Actually this is not an accurate account, from my perspective. I see that in this case, as with many humans, you reconstruct only those points, that in such a reiteration, support your defense of self, at the offense of another. This is common with humans. And I see it as an immaturity.
Do you? I see it as immature to not offer your perspective and then spout your psycho-babble.
So, are you saying that what you actually meant was 'up to and including the clear'? And it was what followed after that that got you all snippy. Or was it, as your words implied, the 'clearer' itself?
With respect to the "you reconstruct only those points", I don't. I address pretty much all the points. Its why I use the quote function the way I do as it allows me to easily trace back the conversation.
No, you see it as insecurities, because it suits your needs of supporting self. The truth is that I see much more in peoples meaning/conveyance than most are aware of. I seek one that is truly enlightened as to these conveyances and is capable of controlling them, as slights are falsehoods of preconception and are unfair, and distracting to a truly pleasant, rational, unemotional, intellectual conversation.
I wait for the day you can have one. As so far you tend to flare at any question asked about your thoughts or ones that challenge what you believe. What I hear is that you just want to talk to those who agree with you. You also read your own slights into this ability of 'seeing' "... much more in peoples meaning/conveyance than most are aware of". And pardon me if I place this ability up there with your 'gender intuition'. Me, I just try to hold to the maxim, "The meaning of ones words is the response they get".
For me it is not merely a subject to converse about over tea, it is a way of life, my life, all life!
See how you make sweeping generalizations about others?
Did you somehow miss the fact that I attended college and studied some philosophy, and that it was to be my major? Have you read 'all' books? <--rhetorical. If not you can stop with your slights; for that matter, even if so, for the 'truly' enlightened that is!
See the words 'some' and 'was'? I've heard your approach to the canon of philosophy, read until you find a disagreement and then stop.
So you believe that this actually matters? Great minds think alike, which is good enough for me. I don't tread over previous paths just for it's sake alone. I'll tread over them again and again and again, until such time, as the people actually listen and take heart, through action. Do you really believe that philosophy is a subject that you simply talk about over tea, as with the weather? As long as you can recite a book verbatim, you're good, to move on to the next topic?
No, I think it a subject that has addressed and answered many questions but that many appear intent upon re-inventing the wheel in the belief that they are great.
So what are you actually trying to tell me here, that wasn't self evident before your telling?
My mistake, your words led me to think you were not aware of this part of Philosophy.
I don't have to show you anything, I'm not your subordinate. Are you trying to coerce your version of being out of me, as if you are the standard, that I have to live up to? Why do you 'believe' that your misunderstanding is necessarily my burden of proof.
Because the meaning of your words is the response they get. If you think that I've not understood what you meant by your words and you have something to say then you should be able to say it another way. Else I just think you've not made your thoughts congruent with the words used to express it.
No, yours controls you, as much as mine controls me. The difference between us is that I have apologized for all those instances where I was the initiator. It's not my fault that you failed to accept, so that you can easily believe you have the moral high ground, so that you can feel justified in delivering future blows. Unless you truly believe that you are flawless, never making mistakes, thus never are required to apologize or accept. But that's a completely different problem of a more serious nature.
No, its not. And your reply is what I'm talking about as the reason why I don't often apologise is that my words match my thoughts and intentions. Take a look at the 'apologies' that you have offered me, qualified each and everyone. From where I sit they are just to salve what you perceive as your own lack of control and an attempt to regain your high-handed sense of moral righteousness.
See above, as I obviously don't take it as lightly as you apparently do.
You think three years and the economic hardship involved is taking it lightly. Studying a subject pretty much derided in western society and one considered useless is taking it lightly?
No you don't understand, we're not talking about your growing tired of Godfree's spiel, I'm saying that your particular credentials do not give you the right to necessarily speak on the truth of cosmology.
If you'd bothered to read my conversation with him rather than just jumping on your white horse you'd see that I discussed only philosophy with him. So yes, I do think my qualification gave me the right to speak to him about why what he was doing was not philosophy nor physics.
You don't! I'm saying that just as well as he can't say with 'authority,' neither can you.
Yes I can, as I was talking philosophically.
[No, like I've said, you and I have a problem with one another, we don't speak the same language. As I say things that I believe illuminate other things, you apparently can't see this, and ask of that which I see as already being answered, which is frustrating. And I see that the opposite is apparently true, of your preconceptions. So I see that we more readily butt heads. And once I see that you slight me, forget it, I'm as stubborn as a star, you'll not get anything out of me, other than sitting there burning, because it's not deserved, especially when it takes so much of me to deliver it. I can't touch-type, have sticky keys, 15 feet away from the screen, have bad eyes (although I did recently get my first pair of glasses) but it's taking me a while to get used to them, they are bifocals, fat fingertips, because of my stature. No, at that point no one deserves my effort, then you get the brain dead fucks that are oblivious to the possibility of such complications, that thoughtlessly complain about spelling, word usage, punctuation, etc, that are a result of such difficulties. Yes, unworthy in deed!
