is repeated so many times and couldn't simply be a case of autocorrect that it reveals the person making the mistake doesn't actually know it is a mistake at all. This denotes ignorance which isn't a lack of intelligence of course, but in the context, it does put a question mark on intelligence.

I didn't take you to task of calling out your errors because you were being intentionally facetious to mock me. You knew you were being erroneous and we're doing so to serve a purpose. That's the difference. So, no I'm not a grammar Nazi. Maybe more of a grammar US army reserve. I only come into action when I'm in dire need.

[OfDeath]

were* there you go, that demonstrates my exact point. Autocorrect can cause one or two mistakes but not the same one 6 times followed by similar errors in every response.

[OfDeath]

@RACSKC0B If it's not: knock, knock.. who's there? To. To who? Actually it's to whom, you can tell it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath iS they're a diference betwn a grmmr nAzi and legademate crtcism?

[RACSKC0B]

Wow, and only after like 3 days you found the single most predictable knock knock joke given the conversation, well played.
I really like how you're playing it off, trying to make others infer that you already knew it.

[RACSKC0B]

Oh, and autocorrect will correct mistakes (or rather what it thinks may be mistakes) consistently. So if you misspell a word the same way each time you use that word, autocorrect will replace it with the same word every time.
Although, I don't see what misspelling a, any word (even 6 times) has to do with your argument.
@hellionthesagereborn claimed that he has studied history his whole life, then listed several reasons why traveling back in time would be bad. You've some how interpreted those statements to mean that he was saying he is more intelligent then you. Which prompted you to then point out his spelling, and grammar mistakes.
After @hellionthesagereborn made it clear he was not making any claims about anyone's intelligence, including his own. He then pointed out that spelling, and grammar mistakes weren't a valid measure of intelligence. Then he named several authors that are pretty universally accepted to be exceptional writers, but are known to not be strong spellers, or great with punctuation.
After several rounds of debate about this, it seems we're all in agreement, spelling and grammar aren't a way that anyone measures intelligence. So, if you're not going to offer anything else up to dispute @hellionthesagereborn claim that he never made, I think there's nothing more to be said here.
But if you feel like repeating these same things over and over again, ... well then I don't know how else to tell you, but I think you might be retarded. Sorry for your luck.

[OfDeath]

Of course I knew it. In response to your wall of text, none of my arguments were successfully refuted and you've shown that you haven't even read them.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath No, I just don't think you can read. You never made arguments you just insulted people. When I explained and he explained that what you where saying is wrong, you just flipped out, insulted me again and him, then made the exact same statements ad nauseum. I listed several famous authors who where notoriously bad spellers (Agatha Christie was another one), thus refuting your argument right their. I further went on to state how spelling was not uniform until relatively recently (the mass production of the printing press) thus further proving that spelling is irrelevant. So these are all refutations of your accusation (I wouldn't even call it an argument). So the fact that your ignoring that shows your not particularly intelligent. You are mediocre at best, desperate to try and prove your important not by doing something of worth but by trying to insults and drag others down because deep down inside you know you can't create, you can't build, you can't do anything other then the mundane. Personally I have no issue with that, as they say the world needs ditch diggers as much as anything else an their should be no shame in honest work, but for you, for your raging ego and insecurities, that is probably the worse insult you can have which is why your so desperate to prove that your not mediocre in the most mediocre way possible, by trying to destroy others because you can't build yourself up.

I honestly don't understand why you would choose to live your life that way.

[OfDeath]

If you actually read my answers, you'll find I indeed DID make arrangements and valid argument at that. Arguments which invalidated yours and demonstrated that you were making out of context arguments which did not pertain to the situation. You have done nothing but deny any wrongdoing after clearly having done so and demonstrated severe denial and obduracy. Which isn't surprising since this is what you always do. There is simply no denying that your immense ignorance has been exposed and an ignorance expected of early elementary school children and not adults in their 30s at that. What's more, is you seem to have recruited a friend who is out of his element in regards to the history between you and I and who overlooks the fact the word suggestions on autocorrect are right in front of you. I don't need to repeat my arguments which you deny I made. Go back and read them.

