Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sometimes as I read your words, I can do nothing but laugh at I see that they twist my words to fit your presumption. And as I understand that the volume of your misconception shall require just way too much of my time to correct, I don't, knowing that you shall do so again, in a never ending circle.

How convienent!

ROTGLMAO! I think the funniest thing that I see in your arguments, is that you fail to see, that I see all to well, that which you think I don't, and that in such, it actually applies to you more readily, as it applies to everyone, and as such, only a fool, in their spiraling guilt, would bring up such things (projections of self), or rather, if they understood, if they did bring it up, they would supply it, as a cautionary point, indicating that it, is the universal trap, that indeed it is, unless one considers it.
Such that obviously, you are more concerned with blame than with solution.

More of your psycho-babble.

Where I can I've given the solutions I think might work. Where are yours?

Your unwise concerns with groupings associated with countries, etc, points to it so clearly, because 'all' is due to Human Psychology, that can be seen equally anywhere you look, nothing more or nothing less! It just depends on the focus of your knowledge.

So you think cultures are not different across nations?

Largely your points were based upon misconceptions. You see only the few words that I post, failing to see the volumes of possibility that are contained within them, which is what I try and convey, though obviously not to your ability to comprehend.

That'll be because I'm not a mind-reader, as such I only have your words to go by.

Explain as fully as possible why you thought it was funny and I'll prove your presumption, thus misconception, without a doubt, that shall show your laughter is in fact crow that you're chewing on. Oh, and I already know what you're going to say!

Before I do, why don't you tell me first?

But at your mind-reading abilities. What was it you said about presumption?

Come on, you laughed at someones words, be man or woman enough to tell them why. Are you a chicken shit to see yourself laid out for viewing, for all to see? A large percentage of your retort, projects your presumption of my meaning, why hold me accountable? It would seem that you're arguing with yourself. Let me prove it to you, why laugh at "...as near as I can figure." What was so damned funny? Do you fear truth? Is that all you are, an argument waiting to happen? Is that all that matters to you, 'getting' someone? Are you afraid of being wrong with all that education in AI that you have. Has AI gone to your head. I read how you used your education as a club to beat on godfree, (emotional outburst) your 'right' to judge him, is that all education is to you, a weapon to smite people with? Is the inner you so god damned small and insignificant that you decided to get an education to beat people with? You fucking lamer!

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

Since there was not enough information for you to conduct proper analysis, and you jumped to conclusion, I'll tell you what I meant. After taking philosophy, truth is all that matters to me. Ever wonder why I stayed in Bills truth thread for so long, avoiding all others, arguing with lancek? Because that's where I live. It's all that matters to me.

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

[Arising_uk]

Come on, you laughed at someones words, be man or woman enough to tell them why. Are you a chicken shit to see yourself laid out for viewing, for all to see? ...

Which bit of "But before I do, ..." in relation to your claim that you know what I'm going to say did you not understand?

A large percentage of your retort, projects your presumption of my meaning, why hold me accountable? It would seem that you're arguing with yourself. Let me prove it to you, why laugh at "...as near as I can figure." What was so damned funny? Do you fear truth? Is that all you are, an argument waiting to happen? Is that all that matters to you, 'getting' someone? Are you afraid of being wrong with all that education in AI that you have. Has AI gone to your head. I read how you used your education as a club to beat on godfree, (emotional outburst) your 'right' to judge him, is that all education is to you, a weapon to smite people with? Is the inner you so god damned small and insignificant that you decided to get an education to beat people with? You fucking lamer!

I rarely quote my qualifications in this forum as I find it unproductive. I engaged with Godfree for a fair old time before he challenged my right to judge what he says in a philosophy forum with respect to philosophy of science, as such I gave him my reasons for thinking that I had the right. I gained my education through pure interest and much sacrifice. You, like him, appear much threatened by such endeavours.

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

Because I found it funny.

