Proposal for difference between types of pattern

[SpheresOfBalance]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.
Imp: you have yet to prove what existence is and you have yet to demonstrate what knowledge is... (4000+ years of philosophic debate have yet to do it either, but you "know" that it "exists" in libraries that you haven't read yet...)
SoB: incorrect, what you mean, is that differing camps of thought, has left you confused, which seems quite the case with you. I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions. But to show you what it's like to be on the receiving end of your BS, "do your own homework." (Total BS and non conducive to a meaningful conversation isn't it?)

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.
Imp: you closely imitate the philosophers I mention; and your refusal to educate yourself on their writings is no assumption...
SoB: Not imitation, rather parallel. No, as to 'refusal,' is in fact, your 'ass'umption.

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?
Imp: yes, you "know" so much about philosophical skepticism...
SoB: I know what skepticism is, my friend, you just fear to acknowledge that highlighted above. Because it rips that argument to shreds.

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.
Imp: Ah... and your definitions give you knowledge and truth? who could disagree with knowledge and truth? Descartes? Gettier? dictionary writers? Carnap is smiling...
SoB: A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer," but it's still total BS. Many insane people smile.

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?
Imp: I simply pointed out your plagiarism and your refusal to educate yourself... why would you feel scolded? your "new" philosophy of "...disagreement as to what the definition should contain..." is the gateway to justified true belief... oh wait...
SoB: Scolded not, but some people seem too stupid to follow a simple color code. Or contextual logic. You do know what a legend is, don't you.

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.
Imp: once again, do your own homework...
SoB: Once again you use false concepts to mask your ignorance, BS, laziness, avoidance, etc.

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.
Imp: The quote was his, but you "knew" this of course, without having read him...
SoB: Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

psssst, here, I have a comic book I want you to read.

[Impenitent]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.
Imp: you have yet to prove what existence is and you have yet to demonstrate what knowledge is... (4000+ years of philosophic debate have yet to do it either, but you "know" that it "exists" in libraries that you haven't read yet...)
SoB: incorrect, what you mean, is that differing camps of thought, has left you confused, which seems quite the case with you. I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions. But to show you what it's like to be on the receiving end of your BS, "do your own homework." (Total BS and non conducive to a meaningful conversation isn't it?)

keep excepting them all

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.
Imp: you closely imitate the philosophers I mention; and your refusal to educate yourself on their writings is no assumption...
SoB: Not imitation, rather parallel. No, as to 'refusal,' is in fact, your 'ass'umption.

imitate/parallel... theft is theft...

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?
Imp: yes, you "know" so much about philosophical skepticism...
SoB: I know what skepticism is, my friend, you just fear to acknowledge that highlighted above. Because it rips that argument to shreds.

which argument is that?

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.
Imp: Ah... and your definitions give you knowledge and truth? who could disagree with knowledge and truth? Descartes? Gettier? dictionary writers? Carnap is smiling...
SoB: A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer," but it's still total BS. Many insane people smile.

of course...
and thus Rene's God vanished without his "thinking not"...

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?
Imp: I simply pointed out your plagiarism and your refusal to educate yourself... why would you feel scolded? your "new" philosophy of "...disagreement as to what the definition should contain..." is the gateway to justified true belief... oh wait...
SoB: Scolded not, but some people seem too stupid to follow a simple color code. Or contextual logic. You do know what a legend is, don't you.

or to read philosophy...

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.
Imp: once again, do your own homework...
SoB: Once again you use false concepts to mask your ignorance, BS, laziness, avoidance, etc.

false concepts? (and your continued name calling has lost its appeal)

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.
Imp: The quote was his, but you "knew" this of course, without having read him...
SoB: Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

psssst, here, I have a comic book I want you to read.

All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.

all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence

I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions.

Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain

A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer,"

'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries.

Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

as you believe everything you haven't read doesn't matter?

