A revolution in thought - Page 207

Doctor X · #**5151** 06-01-2011, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I feel this need to insert myself into a discussion that I have never contributed to because I am super and you postmodernist fascist lovers of Edith Pilaf and her thrilling uvula do not appreciate the regime of hate you have created.

LADYSHEA DID NOT REQUIRE AN APOLOGY, I OFFERED IT TO HER, GET OVER YOURSELF.

Most do not bother responding to him.

Like most do not watch Patrick other than her Go Daddy ads.

--J.D.

ChuckF · #**5152** 06-01-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Yes, actual harm* or the significant risk of harm is a requirement for an apology to be expected, I think.

delightful

Doctor X · #**5153** 06-01-2011, 12:08 AM

See what you have done now?

You have summoned ChuckF :sadno:

--J.D.

mickthinks · #**5154** 06-01-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In my experience it is customary amongst humans to apologize for mistakes with or without assessing risk of harm, or actual harm.

I doubt that. For example, if a human walking past you in the street discovers they are walking in the wrong direction, I doubt it is your experience that they apologise to you for their mistake. The way we identify the humans it is appropriate to apologise to is by recognising the negative consequences, potential and actual, of our actions and whom they threaten and blight.

Mick: I think peacegirl was on the receiving end of thedoc's mistake in a way in which you were not.
LS: I would agree with that

Okay, then your "What am I missing in your question? I am apparently missing some implication you see" was really quite disingenuous, I think.

Stephen Maturin · #**5155** 06-01-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

See what you have done now?

You have summoned ChuckF :sadno:

The circle of life is complete.

ChuckF · #**5156** 06-01-2011, 12:19 AM

That is my second favorite animated dancing troll guy and by default I love any thread he is posted in.

I'M SORRY

Stephen Maturin · #**5157** 06-01-2011, 12:26 AM

10-4 on the animated dancing troll guy,* but there was much to love about this thread already.

*Devising the idea of putting Trollface on Steamboat Willie merits a serious reward, free Kools and 40s for life at the very least.

ChuckF · #**5158** 06-01-2011, 12:30 AM

This was one of those thrads where I felt like I wasn't really in on the ground floor, so it was hard for me to get into it. Like I came in and stuck my toe in the water for a little newb-prodding earlier, but between the :tealdeer:

and the fact that there was JUST SO MUCH OF IT I never really committed. Only now am I realizing how great it really is.

Doctor X · #**5159** 06-01-2011, 12:30 AM

Yes, that is beyond awesome, though I must confess I have always loved the Brezhnev 6 million dollar man in a totally heteronormal-appropriate way.

It is . . . the eyebrows. . . .

--J.D.

Doctor X · #**5160** 06-01-2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This was one of those thrads where I felt like I wasn't really in on the ground floor, so it was hard for me to get into it.

mickthinks posting butthurt means never having to post you are sorry.

--J.D.

thedoc · #**5161** 06-01-2011, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Then you should be able to answer my question ...

My choice.

mickthinks · #**5162** 06-01-2011, 12:58 AM

... to look weak and shifty. Yes, of course it is.

thedoc · #**5163** 06-01-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

... to look weak and shifty. Yes, of course it is.

Your choice.

mickthinks · #**5164** 06-01-2011, 01:53 AM

... to call you out and show you up? Yes, it is!

(Are you trying to make this an even bigger deal?)

davidm · #**5165** 06-01-2011, 01:56 AM

I never thought I'd be glad to see Mickthinks hijacking a thread, but I am!

:lol:

thedoc · #**5166** 06-01-2011, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I never thought I'd be glad to see Mickthinks hijacking a thread, but I am!

:lol:

I'm glad you're amused, but no promises.

thedoc · #**5167** 06-01-2011, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickthinks

.
(Are you trying to make this an even bigger deal?)

I was done a few posts ago.

mickthinks · #**5168** 06-01-2011, 02:08 AM

LOL except in the sense that you are carrying on ...

:rolleyes:

davidm · #**5169** 06-01-2011, 02:10 AM

You go, Mickthinks. :cheer:

You are the perfect antidote to this nonsense. And this will bring Chuck in! :pimpbrezhnev:

thedoc · #**5170** 06-01-2011, 02:13 AM

Are we there yet?

YouTube - ‪Peggy Lee - The Party's...

&feature=fvst

thedoc · #**5171** 06-01-2011, 02:14 AM

[quote Henry]

peacegirl · #**5172** 06-01-2011, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did not come to his knowledge through testing. It came through is amazing ability to observe and to reason what he was seeing.

Yes, amazingly, the old idiot observed that reflected moonlight arrives instantaneously but light reflected off your neighbor takes eight and a half minutes to arrive.

When did he observe this? While hustling some sucker at billiards after dropping out of the seventh grade?

:lol:

Back on ignore.

peacegirl · #**5173** 06-01-2011, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Google epistemology. There are other ways to have a valid observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This appears to have been edited in after I had already quoted and responded.

But he did do science LadyShea. Forget the debacle regarding the senses. His discovery is scientific.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. I already stated that what Lessans did was philosophy, not science. Yet he and you present it as science. I have been refuting that the work is scientifically valid, not that it is
philosophical in nature.

What is Epistemology?:

Epistemology is the investigation into the grounds and nature of knowledge itself. The study of epistemology focuses on our means for acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood. Modern epistemology generally involves a debate between rationalism and empiricism, or the question of whether knowledge can be acquired a priori or a posteriori:

Empiricism: knowledge is obtained through experience.
Rationalism: knowledge can be acquired through the use of reason.

peacegirl · #**5174** 06-01-2011, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

One thing that has consistantly bothered me about this thread is that people have read the book and Peacegirl has repeatedly accused them of not reading it. People here have understood what Lessans was trying to say and Peacegirl has constantly said they can't possably understand because they do not agree. Untill Peacegirl will acknowledge that posters have read the book and understand what they have read there will be no meaningful dialogue, even if it goes another 200 pages. Peacegirl is the one who is extreamly close-minded and arrogant by insisting that the litmus test for reading and understanding is 100% agreement with the book. The precepts presented there are not undeniable or self-evident, but are extreamly questionable, and need a lot of proving.

Doc, maybe it's because you know you haven't read the book that you have to keep repeating that you read the book, but disagree. I know you haven't read it, and you know it too. Shhh, we'll keep it a secret.

Awareness · #**5175** 06-01-2011, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

One thing that has consistantly bothered me about this thread is that people have read the book and Peacegirl has repeatedly accused them of not reading it. People here have understood what Lessans was trying to say and Peacegirl has constantly said they can't possably understand because they do not agree. Untill Peacegirl will acknowledge that posters have read the book and understand what they have read there will be no meaningful dialogue, even if it goes another 200 pages. Peacegirl is the one who is extreamly close-minded and arrogant by insisting that the litmus test for reading and understanding is 100% agreement with the book. The precepts presented there are not undeniable or self-evident, but are extreamly questionable, and need a lot of proving.

Doc, maybe it's because you know you haven't read the book that you have to keep repeating that you read the book but just disagree. I know you haven't read it, and you know it too. Shhh, we'll keep it a secret.

What kind of bullshit is this Peacegirl?
Are you here to discuss or just play around?

Quote:

I know you haven't read it, and you know it too. Shhh, we'll keep it a secret.

I have not read it , cause I'm not wasting my time on a shitty paperback.
Even pool players get more publicity than your father??!

Do you even talk with people in real life Peacegirl?

And if you do, that would be at least a comforting thought.