Since there was not enough information for you to conduct proper analysis, and you jumped to conclusion, I'll tell you what I meant. After taking philosophy, truth is all that matters to me. Ever wonder why I stayed in Bills truth thread for so long, avoiding all others, arguing with lancek? Because that's where I live. It's all that matters to me.

I thought you said you never took philosophy? No, I've never wondered why you stayed in Bill's thread.

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

I thought you said you know what I am going to say? So tell me and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Come on, you laughed at someones words, be man or woman enough to tell them why. Are you a chicken shit to see yourself laid out for viewing, for all to see? ...

Which bit of "But before I do, ..." in relation to your claim that you know what I'm going to say did you not understand?

A large percentage of your retort, projects your presumption of my meaning, why hold me accountable? It would seem that you're arguing with yourself. Let me prove it to you, why laugh at "...as near as I can figure." What was so damned funny? Do you fear truth? Is that all you are, an argument waiting to happen? Is that all that matters to you, 'getting' someone? Are you afraid of being wrong with all that education in AI that you have. Has AI gone to your head. I read how you used your education as a club to beat on godfree, (emotional outburst) your 'right' to judge him, is that all education is to you, a weapon to smite people with? Is the inner you so god damned small and insignificant that you decided to get an education to beat people with? You fucking lamer!

I rarely quote my qualifications in this forum as I find it unproductive. I engaged with Godfree for a fair old time before he challenged my right to judge what he says in a philosophy forum with respect to philosophy of science, as such I gave him my reasons for thinking that I had the right. I gained my education through pure interest and much sacrifice. You, like him, appear much threatened by such endeavours.

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

Because I found it funny.

Since there was not enough information for you to conduct proper analysis, and you jumped to conclusion, I'll tell you what I meant. After taking philosophy, truth is all that matters to me. Ever wonder why I stayed in Bills truth thread for so long, avoiding all others, arguing with lancek? Because that's where I live. It's all that matters to me.

I thought you said you never took philosophy? No, I've never wondered why you stayed in Bill's thread.

Why did you laugh at, "Nope, I'm Agnostic 'as near as I can figure.'"

I thought you said you know what I am going to say? So tell me and I'll tell you if you're right or not.

OK, It's decided, I shall almost never respond to your challenge's again except with a canned response, to be decided, that outlines the reason I won't. However, I shall still critique your discourse with others, when I feel it's required, and may on occasion engage you if I sense your clarity of mind. Basically it shall include the truth of the quality of your content as I've come to understand it. Basically it's that your rebuttals are seemingly not those of a serious perspective as they contain erroneous data about things that you have been previously made aware, and that you make pointed adversarial comment before fully understanding what it is you're commenting on. I'm not blaming the reason for the misunderstanding on you, just that I feel one is responsible for ensuring they fully understand what it is that someone is saying, before they make pointed adversarial comment.

It would seem you have a problem with your memory as I've told you several times that I attended university and was to major in philosophy, but had to quit due to funding. Remember, I had also told you that my wife and I were separated due to finances, because of the recession and later you insisted that we were divorced. It would seem therefore that your mind is so full of your own preconceptions that you cannot carry on an meaningful conversation. In essence you seem to be having discourse with yourself. Now I don't know why this is the case, but it's extremely annoying. You, like lancek, seem to have patience, and I have to commend you for it, because I know that I can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I do value your time, and thank you for it thus far, just like lancek you have provided me with "hunt n' peck" typing improvement and mental calisthenics, seeing as how I'm basically a recluse, I thank you for it, but talking with you makes it seem as though I'm beating my head against a wall; on the whole, it's very non productive! If I didn't have to backtrack so much, and thus become sidetracked, you'd be a joy to engage.

If I feel that I really require the level of "hunt n' peck" typing and mental calisthenics that engaging you in discourse entails, I'll let you know! Sorry for that part of me that's been a pain in the ass, I'm working on it.

