This will be jerra's draft

[GimmeTheBall!]

Hypocrite anyone?

He was the belgian guy who answered questions through questions.
I forget, cousin.:laugh2:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He was the belgian guy who answered questions through questions.
I forget, cousin.:laugh2:

feel better?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So, a big welcome, to you, the newest member of the Ladies Tuesday Afternoon Club to git rid of or knock any post/thread that you deem not worthy of response.

Odd, though you don't like it but yet you feel compelled to answer.

Don't like what? I merely pointed out that a person can use logic to address a problem yet still reach a wrong answer. I never once complained about your schtick. As I recall, you were the one lamenting over 50-cent words, right?

So read it again and try to adhere. Don't like da schtick, don't read it. Don't martyr yourself by reading AND responding if you have nothing to add except some junior high response

That's an interesting assessment of my response. After all, your sig states, "Don't like tha schtick? Don't read it, Blutto!"

And my "junior high" response went like this: "if you don't like the schtick, don't read it."

There seems to be some sort of "logical" disconnect here.

Only try to add something meaninful. It ain't difficult, just compose something during your homeroom at that junior high.

Junior high? Are you sure? After your "ladies room" comment, I've concluded that elemetary schoolers might provide smack that's more on par with you.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

so you want to play. you dont even know what i was referring to if you are making this comment. the askance for a refutation was on the standard of how to best define 'in the NFL' in reference to players with newly expired contracts. How that is philisophical is beyond me. Of course its subjective but saying you cannot argue subjective premises is just ignorant. If anything the most interesting discussions occur on subjects withour clear boundaries.

furthermore, a refutation does not have to be definitive. your making the assumption that a refutation is inherently true which it just is not.

as for the grammar smack thats just weak. if you have noticed i dont capitalize either except for emphasis but in the end what is your point? are you actually thinnking that you discredit me for the lack of a spellchecker or that i dont care about comma placement. heck im one of the few people here that use ; and : correctly and consistently but hey whatever makes you feeel better about yourself.

btw your schtick is lame. so put aht in your pipe and huff huff away.

So, will this be Jerra's draft? And if you respond, we want to see how well you use your semicolon. (And, cousin, love that swell parallel construction. You are blazing new trails, let me tell you!

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, will this be Jerra's draft? And if you respond, we want to see how well you use your semicolon. (And, cousin, love that swell parallel construction. You are blazing new trails, let me tell you!

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

I shouldnt waste my time but i see im close to 2k posts.

you didnt read the thread is it part of your little song and dance to be lzy as well? i said that the 2002 draft was good and that was all jones allday. we got two probowlers out of itand two guys that are still playing in the league in bryant and walters.

i wsa responded to with bryant wasnt in the league as his contract just expired and i said that wasnt a good standard for in the league. thus the comments. i simply cant wait for your next 'response.'

 

[iceberg]

\

So, will this be Jerra's draft? And if you respond, we want to see how well you use your semicolon. (And, cousin, love that swell parallel construction. You are blazing new trails, let me tell you!

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

'eh, now fuzzy wins by default.

when you go to grammar, you're "out" of ammo. esp. in this type of a debate.

 

[Crown Royal]

Geocentrism was pimped by Aristotle however the pythagoreans and heraclitus a century before had demonstrated that the earth was round. This and euclidean geometry were the staples of greek thought in the aristocracy and as elitist as it sounds the plebs were uneducated, indentured serfs. Just because Aristotle is popular now does not mean that he was popluar then. Alexander was a macedonian and he didnt even like him.


The Romans via Cicero were very into Plato and Plato could give a frick about the sensible world as he was all about his doctrine of the good and universal supersensible world.

Aristotle and his views came at the end of classic greek civilization and as he was prone to do in many of his maxims, he would argue with conventional thought. Thats why he would constantly hammering the sophists because they were the establishment at that time.

The Romans led into the Roman church and they initially ignored Plat until Aquinas in the first parts of the last millenium.

Copernicus came before Brahe and I am not saying the work in taking notes that Brahe did was not valuable but what he did in interpretation was nothing as compared to the pure genius of Kepler. He invented the math as he went and invariably led to Newton.

Regardless I have to argue very strongly against the greeks stating that the world was flat overall.