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.
Imp: you have yet to prove what existence is and you have yet to demonstrate what knowledge is... (4000+ years of philosophic debate have yet to do it either, but you "know" that it "exists" in libraries that you haven't read yet...)
SoB: incorrect, what you mean, is that differing camps of thought, has left you confused, which seems quite the case with you. I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions. But to show you what it's like to be on the receiving end of your BS, "do your own homework." (Total BS and non conducive to a meaningful conversation isn't it?)
Imp: keep excepting them all
SoB: One that argues grammar, spelling, word forms, do so only because they have lost the real argument, as errors can be attributed to the tools we use, or a rushed response. The real question is, did you understand the point or not. Apparently you don't like what you see in your mirror, I understand.

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.
Imp: you closely imitate the philosophers I mention; and your refusal to educate yourself on their writings is no assumption...
SoB: Not imitation, rather parallel. No, as to 'refusal,' is in fact, your 'ass'umption.
Imp: imitate/parallel... theft is theft...
SoB: Incorrect! You have no way of actually knowing. You see and say only what serves your argument, It is impossible for you to prove that I have plagiarized, as I never have, any more than you have. Unless your accusal is merely a reflection of your own guilt.

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?
Imp: yes, you "know" so much about philosophical skepticism...
SoB: I know what skepticism is, my friend, you just fear to acknowledge that highlighted above. Because it rips that argument to shreds.
Imp: which argument is that?
SoB: boy, you do have problems don't you? Too lazy to even look above at the THREAD, you do understand this simple concept, don't you?

...I am claiming skepticism...

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.
Imp: Ah... and your definitions give you knowledge and truth? who could disagree with knowledge and truth? Descartes? Gettier? dictionary writers? Carnap is smiling...
SoB: A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer," but it's still total BS. Many insane people smile.
ImP: of course... and thus Rene's God vanished without his "thinking not"...
SoB: It's also true that they can see unrelated parallels, as well. Are you Schizophrenic?

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?
Imp: I simply pointed out your plagiarism and your refusal to educate yourself... why would you feel scolded? your "new" philosophy of "...disagreement as to what the definition should contain..." is the gateway to justified true belief... oh wait...
SoB: Scolded not, but some people seem too stupid to follow a simple color code. Or contextual logic. You do know what a legend is, don't you.
ImP: or to read philosophy...
SoB: And yet you continue to make an ASS out of U not ME.

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.
Imp: once again, do your own homework...
SoB: Once again you use false concepts to mask your ignorance, BS, laziness, avoidance, etc.
Imp: false concepts? (and your continued name calling has lost its appeal)
SoB: One should always expect to reap what they sow. I'm I seeing signs of Megalomania?

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.
Imp: The quote was his, but you "knew" this of course, without having read him...
SoB: Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

psssst, here, I have a comic book I want you to read.
Imp: quoting SoB:

All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.

all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence

I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions.

Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain

A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer,"

'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries.

Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

Imp: as you believe everything you haven't read doesn't matter?
SoB: As you gauge, as to what I have, and haven't read, as evidenced only, by that which argues against your position, as if those you've read are necessarily correct, such that surely the Imp knows, I see, in the face of your skepticism, speaks to the possibility of your megalomania, as your reasoning lends no necessary credibility.

[Impenitent]