[Arising_uk]

OK, It's decided, I shall almost never respond to your challenge's again except with a canned response, to be decided, that outlines the reason I won't. ...

"It's decided ..." is it? Who did you decide with? Given you pretty much don't respond to my questions(not challenges you big girls blouse) and oft outline the reasons you won't I can't see much change.

However, I shall still critique your discourse with others, when I feel it's required, and may on occasion engage you if I sense your clarity of mind. Basically it shall include the truth of the quality of your content as I've come to understand it. Basically it's that your rebuttals are seemingly not those of a serious perspective as they contain erroneous data about things that you have been previously made aware, and that you make pointed adversarial comment before fully understanding what it is you're commenting on. I'm not blaming the reason for the misunderstanding on you, just that I feel one is responsible for ensuring they fully understand what it is that someone is saying, before they make pointed adversarial comment. ...

Hence I ask you questions about what you say but you appear to find these a difficult thing to answer? But feel free to critique as you wish, as I have no issue with my thoughts and beliefs being questioned, nor with changing them if the point is made, its called philosophy.

It would seem you have a problem with your memory as I've told you several times that I attended university and was to major in philosophy, but had to quit due to funding. ...

See the word "was"?

Remember, I had also told you that my wife and I were separated due to finances, because of the recession and later you insisted that we were divorced. It would seem therefore that your mind is so full of your own preconceptions that you cannot carry on an meaningful conversation. In essence you seem to be having discourse with yourself. Now I don't know why this is the case, but it's extremely annoying. You, like lancek, seem to have patience, and I have to commend you for it, because I know that I can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I do value your time, and thank you for it thus far, just like lancek you have provided me with "hunt n' peck" typing improvement and mental calisthenics, seeing as how I'm basically a recluse, I thank you for it, but talking with you makes it seem as though I'm beating my head against a wall; on the whole, it's very non productive! If I didn't have to backtrack so much, and thus become sidetracked, you'd be a joy to engage.

If I was having a discourse with myself I'd not be using the question mark. Remember that I apologise and admit my errors. Try answering others questions might be a productive course.

If I feel that I really require the level of "hunt n' peck" typing and mental calisthenics that engaging you in discourse entails, I'll let you know! Sorry for that part of me that's been a pain in the ass, I'm working on it.

I do not require apologies and think that 'mental calisthenics' is a large part of what philosophy entails, as one has to think.

So from all this I gather that you won't be telling me what it was that you knew I was going to say with respect to why I laughed? Not surprised.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, It's decided, I shall almost never respond to your challenge's again except with a canned response, to be decided, that outlines the reason I won't. ...

"It's decided ..." is it? Who did you decide with? Given you pretty much don't respond to my questions(not challenges you big girls blouse) and oft outline the reasons you won't I can't see much change.
Apparently you don't read and understand, so you don't deserve the work required on my part to enlighten you, as you'll just argue with yourself again, and pretend that it's me.

However, I shall still critique your discourse with others, when I feel it's required, and may on occasion engage you if I sense your clarity of mind. Basically it shall include the truth of the quality of your content as I've come to understand it. Basically it's that your rebuttals are seemingly not those of a serious perspective as they contain erroneous data about things that you have been previously made aware, and that you make pointed adversarial comment before fully understanding what it is you're commenting on. I'm not blaming the reason for the misunderstanding on you, just that I feel one is responsible for ensuring they fully understand what it is that someone is saying, before they make pointed adversarial comment. ...

Hence I ask you questions about what you say but you appear to find these a difficult thing to answer? But feel free to critique as you wish, as I have no issue with my thoughts and beliefs being questioned, nor with changing them if the point is made, its called philosophy.
Not difficult, just refuse to, in light of your presumption and thus talking to yourself. I have no problem changing either, if presented with sound information, but you seem to be a whirlpool of confusion, with your consistency in talking to yourself.

It would seem you have a problem with your memory as I've told you several times that I attended university and was to major in philosophy, but had to quit due to funding. ...