1) The Roman Catholic church didn't 'ignore Plato' or Aristotle. They were lost. Much of Greek and Roman thought had been lost (the Dark Ages). It was rediscovered when trade routes with the Arabian peoples were reopened and it was discovered that they actually had much of the Alexandrian writings preserved. Aquinas was one of the early rediscovering scholars who began to study and investigate these, focusing on Aristotle and Plato.

This was good and bad. Good because it restarted Western thinking and began to bring some order to a chaotic world again (followed soon thereafter by the emergence of the Medicis). It was bad because Aristotle wasn't always right, nor was Aquinas, but that was ignored, and lots of confusion in the world is still present and trying to be unlearned.

2) I agree with you - at least as far as geocenticism is concerned. Many of the Greek mathemeticians, as well as other cultures, had figured out that we are in a heliocentric system. Aristotle's work, though, was the predominant study in the rediscovery of the Hellenistic works, and thus we refocused on geocentricism for a long time (we have since gotten rid of that, but are still suffering under teleological anthropomorphism, which will prove to be a MUCH harder item to rid ourselves of, if ever). However, geocentricity and 'the earth is flat' is two different things. If I remember correctly, the Greeks didn't actually know that earth was circular, but idk if they cared. From what I undersand, though, most early Rennaissance thinkers never really believed it was flat.

Honestly - the Earth being flat has never truly been a big argument (the Columbus stories are considerably exaggerated).

3) We should get into Descartes & Berkeley next week. The Greeks are interesting, but not THAT interesting.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Don't like what? I merely pointed out that a person can use logic to address a problem yet still reach a wrong answer. I never once complained about your schtick. As I recall, you were the one lamenting over 50-cent words, right?



That's an interesting assessment of my response. After all, your sig states, "Don't like tha schtick? Don't read it, Blutto!"

And my "junior high" response went like this: "if you don't like the schtick, don't read it."

There seems to be some sort of "logical" disconnect here.



Junior high? Are you sure? After your "ladies room" comment, I've concluded that elemetary schoolers might provide smack that's more on par with you.

Do you actually have a response as to whether this will be Jerra's draft?

Nooooooooooo. You are too busy being Mr. Pedantic with the philosophical and hysteric . . . i mean historical bent. Talking down to the great unwashed, the shivering huddled masses of this forum, the salt of the earth and the beer drinkers while you relax in your Ikea loveseat and sip Siberian wine and eat them high-falutin' cheeses and that roasted sushi.

Mr. Pedantic, Mr. Philosophizer I have one word for you: ... Wait. Darn. I will go look it up, it was kinda long and I want to be sure to spell it correctly for you, Mr. Alvin Steinway. I mean, Einstein!
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[iceberg]

Do you actually have a response as to whether this will be Jerra's draft?
Nooooooooooo. You are too busy being Mr. Pedantic with the philosophical and hysteric . . . i mean historical bent. Talking down to the great unwashed, the shivering huddle masses of this forum, the salt of the earth and the beer drinkers while you relax in your Ikea loveseat and sip Siberian wine and eat them high-falutin' cheeses and that roast sushi.

Mr. Pedantic, Mr. Philosophizer I have one word for you: ... wait, I will go look it up, it was kinda long and I want to be sure to spell it correctly for you, Steinway. I mean, Einstein!
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

i do. *you* see what you want to see and it's old. you frame it to where if jerry shows up he's a control freak.

you'll sit and analyze the last thousand years of mankind but you're quick to judge on 10 years of jones.

that's just messed up dude.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

you'll sit and analyze the last thousand years of mankind but you're quick to judge on 10 years of jones.

I can't even analyze your posts.

I didn't even know mankind was a thousand years old. I thought mankind started when the Pilgrims landed.

Blame my history teachers, I didn't learn nuthin'!!!

 

[iceberg]

I can't even analyze your posts.

I didn't even know mankind was a thousand years old. I thought mankind started when the Pilgrims landed.

Blame my history teachers, I didn't learn nuthin'!!!

oh, don't worry. sooner or later things become clear. : )

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1) The Roman Catholic church didn't 'ignore Plato' or Aristotle. They were lost. Much of Greek and Roman thought had been lost (the Dark Ages). It was rediscovered when trade routes with the Arabian peoples were reopened and it was discovered that they actually had much of the Alexandrian writings preserved. Aquinas was one of the early rediscovering scholars who began to study and investigate these, focusing on Aristotle and Plato.

