WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Skepdick]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering 'you' have YET to ANSWER the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you' that 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTIONS here?

[Age]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering 'you' have YET to ANSWER the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you' that 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?

I question why you keep asking so many questions.

The IM/MATURE attitude here now is speaking for itself.

[Skepdick]

The IM/MATURE attitude here now is speaking for itself.

The immature attitude could answer my questions instead of speaking for itself.

[Harbal]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you', which 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

[Skepdick]

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

You are so observant!

Of course asking stupid questions is my way of avoiding stupid question.

Didn't I say I am going to leverage self-application against philosophy?

[Age]

Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW whether you asked this question, Age?

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you', which 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

Yes, 'this' was VERY CLEAR.

If one was to LOOK BACK and STUDY "skepdick's" AVOIDANCE strategy/s, then 'it' usually does involve responding with some REALLY TWISTED and DISTORTED version of what was ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, by the "other", and THEN proceeding FROM 'there'.

Just about EVERY time ANY one COUNTERS or REFUTES what "skepdick" has SAID or CLAIMED, then "skepdick" ATTEMPTS to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the COUNTER or REFUTATION. As can be CLEARLY OBSERVED throughout this thread, and forum.

[Skepdick]

Do 'you' WANT or EXPECT 'me' to ANSWER 'your' QUESTION here?

If yes, then is 'this' REALLY considerate to do so considering the number of 'my' QUESTIONS ASKED to 'you', which 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED?

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

Yes, 'this' was VERY CLEAR.

If one was to LOOK BACK and STUDY "skepdick's" AVOIDANCE strategy/s, then 'it' usually does involve responding with some REALLY TWISTED and DISTORTED version of what was ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, by the "other", and THEN proceeding FROM 'there'.

Just about EVERY time ANY one COUNTERS or REFUTES what "skepdick" has SAID or CLAIMED, then "skepdick" ATTEMPTS to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the COUNTER or REFUTATION. As can be CLEARLY OBSERVED throughout this thread, and forum.

My avoidance and deflection strategy has always been to steal your avoidance and deflection strategy and use it against you.

There's no need to study anything - I told you exactly what I am going to do.

I am going to use Philosophy against itself. This includes using your own counters and refutations against themselves.

[Age]

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

You are so observant!

Of course asking stupid questions is my way of avoiding stupid question.

What 'you', "skepdick", ACTUALLY WROTE and CLAIMED here WAS:

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

I JUST ASKED 'you':
Is it POSSIBLE TO KNOW, to 'you', "skepdick"?

Now, if 'you' WANT TO SEE 'this QUESTION', which was JUST ASKED to GAIN a BETTER perspective of 'you' and 'your' thoughts and views, is a so-called 'stupid question', then so be it. But "others" do NOT necessarily SEE 'that' CLARIFYING QUESTION being 'stupid' AT ALL.

And 'we' JUST WAIT PATIENTLY for 'you' TO BECOME Truly OPEN and Honest here, instead of continually 'TRYING TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.

Didn't I say I am going to leverage self-application against philosophy?

Ah, so do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'philosophy' is ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS, "skepdick"?

[Skepdick]

Ah, so do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'philosophy' is ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS, "skepdick"?

Do you believe that I believe that philosophy is asking stupid questions, Age?

[Harbal]

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

You are so observant!

Of course asking stupid questions is my way of avoiding stupid question.

Didn't I say I am going to leverage self-application against philosophy?

If you must pursue such a futile and pointless objective, couldn't you at least do it with a little style, or wit?

[Skepdick]

If you must pursue such a futile and pointless objective, couldn't you at least do it with a little style, or wit?

Occam's razor.

Don't multiply entities beyond necessity...

If it works without style or wit then I don't need either of those things.

[Age]

If I may suggest: His rather stupid question was just his way of avoidng answering your questions.

Yes, 'this' was VERY CLEAR.

If one was to LOOK BACK and STUDY "skepdick's" AVOIDANCE strategy/s, then 'it' usually does involve responding with some REALLY TWISTED and DISTORTED version of what was ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT, by the "other", and THEN proceeding FROM 'there'.

Just about EVERY time ANY one COUNTERS or REFUTES what "skepdick" has SAID or CLAIMED, then "skepdick" ATTEMPTS to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the COUNTER or REFUTATION. As can be CLEARLY OBSERVED throughout this thread, and forum.

My avoidance and deflection strategy has always been to steal your avoidance and deflection strategy and use it against you.

LOL WHEN was ONE time that I have, SUPPOSEDLY, AVOIDED or DEFLECTED FROM ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' here?

I have a hard enough time just trying to get 'you' TO QUESTION and CHALLENGE 'me' on what I WRITE, SAY, and/or CLAIM here, let alone EVER AVOIDING or DEFLECTING here.

There's no need to study anything - I told you exactly what I am going to do.

WHO CARES?

What I CARE ABOUT are the ACTUAL WORDS 'you' WRITE and SAY here. And when 'you' DO, then, if I WANT TO, I WILL QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'you' OVER 'those ACTUAL WORDS'.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True is just how OFTEN 'you' 'TRY TO' AVOID, DEFLECT, RUN AWAY, and HIDE FROM QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING here.

I am going to use Philosophy against itself.

LOL "skepdick" 'you' do NOT even have the CAPABILITY to DEFINE the 'philosophy' word, let alone USE 'it'.

What 'you' SAY and CLAIM here is like someone SAYING or CLAIMING, 'I am going to use a gun again itself'.

This includes using your own counters and refutations against themselves.

Ah, so when I JUST ASK 'you' a QUESTION, which IF EVER ANSWERED Honestly and OPENLY 'you' would REFUTE or COUNTER 'your' OWN previous position, view, or BELIEF, what 'you' WILL DO INSTEAD is JUST ASK 'me' A QUESTION.

Which is A FURTHER SIGN and MORE PROOF that what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here IS REALLY just ACTUALLY WORTHLESS and USELESS.

[Harbal]

If you must pursue such a futile and pointless objective, couldn't you at least do it with a little style, or wit?

Occam's razor.

Don't multiply entities beyond necessity...

If it works without style or wit then I don't need them.

What is working, exactly? You are simply annoying people, nothing more. You are not the first to behave like that, and you won't be the last; you are merely one in a succession of harmless nuisances.

[Age]

Ah, so do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'philosophy' is ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS, "skepdick"?

Do you believe that I believe that philosophy is asking stupid questions, Age?

SO, what 'we' have here now is one who is SHOWING and PROVING, IRREFUTABLY, just how Truly INCAPABLE 'it' IS of just being able to back up and support 'its' OWN VIEWS, CLAIMS, and BELIEFS, in ABSOLUTELY ANY way AT ALL.

[Skepdick]

What is working, exactly? You are simply annoying people, nothing more.

You are not the first to behave like that, and you won't be the last; you are merely one in a succession of harmless nuisances.

Isn't that the hallmark of a good Philosophy? And if I am succeeding at annoying those whose job is to annoy people that sounds like it's working.

Who watches the watchers?
Who critiques the critics?
Who rebels against the rebels?
Who analyses the analysts?
Who annoys the annoyers?