See the word "was"?
A stupid assertion as it indicates you are unaware of the contextual use of 'major' and how it does not preclude classes, rather non completion of the curriculum . See this is the very reason I refuse to talk to you, you sound like an idiot, your comprehension sucks, or you're just playing games. Both are tiring!

Remember, I had also told you that my wife and I were separated due to finances, because of the recession and later you insisted that we were divorced. It would seem therefore that your mind is so full of your own preconceptions that you cannot carry on an meaningful conversation. In essence you seem to be having discourse with yourself. Now I don't know why this is the case, but it's extremely annoying. You, like lancek, seem to have patience, and I have to commend you for it, because I know that I can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I do value your time, and thank you for it thus far, just like lancek you have provided me with "hunt n' peck" typing improvement and mental calisthenics, seeing as how I'm basically a recluse, I thank you for it, but talking with you makes it seem as though I'm beating my head against a wall; on the whole, it's very non productive! If I didn't have to backtrack so much, and thus become sidetracked, you'd be a joy to engage.

If I was having a discourse with myself I'd not be using the question mark. Remember that I apologise and admit my errors. Try answering others questions might be a productive course.
Questions marks has nothing to do with it, but formulation/content of retort has everything to do with it.

If I feel that I really require the level of "hunt n' peck" typing and mental calisthenics that engaging you in discourse entails, I'll let you know! Sorry for that part of me that's been a pain in the ass, I'm working on it.

I do not require apologies and think that 'mental calisthenics' is a large part of what philosophy entails, as one has to think.

So from all this I gather that you won't be telling me what it was that you knew I was going to say with respect to why I laughed? Not surprised.
Here you missed what's important, the fact that I knew why you laughed, because you're so transparent, is immaterial. The point was, and still remains, that your retort was due to a misunderstanding, such that the laughter is negated, such as most of your questions!

[Arising_uk]

Apparently you don't read and understand, so you don't deserve the work required on my part to enlighten you, as you'll just argue with yourself again, and pretend that it's me.

Whatever makes you feel safe.

Not difficult, just refuse to, in light of your presumption and thus talking to yourself. I have no problem changing either, if presented with sound information, but you seem to be a whirlpool of confusion, with your consistency in talking to yourself.

Suit yourself.

A stupid assertion as it indicates you are unaware of the contextual use of 'major' and how it does not preclude classes, rather non completion of the curriculum . See this is the very reason I refuse to talk to you, you sound like an idiot, your comprehension sucks, or you're just playing games. Both are tiring!

You sure it wasn't a Psychology major, as this appears to be your main preoccupation. Still, great! When will you be discussing the philosophers and philosophy with me? Although in the main and given your responses to me I find it difficult to comprehend what kind of philosophy classes you attended.

Questions marks has nothing to do with it, but formulation/content of retort has everything to do with it.

Well, that and the fact that they are a question. Care to answer any of them sometime soon.

Here you missed what's important, the fact that I knew why you laughed, because you're so transparent, is immaterial. The point was, and still remains, that your retort was due to a misunderstanding, such that the laughter is negated, such as most of your questions!

What you appear to miss is that so far its just your assertion that you knew any such thing. That you now say that its immaterial just leads me to think you knew no such thing. So tell me, what was I transparent about? What was it that you knew that I was laughing about? What misunderstanding was it that you think you know?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Apparently you don't read and understand, so you don't deserve the work required on my part to enlighten you, as you'll just argue with yourself again, and pretend that it's me.

Whatever makes you feel safe.
Again, this is what I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with feeling safe. You have once again projected yourself onto my meaning. In dealing with me, the biggest fool doesn't take me at face value. I'm honest to a fault.

Not difficult, just refuse to, in light of your presumption and thus talking to yourself. I have no problem changing either, if presented with sound information, but you seem to be a whirlpool of confusion, with your consistency in talking to yourself.

Suit yourself.
We all do!