[OfDeath]

*arguments. An actual example of an autocorrect error. I made a typing error and pressed the space bar while trying to rush a response. The result is a word I didn't intend was chosen for me. This is different from the way and the reason your errors were made and actually serves to prove my entire point. Now that I have time, I shall respond properly and if you still don't understand what is going on after this, there is probably something seriously wrong with you. To RACSKCOB, you are out of your element and I shan't respond to you after this. You're like a child who wanders into the room during the middle of a movie with no idea of the backstory and starts blurting out vexing conclusions.

[OfDeath]

Ok. I didn't want to do this but you have brought it upon yourself. I'll write as plainly and simply as I can so you might understand. I shall now explain what has happened here, because you clearly don't understand. You gave a response to the asker's question. I was reading it and mostly agreeing with what you said. However, I noticed that you clearly suffer from an incomprehension of rudimentary grammar. So I offered you some constructive criticism in a very colloquial manner and suggested something you need to learn in order to be taken seriously among more intelligent people who you falsely associate yourself with.

[OfDeath]

In response to this, you pointed out a fact which is contextually impertinent. You argued that until relatively recently, there was no basic, universally recognised orthography in English. In fact, there are still national differences but they don't alter meaning too much. Now, you're probably wondering how that is an irrelevant argument when I was specifically criticising your grammar skills nay lack of. The reason it is irrelevant is because, you didn't just incorrectly spell one word 6 times, but your error resulted in an entirely different word to the one you meant to use - 6 times. I'm surprised I need to point this out, but we're not in the 1500s anymore. Since then, spelling reform has occured and one of the reasons for that reform was so English could become an international auxiliary language. For that language to adequately communicate meaning in a timely and efficient manner, distinction between words like your, you're, then, than, where, were, it's, its, who's, whose etc are important in written English. So by ignorantly dismissing the importance of correct English grammar or in this case, just extremely basic grammar an elementary school child has learnt, you are undermining centuries of effort aimed at efficient communication. By doing so, you are undermining the integrity of an IAL and could potentially contribute to putting it in jeopardy of devolving into other languages. So your complaint that there was no (and arguably still isn't) official English spelling for most of the history of the English language is an irrelevant one, especially since your error resulted in an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning and you repeated this particular category of error in separate incidents for at least 3 different words in your subsequent replies! This demonstrates that you didn't even know you were making mistakes. Mistakes so basic, that it indeed does call your intellectual acuity into question.

[OfDeath]

Another thing you tried to argue was that there were authors who were bad spellers. Once again, this is a contextually irrelevant point and an example of the argumentum ad genius fallacy. None of the authors you mentioned matched your own ineptitude for written English grammar, which you continue to demonstrate in each one of your responses. Therefore, once again, your argument is invalid.

Your next complaint was that spelling skills aren't an indication of intelligence. Which I never contested by the way because there are various categories of intelligence itself. Not to mention the fact those who leant English as a second language couldn't be expected to be steeped in the intricacies of written English grammar. Despite that, there are plenty of people who learnt English as a second language and have better grammar skills than yours. Furthermore, that isn't even the point. The point is that your particular errors were so rudimentary that a child in their first year of highschool might be asked to attend extra classes had their English teacher witnessed them make the same mistakes. Therefore, the fact you haven't learnt such basic grammar skills when you claim to be well read in history, didn't learn English as a second language, have had the better part of 40 years to improve your skills, own a device which suggests the right word right Infront of your face (which you also haven't learnt how to take advantage of) and consistently write English every day of your life, demonstrates an inchoate understanding of very basic English grammar which most English speaking children are expected to have mastered by their teenage years, puts a question mark on your intellectual capabilities. Once again, you have brought the tautology upon yourself.

[OfDeath]

Most recently, you have accused me of being insecure. This is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. I have already observed and illuminated the fact that the manner in which you petulantly attempted to deny wrongdoing after criticism and more importantly your denial that the criticism was warranted at all betrays your intellectual insecurity. The fact remains that you indeed did demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of written English grammar no matter how much special pleading you attempt. So what do I say to your claims that I'm insecure, mediocre, unintelligent and mundane? I say whatever. I don't care what you say because you're wrong and I'm not threatened by attempted ridicule by a proven imbecile. I've never claimed to be intelligent anyway (which can't be said for you). In fact, I always make a point of being the least intelligent person in the room and I make a point of ingratiating people who have something to share in order to learn something I might not have known.

