|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BassosBassos Date: Aug 18, 2008 13:05
"Tom" comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NLGdnasdAtX1wzvVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Bassos" wrote in message
> news:48a5ee04$0$199$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:qaSdnbcCeMydEDnVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>> "Bassos" wrote in message
>>> news:48a45957$0$198$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing you can focus on that is real.
>>>
>>> Everything is real.
>>
>> Care to present some evidence ?
>
> Everything is evidence.
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: TomTom Date: Aug 18, 2008 16:27
"Bassos" wrote in message
news:48a9d61a$0$190$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Tom" comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NLGdnasdAtX1wzvVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "Bassos" wrote in message
>> news:48a5ee04$0$199$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qaSdnbcCeMydEDnVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...>>>>
>>>> "Bassos" wrote in message
>>>> news:48a45957$0$198$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing you can focus on that is real.
>>>>
>>>> Everything is real.
>>>
>>> Care to present some evidence ? ...
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Erwin HessleErwin Hessle Date: Aug 20, 2008 15:24
On Aug 18, 3:58 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>> No, I showed why *your* conclusion is as stupid as it is, because I
>> *am* smarter than you. Much, much smarter.
>
> I think it is funny that you claim this here, while you below agree with me.
>
>> You can't possibly experience everything,
>
> Precisely the point, and i thank you for agreeing with me.
You ought to know by now that this kind of pitifully transparent "aha!
that's what I meant all along!" evasion isn't going to fly with me,
sunshine, because:
1. That wasn't precisely your point at all; and even if it was
2. It's the implications of that observation which are at issue - not
the observation itself - and you have these predictably ass-backwards.
|
| Show full article (1.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BassosBassos Date: Aug 21, 2008 14:10
"Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:b45a5d6e-e0e1-473a-aec7-5213776762b6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 3:58 pm, "Bassos" wrote:> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>>> No, I showed why *your* conclusion is as stupid as it is, because I
>>> *am* smarter than you. Much, much smarter.
>
>> I think it is funny that you claim this here, while you below agree with
>> me.
>
>>> You can't possibly experience everything,
>
>> Precisely the point, and i thank you for agreeing with me.
>
>1. That wasn't precisely your point at all; and even if it was
So, it is no, even if it is yes, very well constructed argument, cheers.
> 2. It's the implications of that observation which are at issue - not
> the observation itself - and you have these predictably ass-backwards.
This is where you are wrong.
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Erwin HessleErwin Hessle Date: Aug 22, 2008 05:13
On Aug 21, 5:10 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b45a5d6e-e0e1-473a-aec7-5213776762b6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 3:58 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
>>> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>>>> No, I showed why *your* conclusion is as stupid as it is, because I
>>>> *am* smarter than you. Much, much smarter.
>
>>> I think it is funny that you claim this here, while you below agree with
>>> me.
>
>>>> You can't possibly experience everything,
>
>>> Precisely the point, and i thank you for agreeing with me.
>
>>1. That wasn't precisely your point at all; and even if it was
>
> So, it is no, even if it is yes, very well constructed argument, cheers. ...
|
| Show full article (2.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 22, 2008 11:13
"Executive Function" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4139e53-0c3f-4c9b-b930-34632ade02dd@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On 17 Aug, 22:57, "Searles O'Dubhain" wrote:> "Executive Function" hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7e7cc43f-12ed-4e8e-88d9-0e88f41323c0@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Aug, 16:07, "Searles O'Dubhain" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "Executive Function" hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> "Monkey Mind" wrote in message
>
|
| Show full article (5.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BassosBassos Date: Aug 22, 2008 13:25
> On Aug 21, 5:10 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
>> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b45a5d6e-e0e1-473a-aec7-5213776762b6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 18, 3:58 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
>>>>> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>>>>> No, I showed why *your* conclusion is as stupid as it is, because I
>>>>> *am* smarter than you. Much, much smarter.
>>
>>>> I think it is funny that you claim this here, while you below agree
>>>> with
>>>> me.
>>
>>>>> You can't possibly experience everything,
>>
>>>> Precisely the point, and i thank you for agreeing with me.
>> ...
|
| Show full article (2.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Erwin HessleErwin Hessle Date: Aug 22, 2008 14:19
On Aug 22, 4:25 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>> You're still not paying attention, and deliberately trying to hide
>> that fact, now. Regardless of what you need to do before you do
>> anything else, the implications of the observation were at issue, so
>> your attempt to claim that "this is where you are wrong" is - how
>> shall we say? - curious.
>
> No, it goes right to the core.
> You talk about conclusions based on data which you cannot be sure of.
> So let us recap, reaaallly slow :
Good idea. You seem to need things explained to you real slow, and
even then you don't get it.
> Before you can conclude anything 'true' from an observation, you need to
> 'know' (lol)
> -the method you used to observe was sufficient. (meaning perfect, eg-
> impossible)
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Executive FunctionExecutive Function Date: Aug 22, 2008 18:45
On 22 Aug, 23:19, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:> On Aug 22, 4:25 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
>
>> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>>> You're still not paying attention, and deliberately trying to hide
>>> that fact, now. Regardless of what you need to do before you do
>>> anything else, the implications of the observation were at issue, so
>>> your attempt to claim that "this is where you are wrong" is - how
>>> shall we say? - curious.
>
>> No, it goes right to the core.
>> You talk about conclusions based on data which you cannot be sure of.
>> So let us recap, reaaallly slow :
>
> Good idea. You seem to need things explained to you real slow, and
> even then you don't get it.
>
>> Before you can conclude anything 'true' from an observation, you need to
>> 'know' (lol)
>> -the method you used to observe was sufficient. (meaning perfect, eg- ...
|
| Show full article (3.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Erwin HessleErwin Hessle Date: Aug 26, 2008 04:32
On Aug 25, 3:05 pm, "Bassos" wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" erwinhessle.com> wrote in message>> Error #1. If you observed something, you already know the method you
>> used was sufficient to observe it, on account of you having, you know,
>> observed it, and all.
>
> Comment on Error #1 :
> Just because a dream seems real does not mean you observed something that is
> actually real.
> (as in lol)
So you can't tell the difference between a dream and reality? "Lol
what a dumbass!" Three year-olds can do this. No wonder you're such a
clueless twat.
|
| Show full article (2.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
