Erotic v Pornographic

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












......................................................






.

[Arising_uk]

SOB,
I think we'll have to put our conversation on hold, as Bill appears to want to get back to his peep-show.

Although he does remind me of what they say about those who protest to much.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








.....................................................................................






.........................................................................Excuse me...OK, carry on...








.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









........................................................................................





This is the thread that sunk Chaz Wyman?



If it is I feel totally responsible.




I see a conversation between him and I developing early-on in this thread.


I remember, at the time, I thought it was unusual of Charles to back-down from me.


I was obviously baiting him but I in no way wanted to see him leave.




If this is so, the power of images within this forum is even more philosophically explosive than I have been observing.




...drive the vehicle of change or be run-over by it.





I hope I didn't crush him...






........................................................................................






.

[Arising_uk]

You are truly delusional if you think you could crush anyone here or that CW's absence would have anything to do with you.

Unless of course he's got fed up with your level of 'thought' and gone to where he can have philosophical conversations, that could be possible.

Ever thought that it might be that his cancer may have come back?

Still, nice of you to post this as it truly displays your mean little egotistical delusional self to a tee.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB,
I think we'll have to put our conversation on hold, as Bill appears to want to get back to his peep-show.

Although he does remind me of what they say about those who protest to much.

I have not forgotten you, I believe it was my volley. I am preparing something.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.











................................................................................











.

[Arising_uk]

Methinks the man doth protest too much.

[Hjarloprillar]

SOB,
I think we'll have to put our conversation on hold, as Bill appears to want to get back to his peep-show.

Although he does remind me of what they say about those who protest to much.

I have not forgotten you, I believe it was my volley. I am preparing something.

Who are you Nelson?.. your powder is wet.

The spheres you want to lob at enemy will fall short.
The grapeshot will follow.

your volley is imagined. boy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB,
I think we'll have to put our conversation on hold, as Bill appears to want to get back to his peep-show.

Although he does remind me of what they say about those who protest to much.

I have not forgotten you, I believe it was my volley. I am preparing something.

Who are you Nelson?.. your powder is wet.

The spheres you want to lob at enemy will fall short.
The grapeshot will follow.

your volley is imagined. boy.

And who the fuck do you think you are? Just another tired old shit with his/her own ideas, as if they actually matter. You live, you have them, you die, end of story. Oh I'm sorry, for a second I thought we were talking about something you understood. I don't believe in cookie cutters, my parrot is in a cage, hanging on the wall, merely the reflection of what he hears the most. Sorry, sad, little parrot, can't get out of his cage!

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



..............................AWESOME! NOW THAT IS REAL! THAT IS REAL PHILOSOPHY.


................................................Thank you for shedding some truth & light upon this forum!






.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB in this color
AUK in this color
===============
I said: I am just a man that is trying to make sense of the universe.
You said: Why assume that the universe has any sense at all? Surely its better to make sense of ones life rather than this 'universe'?
I said: The universe is ones life, and one's life is the universe.
You said: How solipsistic of you.
I said: I see that you understand it that way because so few words have actually been spoken by me so as to illuminate that which I mean. I see that your labeling is premature, based solely on some preconceived notion, of my meaning that is a mere reflection, of only that, which you have experienced in your life. You don't yet understand how those few words above relate to my meaning. Which is fine, there is no law that says we have to understand one another. Of course I see our exchange, one of futility, at that point.
You said: "What did you mean by that?" Look forward to hearing from you. Oh and by the way, it would seem that you're sitting on a gnomes hat, comfy?
Are we not the embodiment of the universe? Doesn't astrophysics, and chemistry, along with others sciences, show this to be true? Are we not made of and by the universe? Are we not contained within the universe, and thus is not the universe contained within us. Do we not have senses? Is size not relative, and thus time. Does not our particular size preclude our vision of that which is of extreme relative macro and micro in size? Keeping the preceding questions in mind, why is it easier for a human to believe that it's sensing ability sprang forth from nothing, while everything of the universe went into it's making.

No, you just think I do, because as of that time, that you thought so, you were unaware of where I was going, understandable, but again premature.

Fair enough again.

No, there is no difference, they are both subject to the mind's story, as they merely duplicate what it is the mind tells them to do, it matters not if one tells a story, or one writes it, either one can equally be true or false; an accurate or inaccurate account. The way in which the mind duplicates them matters not. What really matters is ones agenda, which is often hidden in ones mind, and cannot be ascertained merely by noting which method of recounting is employed.

I didn't say it was the method, I said we have no voice or type from Socrates, only Platos account. These are not the same lips nor hands. So I don't think your analogy holds. I also think there are differences between the techniques we use to tell a story, as the voice adds timbre, intonation, etc, that the hands find much harder to tell, whereas the hands can talk without being there and over time.
We have no voice from any of them, we only have printed accounts. The point being, that what you have, is what you are told that you have, it matters not if its the written word or by mouth, as neither format, necessarily lends credibility to the actuality of the original utterance. Such that Plato's account of the words of Socrates could be more accurately portrayed than those you read of Aristotle, and you wouldn't necessarily know either way. You simply take them as a truthful representation, based upon your faith. You believe that somehow, that they're written in a book, lends them credibility, do you actually believe all that you read?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





.......................................................................................Here's how I relate to the girly parts now...




................................................................................................







................................................................................................I'm pretty high right now so I don't know if this is coming across...




.