A stupid assertion as it indicates you are unaware of the contextual use of 'major' and how it does not preclude classes, rather non completion of the curriculum . See this is the very reason I refuse to talk to you, you sound like an idiot, your comprehension sucks, or you're just playing games. Both are tiring!

You sure it wasn't a Psychology major, as this appears to be your main preoccupation. Still, great! When will you be discussing the philosophers and philosophy with me? Although in the main and given your responses to me I find it difficult to comprehend what kind of philosophy classes you attended.
This is why I see you as a parrot, it seems that you think that one that studies philosophy has to spout it verbatim and is the only indicator that they have studied. I see that anyone that spouts it verbatim is a parrot, a xerox copy if you will. Just because I studied does not mean I have to spout their words verbatim as I may not agree with them, so what's the point in repeating something you think is bullshit? So you can talk to Arising_UK because that's all she knows? I speak what it is that "I" believe only, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, that's tough and has absolutely no bearing on my studying philosophy.

Questions marks has nothing to do with it, but formulation/content of retort has everything to do with it.

Well, that and the fact that they are a question. Care to answer any of them sometime soon.
I have no problems doing so if you start dealing with me honestly, and stop putting words into my mouth.

Here you missed what's important, the fact that I knew why you laughed, because you're so transparent, is immaterial. The point was, and still remains, that your retort was due to a misunderstanding, such that the laughter is negated, such as most of your questions!

What you appear to miss is that so far its just your assertion that you knew any such thing. That you now say that its immaterial just leads me to think you knew no such thing. So tell me, what was I transparent about? What was it that you knew that I was laughing about? What misunderstanding was it that you think you know?
If you can't see that there is a common conclusion that one can jump to, if they feel so inclined, when someone says as I did, then I feel sorry for you. As such I know full well why you laughed, But I'm insulted and surprised that you'd actually believe for a second that I would put that out there if there wasn't a really good reason for doing so. I am not that simple. And logically, what I said is the only way I could say it briefly. But you assume that it is somehow complete, and thus that I'm simple minded, and that you can laugh at me because of it.

Explain why you laughed, and I'll tell you what I meant, and you'll then see that your laugh was premature.

[Arising_uk]

Again, this is what I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with feeling safe. You have once again projected yourself onto my meaning. In dealing with me, the biggest fool doesn't take me at face value. I'm honest to a fault.

Please stop repeating this, as one, I assume this as the default position of participants upon a philosophy forum, two, constant repitition of such a thing leads me to doubt my assumption.

Why on earth should I not take you at face value!? What other position is there in this medium? You think I'm a mind-reader?

We all do!

Some more than others.

This is why I see you as a parrot, it seems that you think that one that studies philosophy has to spout it verbatim and is the only indicator that they have studied. I see that anyone that spouts it verbatim is a parrot, a xerox copy if you will. Just because I studied does not mean I have to spout their words verbatim as I may not agree with them, so what's the point in repeating something you think is bullshit? So you can talk to Arising_UK because that's all she knows? I speak what it is that "I" believe only, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, that's tough and has absolutely no bearing on my studying philosophy.

Nope, I expect those who have studied such a subject to show signs of being able to discuss issues without getting all emotional and taking questions and critque as a personal attack of some kind. That you think this is what talking philosophy and philosophising is all about leads me to doubt you've studied it much. The point of knowing about the subject is so that we could talk in reasonable short-hand about its issues and how they apply and have applied to topics in the world. Personally you'll not find me using the jargon unless its apt in the situation as many find it 'elitist' in some sense and others have just not heard of the terms. As such I tend to ask questions about what people say, although this also appears to upset many.

I have no problems doing so if you start dealing with me honestly, and stop putting words into my mouth.

This is what I mean about your preoccupation with "honesty". I can only say what I've understood of your words. That you don't like it is your issue. If you don't like it then correct it, rather than hoping I can mind-read your actual intent.

