Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:25 pm**

bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock

You're applying friction to the wrong thing, sweetheart.

It would seem that you 'know' this, all too well.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:51 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock

You're applying friction to the wrong thing, sweetheart.
It would seem that you 'know' this, all too well.

No, I just understand clocks and the occasional need for lubrication.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:13 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock

Then:

bobevenson wrote:You're applying friction to the wrong thing, sweetheart.

Then:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:It would seem that you 'know' this, all too well.

Then:

bobevenson wrote:No, I just understand clocks and the occasional need for lubrication.

Yeah, I bet you do! Well at least the lubing your clock part, as you're constantly lubing your absurdity and thus our laughter.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:38 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock
Then:
bobevenson wrote:You're applying friction to the wrong thing, sweetheart.
Then:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:It would seem that you 'know' this, all too well.
Then:
bobevenson wrote:No, I just understand clocks and the occasional need for lubrication.
Yeah, I bet you do! Well at least the lubing your clock part, as you're constantly lubing your absurdity and thus our laughter.

Have you ever tried applying friction to an hourglass? It only needs lubrication once an hour.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:10 am**

bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I apply friction to a mechanical clock
Then:
bobevenson wrote:You're applying friction to the wrong thing, sweetheart.
Then:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:It would seem that you 'know' this, all too well.
Then:
bobevenson wrote:No, I just understand clocks and the occasional need for lubrication.
Yeah, I bet you do! Well at least the lubing your clock part, as you're constantly lubing your absurdity and thus our laughter.
Have you ever tried applying friction to an hourglass? It only needs lubrication once an hour.

Look Bob, your a person that needs companionship just like all the rest, and I feel for you, because most of the time the points people make here, go right over your head, as evidenced in your replies, at least those dealing with science. So in the interest of people helping people, from now on, I'll simply humor you, until such time that you start getting it, at which time I'll start to seriously engage you with honest argument. Because the tit for tat one liners, gets old after a while.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:13 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because the tit for tat...

Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:46 pm**

bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because the tit for tat...
Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.

No worries, my son, it's OK!

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:07 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because the tit for tat...
Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.
No worries, my son, it's OK!

You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:47 pm**

It would seem most people don't understand time. They think it is something when in fact it's merely an illusion, a part of their mythology, like that of the definite existence of god, or the boogyman. They are foolish enough to believe that a mechanical device they build, that creates movement at an arbitrary rate, somehow magically senses an invisible concept born of their minds. In all situations it is the speed of relative movement that is changing; that is being measured, there is no need for a third constituent, such that those that actually believe one can traverse time, in either direction, must believe in a god, as they could only have faith that either exists.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:51 pm**

bobevenson wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote: Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.
No worries, my son, it's OK!
You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)

Sure son, what ever you need.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:44 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote: Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.

No worries, my son, it's OK!

bobevenson wrote:You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sure son, what ever you need.

bobevenson wrote: Carte blanche, huh? Now you're talking my language.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:00 am**

bobevenson wrote:Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No worries, my son, it's OK!

bobevenson wrote:You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sure son, what ever you need.

bobevenson wrote: Carte blanche, huh? Now you're talking my language.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Only in so far as that, which you state, that I believe is ridiculousness, for it's own sake.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:11 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:No worries, my son, it's OK!
bobevenson wrote:You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sure son, what ever you need.
bobevenson wrote: Carte blanche, huh? Now you're talking my language.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Only in so far as that, which you state, that I believe is ridiculousness, for it's own sake.

bobevenson wrote:You totally lost me there. You must be related to Arising-uk.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:23 am**

bobevenson wrote:Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No worries, my son, it's OK!

bobevenson wrote:You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sure son, what ever you need.

bobevenson wrote: Carte blanche, huh? Now you're talking my language.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Only in so far as that, which you state, that I believe is ridiculousness, for it's own sake.

bobevenson wrote:You totally lost me there. You must be related to Arising-uk.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sure son, what ever you say!

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:44 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Could you explain to me what a tat is because I'm not sure I have any.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:No worries, my son, it's OK!
bobevenson wrote:You're just going to let me slide then? (lubrication pun not intended)
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sure son, what ever you need.
bobevenson wrote: Carte blanche, huh? Now you're talking my language.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Only in so far as that, which you state, that I believe is ridiculousness, for it's own sake.
bobevenson wrote:You totally lost me there. You must be related to Arising-uk.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sure son, what ever you say!

bobevenson wrote:Right, she never explains herself either.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted

Re: The Big Bang is Busted