Imp: definitions do not create existence
SoB: No one said definitions create existence, It was a foolish thing for you to say! Yet these are the definitions of existence as we know it.
Imp: yet you gave nothing but definitions...
SoB: Only a fool, would then say, that a definition 'CREATES' existence, as everyone knows that it was existence that created the definition, it's elementary. All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.
Imp: everyone "knows" this?...
Sob: Yes, all those with any kind of education.
Imp: demonstrate this "knowledge" then.
SoB: Do you know what a library is? All the books and the knowledge in them, exist; as does/did the authors that wrote them, exist; as is/was the contents/subjects of those books, exist, (except that fiction only existed in the minds of the authors), and thus, all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence. If you believe so, prove it.
Imp: you have yet to prove what existence is and you have yet to demonstrate what knowledge is... (4000+ years of philosophic debate have yet to do it either, but you "know" that it "exists" in libraries that you haven't read yet...)
SoB: incorrect, what you mean, is that differing camps of thought, has left you confused, which seems quite the case with you. I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions. But to show you what it's like to be on the receiving end of your BS, "do your own homework." (Total BS and non conducive to a meaningful conversation isn't it?)
Imp: keep excepting them all
SoB: One that argues grammar, spelling, word forms, do so only because they have lost the real argument, as errors can be attributed to the tools we use, or a rushed response. The real question is, did you understand the point or not. Apparently you don't like what you see in your mirror, I understand.

nice try

Imp: "All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists." and then you paraphrase Ludwig to hammer my point home.
SoB: No, I quoted myself. If you see a similarity, so be it.
Imp: sorry, your plagiarism isn't "new" philosophy
Sob: Here is the definition: pla·gia·rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
This I did not do, you can assume all you want.
Imp: you closely imitate the philosophers I mention; and your refusal to educate yourself on their writings is no assumption...
SoB: Not imitation, rather parallel. No, as to 'refusal,' is in fact, your 'ass'umption.
Imp: imitate/parallel... theft is theft...
SoB: Incorrect! You have no way of actually knowing. You see and say only what serves your argument, It is impossible for you to prove that I have plagiarized, as I never have, any more than you have. Unless your accusal is merely a reflection of your own guilt.

I have told you the authors of the arguments you parrot

SoB: They are those things one can mean when they use the word. If you believe otherwise, state your definition. You can speak of existence, right? Then speak! Otherwise it's safe to assume you concur with these definitions. Maybe you prefer one over the other. You can make your position on existence clear, right?
Imp: I made my position clear, but you didn't want to read it (or understand the philosophy behind it,) you wanted to assume that I agreed with one of your definitions.
SoB: No you didn't, you, the self proclaimed expert in philosophy, merely provided links, why so lazy, to not impart your belief, in your words.
Imp: "I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism..." what link?
SoB: When is a skeptic not a skeptic? When he's not skeptical of his skepticism! You are the link master.
Imp: " "
SoB: Nothing to say about this huh?
Imp: yes, you "know" so much about philosophical skepticism...
SoB: I know what skepticism is, my friend, you just fear to acknowledge that highlighted above. Because it rips that argument to shreds.
Imp: which argument is that?
SoB: boy, you do have problems don't you? Too lazy to even look above at the THREAD, you do understand this simple concept, don't you?

...I am claiming skepticism...

again, what argument?

Imp: defining existence isn't enough. all you gave was definitions.
SoB: Do you not agree that definitions are brief summations of concepts and ideas, so as to provide the quickest ready reference, so as to logically compose words, so as to speak?
Imp: brief summations of things that are not definable? how logical...
SoB: Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain, by those tasked with the maintenance of dictionaries.
Imp: Ah... and your definitions give you knowledge and truth? who could disagree with knowledge and truth? Descartes? Gettier? dictionary writers? Carnap is smiling...
SoB: A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer," but it's still total BS. Many insane people smile.
ImP: of course... and thus Rene's God vanished without his "thinking not"...
SoB: It's also true that they can see unrelated parallels, as well. Are you Schizophrenic?

they see more than you think...

Imp: and it's obvious you didn't understand the Ludwig reference...
SoB: I didn't read it, why assume I had? Just so you could attempt to berate me?
Imp: I did not berate you, I merely pointed out your assumptions were incorrect...
SoB: be·rate [bih-reyt] verb (used with object), be·rat·ed, be·rat·ing.
to scold; rebuke: He berated them in public.
Synonyms abuse, vilify, vituperate, objurgate.
Imp: again, where did I scold you?
SoB: Do you not see the sequence above as highlighted in cyan?
Imp: I simply pointed out your plagiarism and your refusal to educate yourself... why would you feel scolded? your "new" philosophy of "...disagreement as to what the definition should contain..." is the gateway to justified true belief... oh wait...
SoB: Scolded not, but some people seem too stupid to follow a simple color code. Or contextual logic. You do know what a legend is, don't you.
ImP: or to read philosophy...
SoB: And yet you continue to make an ASS out of U not ME.

