Philosophy Now Forum

TSBU wrote:You don't need to put a whole post in a quote, it's completely useless in this case. Two fucking lines.... Just put the part you are answering... or nothing. Quotes serve this purpose: to make easier to the reader. If you put a big quote to answer a person, it's worse to the reader. That's the reason why why have pages, that's why we don't put all the fucking thread in one page, we separate in paragraphs, we don't say the same over and over...

Who are you talking to?

ken wrote:

TSBU wrote:You don't need to put a whole post in a quote, it's completely useless in this case. Two fucking lines.... Just put the part you are answering... or nothing. Quotes serve this purpose: to make easier to the reader. If you put a big quote to answer a person, it's worse to the reader. That's the reason why why have pages, that's why we don't put all the fucking thread in one page, we separate in paragraphs, we don't say the same over and over...

Who are you talking to?

You may be a contradictory simple man, but you should already know that I'm talking to you, because you are the one who posted two lines with a quote of... 50 lines?

TSBU wrote:

ken wrote:

TSBU wrote:You don't need to put a whole post in a quote, it's completely useless in this case. Two fucking lines.... Just put the part you are answering... or nothing. Quotes serve this purpose: to make easier to the reader. If you put a big quote to answer a person, it's worse to the reader. That's the reason why why have pages, that's why we don't put all the fucking thread in one page, we separate in paragraphs, we don't say the same over and over...

Who are you talking to?

You may be a contradictory simple man, but you should already know that I'm talking to you, because you are the one who posted two lines with a quote of... 50 lines?

Yes I am the most simplest of them ALL. I am that simple I have no idea what you mean by 'contradictory' here.

I replied to surreptitious57 the exact same way surreptitious57 replied to Me. I changed font color to respond.

You obviously did not really look at and take notice at all of what I did. I am certainly NOT the one who posted two lines with a quote of.... 50 lines. Maybe next time be more observant of what is actually happening, then you will not get "Who are you talking to" responses again. Re-read it and see if you find anything different next time.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:
Thank you very much. Just what I was looking for to show as evidence and proof to others in this last experiment. That experiment was to show exactly how the way the brain will state it knows something, but then when challenged is unable to provide any answer at all.

You have a habit of doing this, so thank you again.

I am under no obligation to teach you what "mind" means.

Of course you are under no obligation. But I could also say the same to you that "I am under no obligation to teach you any thing", but I am not arrogant enough nor stupid enough to talk like that.

Actually you are more than stupid enough. My last comment was only reflecting your stupid and arrogant responses.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:However, let me know what you think it is and I can put you straight.

You are doing exactly what you did last time. That is you tell me to give my definition of some thing, then you tell My that I am wrong, YET, when I ask you for your definition or meaning of that word you provide absolutely nothing at all. By the way even when my definition is a direct copy of a dictionary's definition you still attempt to tell Me that I am wrong.

Also, I have already expressed what the Mind is, and you said, "How stupid", which is the very reason WHY I have been continually asking you to provide your answer to what the Mind is. But you will not do this. The very reason WHY you will not is becoming more and more obvious.

Put up or shut up. If you don't know how to describe what you mean by mind, you have no need to be so ashamed, it's not an easy concept for you.

Yes I am the most simplest of them ALL. I am that simple I have no idea what you mean by 'contradictory' here.

Yeah,and you are the humblest man in the whole Universe...

I replied to surreptitious57 the exact same way surreptitious57 replied to Me. I changed font color to respond.

So, he did it wrong, and then you can do it wrong.

You obviously did not really look at and take notice at all of what I did. I am certainly NOT the one who posted two lines with a quote of.... 50 lines. Maybe next time be more observant of what is actually happening, then you will not get "Who are you talking to" responses again. Re-read it and see if you find anything different next time.

It's so fucking disturbing how you make asumptions while you talk about the opposite. I read it, and you are doing that. But i don't really give a fuck, I don't mind who is the one doing it, I just said what is wrong, you did it wrong, but you are not the only one. And I don't mind if you keep doing it wrong, I know you are going to do it, but I thought I have to say it, it's free and I have time for that. Now keep talking about nothing, mindologyst.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Put up or shut up. If you don't know how to describe what you mean by mind, you have no need to be so ashamed, it's not an easy concept for you.

Have you forgotten that it was I who has ALREADY described what I mean by 'Mind', AND it was you who commented on "How stupid" I am with the description I gave. You were then asked by Me to provide your definition of 'Mind'. You have yet to provide ANY definition whatsoever, so far.

TSBU wrote:

I replied to surreptitious57 the exact same way surreptitious57 replied to Me. I changed font color to respond.

So, he did it wrong, and then you can do it wrong.

I think you will find that there is NO right nor wrong ways to reply. Only different ways. For example I could say the way you reply is wrong. If you notice here in this response, like others will now notice, you put words within quotation marks but you do not add who the quote is actually coming from. To Me, that is WRONG because readers get confused to who you are referring to and answering to. But obviously it is NOT wrong to you, otherwise you would not have done it that way. What is wrong to you may not be wrong to another, and vice versa.

If I recall correctly it was the first time I replied in different colored font. I did this because it was a long post that I was responding to and I did not feel like "fixing" or changing all of what was already written by someone else into their "corrected" quotation marks. It was easier for Me to just do what they did, and that is just respond in different colored font, which is not exactly wrong. Only different.

TSBU wrote:

You obviously did not really look at and take notice at all of what I did. I am certainly NOT the one who posted two lines with a quote of.... 50 lines. Maybe next time be more observant of what is actually happening, then you will not get "Who are you talking to" responses again. Re-read it and see if you find anything different next time.

It's so fucking disturbing how you make asumptions while you talk about the opposite. I read it, and you are doing that.