So let's recap what you've done here. You have denied wrongdoing. You have deflected. You have demonstrated insecurity by desperate special pleading. You have demonstrated obduracy. You have failed to recognise successful refutations of your arguments. You have defiantly made no attempt to improve your skills to your own detriment and, most of all, you have been wrong.

[RACSKC0B]

Hahaha he blocked me.
Mission accomplished @ofdeath, you've succeeded, because your definitely the least intelligent person here.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath Your aware that the tu quoquo fallacy is the fallacy of hypocrisy or "you too" right? At no point have I claimed to be insecure or acted in a way that suggests nor have I used that as a logical argument so your wrong on both accounts. You made a statement I then rebutted it pointing to mulitple flaws in your reasoning, you conintued to insult me so I then pointed out that your doing this because your insecure. It wasn't an argument it was an observation nothing more. You have just confirmed it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@OfDeath I really wish I could remember the term, but you are mediocre. You probably have an IQ of 103 or so and this you think makes you better then others but at the same time is so small of a difference as to be completley unnoticeable and meaningless. So your insecure because you think that tiny little difference is suppose to make you better then others but in reality your not and it makes you miserable because after all you think that slight difference in IQ is suppose to elevate you (it doesn't, not even a large difference in IQ elevates you, only actions and how you use it does). So you are here demanding that everyone acknowledge your superiority and when they don't it infuriates you. They treat you like your mediocre because you ARE mediocre and always will be (self inflicted sadly). That is why this drives you insane, this is why your getting angry and blocking people, because they are holding up a mirror to you and showing you for what you truly are and your ego cannot handle that so you flip out and insult, block, and throw temper tantrums. You can't even use logical fallacies correctly (at least look them up before you try to accuse some one of using them, at least then you can say you know what it means even if you did incorrectly apply it (that is quite embarassing, especialy since you had plenty of time to do that). Either way you are unremarkable in every way and not worth my time anymore, I hope one day you actually realize this and try to become a better person and make something of yourself but sadly I don't think you will. Good luck regardless.

[OfDeath]

Lol excuse me? You seriously need to brush up on your understanding of logical fallacies. You accused me of being insecure after I had accused you of exactly that and in such a manner which was self explanatory. Remember this comment: "The desperate defence you put up after being criticised is all the argument I need"? (and that still stands by the way) And I could point out others if you want. Sometimes things are said in a manner designed to cushion the blow which would be felt by using some particular words. The fact remains that you most certainly did demonstrate insecurity in exactly the way I pointed out in my last and also previous responses which you either haven't read or just aren't mentally equipped to understand. Your use of the tu quoque fallacy is there for all to see, and especially in the hypocritical sense regarding your calling my intelligence into question after no less than sign posting your own stupidity. So I'm not wrong on any account at all. I suggest you go back and read my previous responses. I shouldn't have had to point it out a second time. You've just demonstrated my point about you for me yet again. I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while. You have certainly tried and desperately so (insecurity) but have miserably failed at pointing out flaws in my argument. Claiming you have succeeded is just blatant and obstinate dishonesty. It is factual information that I have emphatically proven my point about you and the only points you have been able to prove are my points.
Sorry about that, but what has happened here remains the same. It is quite sad how desperately you're trying to deny that you have the grammar skills of a failing elementary school kid. You've shown you're an idiot. Don't make it any worse for yourself than it already is.

[RACSKC0B]

For sure it's backwards in time?
I don't want to hear some "I'm sorry there's been a mix up." Kinda BS.
If it's back in time then sure, I'd give it a go.
Wait, for how long, is there even an option to return to your present time line as it was? Or at least return to the present day, but on the new timeline that was created as soon as you went back?
Or are we stranded?

[Guardian45]

Good questions!