If you can't see that there is a common conclusion that one can jump to, if they feel so inclined, when someone says as I did, then I feel sorry for you. As such I know full well why you laughed, But I'm insulted and surprised that you'd actually believe for a second that I would put that out there if there wasn't a really good reason for doing so. I am not that simple. And logically, what I said is the only way I could say it briefly. But you assume that it is somehow complete, and thus that I'm simple minded, and that you can laugh at me because of it. ...

Save your sorrow for someone who needs it. Tell me this common conclusion because I'm to stupid to think it.

Explain why you laughed, and I'll tell you what I meant, and you'll then see that your laugh was premature.

Oh no bunky, you made a claim about knowing why I laughed, you prove this and then I'll tell you whether you were right or not and then explain why it made me laugh.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again, this is what I mean, it has absolutely nothing to do with feeling safe. You have once again projected yourself onto my meaning. In dealing with me, the biggest fool doesn't take me at face value. I'm honest to a fault.

Please stop repeating this, as one, I assume this as the default position of participants upon a philosophy forum, two, constant repitition of such a thing leads me to doubt my assumption.
It's only default for those non-trusting individuals that think that lies are around every corner. You should doubt your assumption, as that's whats getting you in trouble.

Why on earth should I not take you at face value!? What other position is there in this medium? You think I'm a mind-reader?
First you talk about your assumption and then say you're not a mind reader, a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?

We all do!

Some more than others.
As if you've been keeping score or done a survey.

This is why I see you as a parrot, it seems that you think that one that studies philosophy has to spout it verbatim and is the only indicator that they have studied. I see that anyone that spouts it verbatim is a parrot, a xerox copy if you will. Just because I studied does not mean I have to spout their words verbatim as I may not agree with them, so what's the point in repeating something you think is bullshit? So you can talk to Arising_UK because that's all she knows? I speak what it is that "I" believe only, and if you or anyone else doesn't like it, that's tough and has absolutely no bearing on my studying philosophy.

Nope, I expect those who have studied such a subject to show signs of being able to discuss issues without getting all emotional and taking questions and critque as a personal attack of some kind. That you think this is what talking philosophy and philosophising is all about leads me to doubt you've studied it much. The point of knowing about the subject is so that we could talk in reasonable short-hand about its issues and how they apply and have applied to topics in the world. Personally you'll not find me using the jargon unless its apt in the situation as many find it 'elitist' in some sense and others have just not heard of the terms. As such I tend to ask questions about what people say, although this also appears to upset many.
Q. You know what they say about expectations right?
A. That you shouldn't have any.

See there you go again, insulting me with your assumptions of what I think pertains to philosophy, as if you could possibly know, based upon my emotional content. The fact that I fail to take someones non-constructive criticism and insinuations well, has absolutely no bearing on what I think philosophy is. It just means that in this case your particular method of dealing with people, I find crass and abrasive, and respond in kind as a consequence. I have no problem with critique, but fail to see that, as putting words in someones mouth, and then critiquing them as though its what was originally said.

I have no problems doing so if you start dealing with me honestly, and stop putting words into my mouth.

This is what I mean about your preoccupation with "honesty". I can only say what I've understood of your words. That you don't like it is your issue. If you don't like it then correct it, rather than hoping I can mind-read your actual intent.
Let me put it this way, you are the only one that seems to not get the jest of my words, so from my perspective it's you that has the problem, as I have a hard time believing that 'all' the other people that get me, is a coincidence and that you, the one person that doesn't, is the normal one, such that I should work extremely hard with a weeks worth of volley, so that you understand what everyone else does in a single sentence, to ensure you get it. I don't have the patience for that needless crap so I display emotional content. You're the one that has to change by taking my words at face value or asking questions if they don't make sense to you. But supplying your own convoluted meaning is absurd and wastes everyone's time.

