|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:57 am
Foam-Dome Honney Boy Are we on the gold standard, or even the silver standard any more? I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Honney Boy You want to defend your friend from the big bad Bogart-man. That's understandable. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:04 am
Honney Boy Foam-Dome Honney Boy Are we on the gold standard, or even the silver standard any more? I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Honney Boy You want to defend your friend from the big bad Bogart-man. That's understandable. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception? Where'd you get value from? And an editing note, Nixon ******** up direct conversion, but what actual legal tender originally stood for and is still essentially backed by is gold. A point which is entirely irrelevant, by the by, but I will restate that people did and do like trading their shiny things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:08 am
Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Foam-Dome Honney Boy Are we on the gold standard, or even the silver standard any more? I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Honney Boy You want to defend your friend from the big bad Bogart-man. That's understandable. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception? Where'd you get value from? Value is the most common form of shared perception. Be it the value of "blue" or the value of "gold," "word," or "value." If one does not share in the perceptions of others to create shared values one cannot participate in any form of shared reality. The internet is a good example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:15 am
Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Foam-Dome Honney Boy Are we on the gold standard, or even the silver standard any more? I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Honney Boy You want to defend your friend from the big bad Bogart-man. That's understandable. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception? Where'd you get value from? Value is the most common form of shared perception. Be it the value of "blue" or the value of "gold," "word," or "value." If one does not share in the perceptions of others to create shared values one cannot participate in any form of shared reality. The internet is a good example. So you don't grasp the physics of chemistry and wavelengths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:26 am
Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Foam-Dome I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception? Where'd you get value from? Value is the most common form of shared perception. Be it the value of "blue" or the value of "gold," "word," or "value." If one does not share in the perceptions of others to create shared values one cannot participate in any form of shared reality. The internet is a good example. So you don't grasp the physics of chemistry and wavelengths. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:33 am
Futurama, proof that the human mind is flawed, there's a lot of math for a lot of bullshit, and mindless babble. I can also provide math that everything is the devil. Go watch 23. And while the uncertainty principal is something I might have been able to get behind, I recall it being a really stupid way to say that subatomic particles are too small and fast to efficiently observe. I suppose you're also going to give me literature on how the world is flat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:36 am
Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Foam-Dome I fail to see the relevance in implying that someone is an idiot because we aren't on the gold standard anymore. Now, if the topic of the conversation had to do with the gold standard or something similar, it would be understandable. But it doesn't. It has to do with perception and reality. Therefore, such a statement is, well, pointless. Uh, no? I want to point out your apparent desire to initiate petty, facepalm-inducing arguments in discussions that shouldn't become heated debates. It's fine to state your opinion, but you can leave the hostility and "you're-an-idiot-for-not-thinking-the-way-I-do" attitude at home. I realize that I'm being redundant, but no matter how many different ways I try to rephrase it, you still seem to think that your behavior is justified. Are we on the gold standard? Should someone who doesn't understand what money is or what it means be told? Is this not about value and perception? Where'd you get value from? Value is the most common form of shared perception. Be it the value of "blue" or the value of "gold," "word," or "value." If one does not share in the perceptions of others to create shared values one cannot participate in any form of shared reality. The internet is a good example. So you don't grasp the physics of chemistry and wavelengths. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Blue and gold are clearly defined. One is a wavelength and one is an element. Our perception of the two doesn't do s**t to either. But then again, our perception of things doesn't effect anything other than how we move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:45 am
Divine_Malevolence Futurama, proof that the human mind is flawed, there's a lot of math for a lot of bullshit, and mindless babble. I can also provide math that everything is the devil. Go watch 23. And while the uncertainty principal is something I might have been able to get behind, I recall it being a really stupid way to say that subatomic particles are too small and fast to efficiently observe. I suppose you're also going to give me literature on how the world is flat? That is not what the Uncertainty Principal is about. It has nothing to do with particles except in how they change when observed. Your comment about the "flat earth" makes no sense, particularly if I'm supposed to be the hostile one here. Has there been some proof that Uncertainty is from faulty flawed logic? It would seem that there is more proof than ever that it is a fact of this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:46 am
Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Where'd you get value from? Value is the most common form of shared perception. Be it the value of "blue" or the value of "gold," "word," or "value." If one does not share in the perceptions of others to create shared values one cannot participate in any form of shared reality. The internet is a good example. So you don't grasp the physics of chemistry and wavelengths. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Blue and gold are clearly defined. One is a wavelength and one is an element. Our perception of the two doesn't do s**t to either. But then again, our perception of things doesn't effect anything other than how we move. So if I give a pill to a person and tell them that they will feel better if they take it, will they fell better if they take it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:59 am
No real threat existed. People died anyway. They acted as there reality dictated they must. From there perceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:02 am
Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Futurama, proof that the human mind is flawed, there's a lot of math for a lot of bullshit, and mindless babble. I can also provide math that everything is the devil. Go watch 23. And while the uncertainty principal is something I might have been able to get behind, I recall it being a really stupid way to say that subatomic particles are too small and fast to efficiently observe. I suppose you're also going to give me literature on how the world is flat? That is not what the Uncertainty Principal is about. It has nothing to do with particles except in how they change when observed. Your comment about the "flat earth" makes no sense, particularly if I'm supposed to be the hostile one here. Has there been some proof that Uncertainty is from faulty flawed logic? It would seem that there is more proof than ever that it is a fact of this world. And thus cannot efficiently be observed. Basically the only worthwhile thing about it. We don't know jack s**t about a good number of things while we can't effectively observe a good number of other things. This is also completely irrelevant. And the placebo effect is basically human stupidity in action. We're basically telling the brain to get better and it's obeying. Not quite movement, but a change that we've got control over in the human body. Is your only attempt to actually disprove the fact that our perception doesn't dictate reality defeated instantly by the statement "Unless it relates to our own bodies"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:05 am
Honney Boy No real threat existed. People died anyway. They acted as there reality dictated they must. From there perceptions. Ah, the Salem Witch trials. Was one of those people an actual witch? The answer was no, right? But so many people shared the perception that they were witches! Still no? I love stupid people doing stupid things. But that also is grand evidence that delusions don't dictate reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:15 am
Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy Divine_Malevolence Futurama, proof that the human mind is flawed, there's a lot of math for a lot of bullshit, and mindless babble. I can also provide math that everything is the devil. Go watch 23. And while the uncertainty principal is something I might have been able to get behind, I recall it being a really stupid way to say that subatomic particles are too small and fast to efficiently observe. I suppose you're also going to give me literature on how the world is flat? That is not what the Uncertainty Principal is about. It has nothing to do with particles except in how they change when observed. Your comment about the "flat earth" makes no sense, particularly if I'm supposed to be the hostile one here. Has there been some proof that Uncertainty is from faulty flawed logic? It would seem that there is more proof than ever that it is a fact of this world. And thus cannot efficiently be observed. Basically the only worthwhile thing about it. We don't know jack s**t about a good number of things while we can't effectively observe a good number of other things. This is also completely irrelevant. And the placebo effect is basically human stupidity in action. We're basically telling the brain to get better and it's obeying. Not quite movement, but a change that we've got control over in the human body. Is your only attempt to actually disprove the fact that our perception doesn't dictate reality defeated instantly by the statement "Unless it relates to our own bodies"? Do you mean efficiently, sufficiently, or effectively? There seems to be a language problem here. You are very confused about what I am saying. To the point that you don't seem to be making sense. Uncertainty is proof that what people see changes what happens. This happens as much with lasers, particle accelerators, or medicine. What point did you think I was trying to make, keep in mind that you're not really living up to the "Honney Boy is being hostile" ideological dogma?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:24 am
Divine_Malevolence Honney Boy No real threat existed. People died anyway. They acted as there reality dictated they must. From there perceptions. Ah, the Salem Witch trials. Was one of those people an actual witch? The answer was no, right? But so many people shared the perception that they were witches! Still no? I love stupid people doing stupid things. But that also is grand evidence that delusions don't dictate reality. So the reality of the act of killing 20 people never happened because there were no witches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