[RACSKC0B]

Thanks

[Ammi_goldie806]

Okay for one I am black it doesn't matter where I go I'm not about to be a slave to a white man or a white household because I did not pick the cotton okay I'm not doing that so, I'm not going back to any year all the years we're mostly terrible for black people anyways so I ain't going back I'm good where I'm at right now cuz with this attitude I will possibly die in any year. 🤓

[Guardian45]

Wise beyond your years!

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

No, as good or not good as my life may be, I would do nothing to alter if it in any way altered the people I've had/have in my life, even the bad people. All the events/people/experiences both good and bad have shaped the person I am today...

[Guardian45]

Well-said

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

@Guardian45 Thanks 😊

[Guardian45]

Yw👌😎👍

[OlderAndWiser]

If I knew it would be sometime in the past 300 years and I would be in what is now the US, I would do it!

[crazyish]

My luck it would be way too far back where women were just property. I'd probably just be hung for doing something that wasn't acceptable like speaking 😂 so no im good.

[Guardian45]

😆😄😅😂🤣🙂🙃😉

[crazyish]

See, you know it's true.. 😂😂

[Static_In_The_Attic]

I’ll have room in my time machine, I’ll pick you up & I hope you don’t get car sick because we’re going to be driving fast.

[crazyish]

Sounds good! But are you trying to say, you want me to get hung?🤣😂

Nope, no car sickness! And umm can I drive? 😁😁

[BillHe1]

YES, but hopefully just during my lifetime. I would like to have started sex earlier in my life, and possibly enjoyed more sexual partners. I really think I missed out, especially seeing how open and freely sexual hook ups are in today's "Next Generation".

[BillHe1]

Thanks Coach, you liked?

[John_Doesnt]

History times usually suck. Remember that there were no smartphones before 2008 and there was not World Wide Web before 1992. So if you go back too far you're basically fucked on getting any useful information about your surroundings.

[coachTanthony]

True it's a gamble lol

[Guardian45]

But there were and are cameras!

[John_Doesnt]

@Guardian45 how could you find anything without Google? You'd have to use "road maps" and the public library. Remember how lost the Terminator got in the first Terminator? He had to rely on the phone book.

[Guardian45]

Ever read Timeline?

[Deathraider]

No. I mean it’s any year. Do you know how slim human history is compared to the universe’s entire history. Go back 65 million years ago, there’s no humans and dinosaurs around. Go back even further to 3.4 billion years ago, there’s no photosynthesis and you’ll aphyxiate. Go back before 4.6 billion years ago, and there’s no Earth.

[mrkdvsn]

As I've stated before with time-travel questions, I would only want to go back (preferably to my childhood years) in an "observational" manner. I would never want to travel back "physically" (where my actual physical body is there). "Observationally" I would be willing to go back to ANY year.

[Guardian45]

You're extremely cautious. Why?

[mrkdvsn]

@Guardian45 In this type of fantasy situation, my interest would be strictly of an observational nature. Actually being there would present too many possible problems that I would have to deal with. One problem might be... not being able to return to the present?

[Guardian45]

Gotcha!

[NathanDavis]

if the timer is set for the past 14 billion years the Universe has existed...

the chances of survival are 0.0000008% the time since humans have been able to exist

I like the odds and I am very curious, I would still do it.

[purplepoppy]

No I'd probably get eaten by a dinosaur or burnt as a witch

[Static_In_The_Attic]

You don’t have to worry about being burned as a witch my time machine has a fire extinguisher in it.

[Adam1978]

Not unless I can get back. I wouldn't want to be stranded in any historical period. Life was much harder in the past. Unless you just go back a decade or two.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

Pedal to the metal, full speed ahead, I’ll pack my bags & leave tomorrow.

[Guardian45]

I just might join you!

[Static_In_The_Attic]

@Guardian45 A time trip it is & after we stop for something to eat we’ll cruise for chicks.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

On the flip side anyone who goes back all I can say is that I hope they do not have covid or any other virus because one cough in the past could seriously alter the future.

[Guardian45]

Ever read Timeline?

[BCA6010]

So this assumes that "back in time" could be any point in Earth's history, in which case the period in which a human could even survive would be a tiny fraction of the possibility, most of that would be without anything resembling even primitive civilization... By the time you narrow this down, this would be like playing Russian roulette with 5 of 6 rounds loaded and winning several dozen times in a row just to not die almost immediately.