If you can't see that there is a common conclusion that one can jump to, if they feel so inclined, when someone says as I did, then I feel sorry for you. As such I know full well why you laughed, But I'm insulted and surprised that you'd actually believe for a second that I would put that out there if there wasn't a really good reason for doing so. I am not that simple. And logically, what I said is the only way I could say it briefly. But you assume that it is somehow complete, and thus that I'm simple minded, and that you can laugh at me because of it. ...

Save your sorrow for someone who needs it. Tell me this common conclusion because I'm to stupid to think it.
Simple, "How could someone not know?" Is the obvious question. But the assumption that, that is conclusive, is where you failed.

Explain why you laughed, and I'll tell you what I meant, and you'll then see that your laugh was premature.

Oh no bunky, you made a claim about knowing why I laughed, you prove this and then I'll tell you whether you were right or not and then explain why it made me laugh.
Obviously, with you, this is all just a game!

[Godfree]

[hat you think this is what talking philosophy and philosophising is all about leads me to doubt you've studied it much. The point of knowing about the subject is so that we could talk in reasonable short-hand about its issues and
Obviously, with you, this is all just a game! [/quote][/quote]
Hi guys , just thought I would interrupt this philosophizing ,
so where in this page do you , any of you talk in reasonable short-hand about
it;s issues ,,????
of course it's all just a game , but why not make that game discovering new ideas , exploring thats which is not mainstream and widely accepted ,
because to put it bluntly mainstream/average bloke is not the brightest crayon in the box ,
and while we are off topic I thought typist a woman and Arising a man ,
just goes to prove the experience we each have of each other
is an individual experience , like life in general ,
but I always like to add ,
But there is only one reality,
and boy you guys talk a lot of nothing , I couldn't really take much from reading the posts because it's all he said she said bitching matches ,
and no science or sharing of knowledge ,
could it be that you to are a good example of modern society ,
rather than produce the goods ,
you just refuse to acknowledge the others credibility ,
I watched a doco today , the birth of the internet ,
the idea was to freely exchange information , until Bill gates saw $$$$$$
what part of the lengthy posts are an exchange of information ,,???

[Arising_uk]

Hi guys , just thought I would interrupt this philosophizing ,
so where in this page do you , any of you talk in reasonable short-hand about
it;s issues ,,????
...
But there is only one reality,
and boy you guys talk a lot of nothing , I couldn't really take much from reading the posts because it's all he said she said bitching matches ,
and no science or sharing of knowledge ,
could it be that you to are a good example of modern society ,
rather than produce the goods ,
you just refuse to acknowledge the others credibility ,
I watched a doco today , the birth of the internet ,
the idea was to freely exchange information , until Bill gates saw $$$$$$
what part of the lengthy posts are an exchange of information ,,???

Given that you pretty much refuse to engage with any philosophical critique of your thoughts I'm not surprised that you don't take much from our conversation.

What you talk about is nothing to do with science nor much to do with philosophy, apart from it being metaphysics of the worst sort.

Take your latest comment about the Internut, what do you mean by this? The WWW? As this is different from the 'Internet', if you mean the TCP/IP protocol, this was developed to make sure the missiles would fly. How you've linked this to Gates's I have no idea, nor what you mean
by the link.

The 'goods' I've been chatting about and the knowledge I've been trying to share with SoB is called NLP and as a modern epistemology and method of communication and thinking I think its not yet been bettered in modern society.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[hat you think this is what talking philosophy and philosophising is all about leads me to doubt you've studied it much. The point of knowing about the subject is so that we could talk in reasonable short-hand about its issues and
Obviously, with you, this is all just a game!

[/quote]
Hi guys , just thought I would interrupt this philosophizing ,
so where in this page do you , any of you talk in reasonable short-hand about
it;s issues ,,????
of course it's all just a game , but why not make that game discovering new ideas , exploring thats which is not mainstream and widely accepted ,
because to put it bluntly mainstream/average bloke is not the brightest crayon in the box ,
and while we are off topic I thought typist a woman and Arising a man ,
just goes to prove the experience we each have of each other is an individual experience , like life in general ,
but I always like to add ,
But there is only one reality,
and boy you guys talk a lot of nothing,
I couldn't really take much from reading the posts because it's all he said she said bitching matches,
So am I to understand that you see this sentence of yours, immediately above, that I've highlighted in green, as credible despite your earlier one, further above, that I highlighted in red???