So you keep saying but I note that you reply pretty tout suite when it suits you. We do speak the same language, its called English. I think you identified the issue a while back, you don't know what you are going to type until you type it.
They're only numb because you're endlessly sucking on them. And that's Mrs Loser, for you.
Another closet case and one who pretends he's a female to stay safely in it.
We all do this, to some extent or another. I see it in your preconceived ideas as well, but that's one of the differences between us, if I pay strict attention, I'm able to see these things more readily, than a lot of people.
You need to stop with this 'We all' idea. Along with this idea that it's only your inattention that stops you being a mystical reader.
State the components of 'clearly' so as to include everyone. I have seen some of his text so that I laugh at his assertion.
Which books? "Clearly" seems to be a sticking point with you and given your condition I can maybe understand why. So try adding 'felt' or 'heard' or 'understood' after it to get what I think he meant. For myself, to state something 'clearly' one should have built a coherent thought that involves all the sense representations and then use words that maximise the listeners application of their preferred sense representations. So I should not really use 'clear' when talking to you but 'understood' or 'make more sense', etc.
Wrong, I apologized, you failed to accept such that you now almost always add sarcasm as a means to slight, for my past aggression. The convenience of non acceptance so as to vent your aggression. Such is included in your initial post that started this particular bout, of interaction.
Nope, all I did was answer your question with my opinion about where 'truth' is in modern philosophy.
Like I said, you qualify your apologies so I think them not worth much.
God you are a fool then, that does not understand the power of a nuke, as a million nukes would end everything, everyone has ever written in a mere minute, killing all life on planet earth as well as all that was written. And even if per chance a word or two remained, it would be meaningless.
Not all life as the Earth has had more power than your nukes unleashed upon it and life returns. What you mean is that Man will disappear.
So Bill Hicks is an authority? No, Bill Hicks is a fool, in this instance! I find it hard to believe that someone could be gullible enough to believe the words of a third party, as if they could possibly actually know, such that one would attempt to parrot him, with authority. I believe that, that's called hearsay here in the US court system, and is thrown out as inadmissible. Oh and there you go again, seeing me as a nation, I've never personally had any nukes, but I have stood immediately next to a live nuke, and that was enough for me, especially after all the videos.
Has it made you do anything to try and stop them? Did you march against them? Advocate unilateral disarmament? Write to your politicians? Band with others to try change things, I did. Did this experience cause you to stop helping build weapons? Did you leave the forces?
You are a female, one way or another! You do realize that we are all of female origin, right?
You believe in parthenogenesis for the human female? You think you are christ? So no, I think we are all born of male and female.
I not only broke boards and concrete blocks with various parts of my body, but disarmed many a karateka wielding all sorts of nasty hand held weapons. William J. Dometrich was my sensi whom was a military man of the Korean war, also the chief of a, then, local police force that worked closely with the FBI. His solution was not that cowardly, and as such, with his training, a good karateka, as I was, can disarm anyone, with any weapon, if the weapon wielder is foolish enough, to be as close, as any weapon, except that of a projectile weapon, could only afford. You see, you don't understand where the advantage lies in fighting, as I do. And that is in fact the problem when you parrot, just anyone.
You watched Dimitri's Senshido? These karateka coming at you full speed, full force with the intent to kill you? I doubt it. With respect to the gun, close-up would be the only chance you'd have against one, and you'd better hope they were stupid enough to nearly touch you with it. That you think there is 'cowardly' in fighting shows the dojo training mentality. I also think all that breaking is why your hands are fucked, stupid practice.
So, you can see into the future?
You said I'd be stabbing you in the back.
At this age, I too fight to win, at all costs.
At any age is what I teach my kids but I teach them to not be there in the first place, run if they can and then and only then to win at all costs, but within the UK's self-defence laws, so only such force as will be considered reasonable in the circumstances, which over here can be up to killing and maiming if in fear of ones life.
Wrong, as an adult, none other than kumite. I told you, I have penetrating eyes, that have been described as twin black holes, that along with my physique, tend to intimidate, such that I don't have to fight. From a defense standpoint, it's a great place to be, but from a relationship standpoint, it has a lot of lonely moments.
You have my sympathy but try smiling and not use this 'knowing more' 'ability' of yours. Is this kumite where you got the idea that you can easily defend against edged weapons?
See here, your preconception sees <snip> as adversarial, but I was around in the early 90's when in was coined on USENET, and it is merely informational, so as to inform the passerby that they have to read higher in the thread as content has been deleted for clarities sake. You jump to conclusions because of your preconceptions and hold me accountable with your words.
Fair enough. Time to upgrade your protocols then as its the 21st century. Remember what I said what the meaning of ones words is? That you play it out rather than just explaining shows me the games you like to play. Is this why you print in colours, still think you are on IRC?