The short answer is no.

[A_Bell]

Back in time is generally bad for women. Also bad for people who like clean bathrooms.

[Guardian45]

Huh?

[A_Bell]

@Guardian45 how is that hard to understand?

[Guardian45]

What is your definition of 'clean bathrooms'?

[Citizenkirk]

It's called senility or Alzheimer's. Childhood memories become clear, like yesterday.
And yesterday, you'll have as much chance of remembering that, as you will remembering what you had for lunch, if you had lunch, where you parked your car, who your grandkid's names are, what decade it is, and that your teeth are manufactured and sitting in a jar.

[Youryeodongsaeng]

Other.

If I went back in time the day my mom was pregnant with me, I'd spend nine months or less to make my mother stress so much to cause her a miscarriage.

[Guardian45]

Please see a mental health counselor

[Static_In_The_Attic]

If you did that I would go back in time & save you.

[Youryeodongsaeng]

@Guardian45 Been seeing one since I was 15 or 16. I don't find that type of counseling to actually work.

[Guardian45]

Then you need a better one. Like anything, there are good and bad ones. Keep lookig

[Fatherhere901]

Not to go completely sci-fi geek on you, but doing that would be a complete conundrum. Pretty sure you're already thinking this, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you go back to cause a miscarriage, then you would not be there to go back in time to cause your Mother’s miscarriage. If you're not there to go back to cause your mother’s miscarriage, then that means you were born to go back and cause your miscarriage, which means you would not be there to go back.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Damn you, I can't decide lol, probably no, do I get to keep the time machine?

[coachTanthony]

LOL nope

[TheSpaceGnome]

Then no, i don't need to get stuck in some shitty time period lol

[coachTanthony]

Everyone would say YES if they could choose. There has to be risk involved I am so sorry ha

[TheSpaceGnome]

but dinosaurs :{

[coachTanthony]

How cool would it be to see a dinosaur? hahahaha

[TheSpaceGnome]

I mean I see some outside my window rn, but finches just aren't the same as a T. rex...

XD

[KatherineJ]

If I was assured that I could get back to the present? Sure!

[Guardian45]

I'm with you!

[dreamstar72]

But the main question is how soon could I return back to this time period? If I couldn’t return to this time period will not test my odds of not knowing. Be happy with between 1940’s to the 90’s.

[electromagnetic]

During the time I saw alive or possibly earlier? if it’s any year in my lifetime absolutely. If more previous, most likely not.

[Guardian45]

Why?

[electromagnetic]

History hasn’t been kind to my people. I’m humbly thankful to be living in time period.

[Guardian45]

Gotcha!

[Joey_007]

[Wowie101]

The universe is 14 billion years old? Statistically speaking the odds of you even being in the realm of human life is 0.0018%

[Guardian45]

Never thought of that!

[Aakash_Hangargi]

Why not you are getting chance to travel and in freaking Time it could be stone age or silver age, golden age any age so worth the risk I guess

[Static_In_The_Attic]

My brother from another mother warp speed here we come.

[Aakash_Hangargi]

tse2.mm.bing.net/th

[Static_In_The_Attic]

https://youtu.be/G3AfIvJBcGo

[FlySwimmer]

All I would do is invest like 5k in Tesla and like 5k Bitcoin lol

[maryisbreathing]

really depends what ill have with me and how lonely I am at the time

[Guardian45]

Pardone?

[cth96190]

No.
I would want to choose when and where and to be able to carry a considerable amount of cargo with me.

[Guardian45]

Why?

[cth96190]

@Guardian45
I would be on a mission to change history, by either preventing a catastrophic war, or making sure that the side I supported won.

[stormiigrl]

Just as long as i am not being a witness to someone being shot i would 🙀

[Guardian45]

That's a grim thought

[ShadezMcgee]

Depends on when, I guess. If I knew where and when I may take the chance, otherwise, I will pass.

[DocJones]

Only if I was guaranteed to make it back unharmed. Otherwise f that. End up in the Jurassic period with a T Rex biting you in half or being attacked by a giant mosquito or something. No thanks

[Guardian45]

Yup!