Imp: and before you announce the wisdom of Wikipedia philosophy, keep in mind that Ludwig himself denounced almost everything he previously defined...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_ ... losophicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... stigations
SoB: 'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries. In libraries, dictionaries are in the 'reference' section. Did you attend university? Did you rely on reference books, so as to write your papers?
Imp: The philosophy of language encompasses far more than mere dictionaries...
SoB: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you.
Imp: I've given you links and suggestions of authors who deal extensively with it... the fact that you choose to remain ignorant of their works and attempt to claim that your "new" ideas are in fact yours rather than re-hashings of previously published philosophical works says volumes...
SoB: Again: And yet I've heard nothing of it from you, as links are not you. I have never plagiarized, though you assume otherwise.
Imp: once again, do your own homework...
SoB: Once again you use false concepts to mask your ignorance, BS, laziness, avoidance, etc.
Imp: false concepts? (and your continued name calling has lost its appeal)
SoB: One should always expect to reap what they sow. I'm I seeing signs of Megalomania?

of course you do...

Imp:please, continue showing...
SoB: What, that you seem to be a shell of a philosopher, that knows nothing more than to reference words of another.
Most of my words are mine, though I, on occasion, reference, reference material, which usually pisses certain people off. Guess of which type they are.
Imp: "Most of my words are mine"
there is nothing new under the sun...
Nothing is 'under' the sun, but rather around it. You are obviously confused. Additionally as to that of which we speak, as we are not speaking of everything around the sun, as in the universe, yet stars die and are born everyday, and yet the same, can be said of what we are actually speaking of, as mans knowledge increases every day, and you and I are two of those men. I'm sorry that you feel that you have not contributed, speak for yourself, please.
Imp: ask Bierce...
SoB: As if he is the authority, who are you to say that he is such? Prove that he is the, one and only authority, of no rivals.
Imp: The quote was his, but you "knew" this of course, without having read him...
SoB: Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

psssst, here, I have a comic book I want you to read.
Imp: quoting SoB:

All mans words and language, were CREATED to speak of all that is, all that exists.

all these things were created through existence, as there is no such thing, that has ever been found, as books/knowledge/education that was born, of the nothing, that was before existence

I on the other hand, am not confused, and have decided to except the most obvious solutions.

Everything is definable, though there may be disagreement as to what the definition should contain

A crazy man can and will disagree with anything, he may even say something as ridiculous as, "a things existence depends upon an observer,"

'All' mans words, where ever found, even here in this thread, are definitions, of sorts. Though many are suspect, as they lack credibility. So to denounce those of a credible dictionary, is to denounce the very words you speak. Though I agree that there is a variance between credible dictionaries.

Having read/heard of something or not, lends no necessary credibility to it, as to the truth of things. No wonder I see so much confusion in your words, as you make it seem as though you believe everything you've read.

Imp: as you believe everything you haven't read doesn't matter?
SoB: As you gauge, as to what I have, and haven't read, as evidenced only, by that which argues against your position, as if those you've read are necessarily correct, such that surely the Imp knows, I see, in the face of your skepticism, speaks to the possibility of your megalomania, as your reasoning lends no necessary credibility.

after contradicting yourself, you continue to cast aspersions...

thank you for the insight

finis

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

I have told you the authors of the arguments you parrot.

again, what argument?

they see more than you think...

after contradicting yourself

The parrot, only in your mind!

Denial, what a game!

They're dead of their time!

Contradiction in your understanding!

No wonder they fired you!