Are you joking about who is making assumptions here?

What assumption do you allege I made?

The actual assumption you made is that I wrote only two lines. I recommended you go back and re-read, which you obviously did NOT do, because if you did you would have seen what I actually did do. The ridiculousness of what you are writing here is hilarious. You are saying that I am making the assumptions yet it is your assuming that is holding you back from even going and checking your own obvious wrong assumption and mistake here. I am pretty sure readers of this will find this all rather amusing also.

It was YOU who wrote that I did something, which if you return to the post you are referring to you will see that I did NOT give only two lines of response. If you go back and re-read, then you will notice that I actually gave many more lines of response than just two lines. To make it easier for you to see I wrote, ALL of my many responses in blue font. I wonder if this time you will go back and re-read, and notice now that I did NOT write just two lines? Or are you still not going to let go of that assumption that you are dearly trying to hold onto? Are you again going to respond and not even check?

TSBU wrote: But i don't really give a fuck, I don't mind who is the one doing it, I just said what is wrong, you did it wrong, but you are not the only one. And I don't mind if you keep doing it wrong, I know you are going to do it, but I thought I have to say it, it's free and I have time for that. Now keep talking about nothing, mindologyst.

Talking about nothing.

I did NOT do what you still allege I did.

What you say is wrong does not necessarily make it wrong.

You assume that I will keep doing it wrong, which could be a completely wrong assumption in of itself. Now if you want to know what is really wrong, making wrong assumptions is the wrong thing to do. If, however, I do get a long response again written in the same way I did that time, and I again do not feel like quoting all of the post again like I did not feel doing last time, then I will probably just do the same thing again and just do like they did and just change the color of the font in my reply. The fact that you even believe that I am going to do it "wrong" again, shows some form of fortune telling ability that you believe you have, as well as showing us all here a serious distortion in the way that you think.

Worse of all is you do not even quote others in a so called "correct" way, as shown and proven in this very reply of yours here. You propose others should do it the "correct way, yet you yourself do not even do it the right way. This is of course if there such a thing as a 'correct' and 'right' way to respond.

Talking about making assumptions and then doing the very exact opposite.

ken wrote:

TSBU wrote:

I replied to surreptitious57 the exact same way surreptitious57 replied to Me. I changed font color to respond.

So, he did it wrong, and then you can do it wrong.

I think you will find that there is NO right nor wrong ways to reply.

I stop reading here, don't lose more time writing for me.

TSBU wrote:

ken wrote:

TSBU wrote: So, he did it wrong, and then you can do it wrong.

I think you will find that there is NO right nor wrong ways to reply.

I stop reading here, don't lose more time writing for me.

Fair enough. I can understand WHY you supposedly do not "want" to read any further.

As for how much truth is in the first part of your sentence here I think is as obvious to Me as it will be to most future readers.

ken wrote:

TSBU wrote:

ken wrote:
I think you will find that there is NO right nor wrong ways to reply.

I stop reading here, don't lose more time writing for me.

Fair enough. I can understand WHY you supposedly do not "want" to read any further.

As for how much truth is in the first part of your sentence here I think is as obvious to Me as it will be to most future readers.

No, you can't. And it's obvius for you, becase you are stupid enough to think that many things are obvious. There won't be "future readers" in a week or so. Nobody reads ancient threads, and only a few people read this thread now. And I can say that, if there are people who find you a little interesting, that will last... a couple of weeks? and there are one or two, but they won't see the same things you see as "obvious", none of them.
You are boring for me, you believe for yourself a lot of stupid things, and you contradict yourself all the time, it's disturbing to see how far you are from reality (that you say, when you want, that there is no "right or wrong"), that's all. And now, as I said, don't lose your time answering me, it hurts me to see a person like you saying what you say and talking to me, it's like a person without legs trying to jump.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Put up or shut up. If you don't know how to describe what you mean by mind, you have no need to be so ashamed, it's not an easy concept for you.

Have you forgotten that it was I who has ALREADY described what I mean by 'Mind', AND it was you who commented on "How stupid" I am with the description I gave. You were then asked by Me to provide your definition of 'Mind'. You have yet to provide ANY definition whatsoever, so far.

Put up or shut up. You are still prevaricating.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Put up or shut up. If you don't know how to describe what you mean by mind, you have no need to be so ashamed, it's not an easy concept for you.

Have you forgotten that it was I who has ALREADY described what I mean by 'Mind', AND it was you who commented on "How stupid" I am with the description I gave. You were then asked by Me to provide your definition of 'Mind'. You have yet to provide ANY definition whatsoever, so far.

Put up or shut up. You are still prevaricating.

I have put up. You have not.

You have been evasive since I asked you the pointed question, What exactly is the 'Mind', to you? You are prevaricating in this thread just like you were in another thread when I asked you a similar direct clarifying question.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:
Have you forgotten that it was I who has ALREADY described what I mean by 'Mind', AND it was you who commented on "How stupid" I am with the description I gave. You were then asked by Me to provide your definition of 'Mind'. You have yet to provide ANY definition whatsoever, so far.

Put up or shut up. You are still prevaricating.

I have put up. .

No you have not. You are still prevaricating

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Put up or shut up. You are still prevaricating.

I have put up. .

No you have not. You are still prevaricating

Others can and will judge who has been prevaricating here.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:
I have put up. .

No you have not. You are still prevaricating

Others can and will judge who has been prevaricating here.

Since you are a newbie, you may not be aware of the many discussions and explanations I have furnished about the nature of the concept of "mind". Since the thread is about "The explanation of Life", I do not see it has fruitful to get into a childish pissing contest with you on an off-topic discussion that you have only a limited understanding of.