[clampfan101]

I feel traveling back in time to any extent would not likely in the least be convenient if I can’t travel back to the future.

[Coolkat12345]

Cmon man don’t think of this question, for one it is impossible and for another it will only lead you to get depressed. Just focus on happy things and positive things and also realistic things. Don’t think about things that are impossible especially because something like this will only make you depressed so forget this question please and don’t ponder on depressing stuff my friend.

[bigslab]

If there is a chance that I could land up in a time period where the plague or the Spanish flu is a prevalent problem then it won't be worth the risk

[Guardian45]

Agreed

[Dragonpurple]

I voted NO because I'd probably end up back in time before the earth existed... that would be a very short lived trip... or I'd show up when Oxygen was non existent on earth.

[Guardian45]

And if it were later than that?

[Dragonpurple]

@Guardian45 If I had no one left in this time, sure... but not going to leave family.

[Guardian45]

Makes sense

[genericname85]

HELL no. cause pretty much every time in the past was worse than today xD

[Iron_Man]

It might take me back to the caveman days no
thanks

[TheSpaceGnome]

pet sabercats though

[Iron_Man]

@TheSpaceGnome yep

[deeks1121]

I'd only go if it was a significant time I history, like 20 years ago is a waste. However 50 years would be worth it for me

[Guardian45]

Why 1971?

[deeks1121]

I mean 50 years + haha not 1971 specifically

[Guardian45]

Oh. Ok.

[Anonymous]

I don't hate my life enough to take pot luck with the past. A past with little medical or technological support.

[Cathy7734]

I wouldn't want to gamble with my life.

[Guardian45]

Huh?

[KloexJayne]

Only if I still had the knowledge that I do now.. in a younger self

[OfDeath]

No way. There's literally billions of years I could end up in. The chances of landing anywhere remotely familiar or hospitable is minuscule.

[exitseven]

No. Just my luck I would end up in prehistoric times.

[ChiTown33]

Am I Sam Beckett-ing it? Or anytime?

[coachTanthony]

Get one shot and you stay there.

[ChiTown33]

Nah. I like the time I live in. But I meant within our own lifetime.
I'd like to visit points in history. But not permanently. And I wouldn't want to relive my own lifetime at all.

[coachTanthony]

I mean we all would like to go back with conditions.

[loveslongnails]

Hell NO !!! I wouldn't risk landing just anywhere in time. That could be a disaster !!

[Guardian45]

Maybe

[loveslongnails]

@Guardian45 More than maybe. It's way too big a risk for my liking.

[Guardian45]

I see

[Guardian45]

This Q is 'Timeless' and 'Timeline' all over again! Some good lessons to learn there if you're time-travelling!

[Guardian45]

Be VERY careful what you wish for, because you just might get it!

[MCheetah]

'Hell no! I ain't finna get eaten by no dinos!'

[vlx-na]

>Gets send some 13 billions years back and instantly disintegrates into subatomic particles.

[redskulldangerzone64]

I would go back to 70s 80s 90s and early 2000's so many great cartoons and animated shows

[chapawapa]

No. Definitely not. I gotta know the year

[Guardian45]

Why?

[chapawapa]

Because im a women and I don't want to be in a position where oppressed... And im native I dont want to be part of the genocide

[REALSTEEL]

Just the experience would be awesome

[Scorpio11]

1940s the suiters/ pachuco's era.

[Guardian45]

Niiice!

[4dmins-4-13itches]

The past doesn't interest me that much

[karaspara]

Yes it would be intriguing to say the least

[Synikal]

Yep. Time to brush up on my history.

[kevyhanma]

I’m black so yea it’s a no for me

[SandandWaves]

Most definitely Not. No way...

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it'd still be cool

[humanearth]

Im game anytime before computers. I would love it

[Jamie05rhs]

Yes.

[ffddhugvfd]

The 70s

[Guardian45]

Why?

[Massageman]

Nope - I;m a planner!

[Archerer]

Yes, so I could bang yo mamma!

[Wiredone]

I wouldn't go back in time.