If so, then I think you must have multiple personalities or just dense of gray matter. As they are in contradiction. As both deal with perception, here in this limited medium. Because of the distinctive way in which she/he/it writes and other circumstantial evidence I see it as a female. To my perception she seems as such, to yours that of male. In spite of this difference of perspective, that is apparent, as you, yourself, has indicated, you then find it difficult to understand that our, 'he said, she said, bitching match,' is all about breaking down the walls, that I sense, that are between our differing perspectives, so as to eventually level our playing field, so that we can negate this disparity between us, so we can effectually communicate. So I assume that you are attesting to the fact that you are a "mainstream/average bloke," at least in your seeming inability to understand the implication of your own thoughts, unless you're just trying to stir the pot.

and no science or sharing of knowledge ,
could it be that you to are a good example of modern society ,
rather than produce the goods ,
you just refuse to acknowledge the others credibility ,
Or maybe simply come to terms with it.

I watched a doco today , the birth of the internet ,
the idea was to freely exchange information , until Bill gates saw $$$$$$
what part of the lengthy posts are an exchange of information ,,???[/quote]

[Arising_uk]

It's only default for those non-trusting individuals that think that lies are around every corner. You should doubt your assumption, as that's whats getting you in trouble. ...

Nothings getting me in trouble.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, my default position is that anyone here is being honest. Its when they keep declaring their honesty that I begin to wonder.

First you talk about your assumption and then say you're not a mind reader, a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?

The words you write express your thoughts I thought? So no contradiction and no mind-reading.

As if you've been keeping score or done a survey.

Its called experience.

Q. You know what they say about expectations right?
A. That you shouldn't have any.

Why?

See there you go again, insulting me with your assumptions of what I think pertains to philosophy, as if you could possibly know, based upon my emotional content. The fact that I fail to take someones non-constructive criticism and insinuations well, has absolutely no bearing on what I think philosophy is. It just means that in this case your particular method of dealing with people, I find crass and abrasive, and respond in kind as a consequence. I have no problem with critique, but fail to see that, as putting words in someones mouth, and then critiquing them as though its what was originally said.

Nope, I tell you what I've understood of your words and then I respond.

Let me put it this way, you are the only one that seems to not get the jest of my words, so from my perspective it's you that has the problem, as I have a hard time believing that 'all' the other people that get me, is a coincidence and that you, the one person that doesn't, is the normal one, such that I should work extremely hard with a weeks worth of volley, so that you understand what everyone else does in a single sentence, to ensure you get it. I don't have the patience for that needless crap so I display emotional content. You're the one that has to change by taking my words at face value or asking questions if they don't make sense to you. But supplying your own convoluted meaning is absurd and wastes everyone's time.

If I was a Freudian I'd laugh at the "jest of your words". Is there someone else in this conversation, as who are these 'all'? Its that I take your words at face value that you appear to not like, nor the questions I then ask you.

Simple, "How could someone not know?" Is the obvious question. But the assumption that, that is conclusive, is where you failed.

Close but not quite. I laughed that you'd say this in a philosophy forum. That you think there is some wiggle room amazes me! Tell me how? The best I can get is that you are one of these very strange agnostics who sides upon the belief that there is a 'god' but knows that there is no evidence for 'it' so refuses to discuss it. Fair enough, as long as no-one claims that there is any evidence for 'god' I'm happy with that and I used to think this position was not possible but then I met Notvacka.

Obviously, with you, this is all just a game!

If you consider conversation a game then yes, but its you who plays as when someone questions you upon a statement you go around the houses to avoid answering.