This was good and bad. Good because it restarted Western thinking and began to bring some order to a chaotic world again (followed soon thereafter by the emergence of the Medicis). It was bad because Aristotle wasn't always right, nor was Aquinas, but that was ignored, and lots of confusion in the world is still present and trying to be unlearned.

2) I agree with you - at least as far as geocenticism is concerned. Many of the Greek mathemeticians, as well as other cultures, had figured out that we are in a heliocentric system. Aristotle's work, though, was the predominant study in the rediscovery of the Hellenistic works, and thus we refocused on geocentricism for a long time (we have since gotten rid of that, but are still suffering under teleological anthropomorphism, which will prove to be a MUCH harder item to rid ourselves of, if ever). However, geocentricity and 'the earth is flat' is two different things. If I remember correctly, the Greeks didn't actually know that earth was circular, but idk if they cared. From what I undersand, though, most early Rennaissance thinkers never really believed it was flat.

Honestly - the Earth being flat has never truly been a big argument (the Columbus stories are considerably exaggerated).

3) We should get into Descartes & Berkeley next week. The Greeks are interesting, but not THAT interesting.

im talking the early church the first three centuries or so that Aristotle was ignored as he wsa by the romans. before the fall of constantinople. augustine and his contemporaries were highly influenced by plato and thus the whole extra sensory kingdom of god that has been catholic dogma for 100s of years.

now after the fall of constantinople a lot of knowledge was lost as you say and when rediscovered it was aristotel time but i stand by my statement. in essence we are both right anyway.

and you are right they are different which is a mistake on my part. but the ancient greeks were abole to look at the shadow of the earth in a lunar eclipse and through that they determined that circumference of the earth but that is neither here nor there.

as long as i dont have to deal with hobbes i dont care what we talk about but i really think we should go hume.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

GTB you do realize that you dont have to act like an idiot for us to respond to you right?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

\

'eh, now fuzzy wins by default.

when you go to grammar, you're "out" of ammo. esp. in this type of a debate.

his hypocrisy knows no bounds so it seems.

 

[Crown Royal]

im talking the early church the first three centuries or so that Aristotle was ignored as he wsa by the romans. before the fall of constantinople. augustine and his contemporaries were highly influenced by plato and thus the whole extra sensory kingdom of god that has been catholic dogma for 100s of years.

now after the fall of constantinople a lot of knowledge was lost as you say and when rediscovered it was aristotel time but i stand by my statement. in essence we are both right anyway.

and you are right they are different which is a mistake on my part. but the ancient greeks were abole to look at the shadow of the earth in a lunar eclipse and through that they determined that circumference of the earth but that is neither here nor there.

as long as i dont have to deal with hobbes i dont care what we talk about but i really think we should go hume.

to Hume. I was going to mention him, but I know a lot of people can't stand him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

to Hume. I was going to mention him, but I know a lot of people can't stand him.

So you want to kill me with Berkley?

Man I read the dialogues a long time ago and i personally find the a priori debate to be pointless. As Hume says you cannot prove it one way or another so whats the point. Thus my sig line.

 

[Crown Royal]

So you want to kill me with Berkley?

No - but he is best to directly compare to Descartes, just because their ideas are so opposite. Thus the suggestion.:

Man I read the dialogues a long time ago and i personally find the a priori debate to be pointless. As Hume says you cannot prove it one way or another so whats the point. Thus my sig line.

I disagree with that statement by Russell.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

\

'eh, now fuzzy wins by default.

when you go to grammar, you're "out" of ammo. esp. in this type of a debate.

I responded in kind to Mr. Pedantic (or was it Professor Fuzzy?) who was talking down to someone or other.

You see, when someone tries to talk down to someone and then posts bad English, it is incument, nay, essential, to point things out like that.

That's all.

But to review: the normal bluster of someone that does not have the ability to refute. the original statement of the 2002 drat being an excellent one stands.

Someone calling out another about his alleged inability to refute, ya see????

But you were actually pouting over something else, I suspect, and lashed out blindly and posted that weak response. Try again. I know you kin do it if you use your brain, dude.

Speaking of ammo, don't give me none.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No - but he is best to directly compare to Descartes, just because their ideas are so opposite. Thus the suggestion.:



I disagree with that statement by Russell.

logically, i agree with you as well. with relativity out there it is pretty evident that what is instinctive does not match reality and i know that and i believe that but if you want to follow empirical reductionism to its logical conclusion that is some pretty depressing stuff.

if hume can know one thing and act another then so can i and its mostly his fault anyway.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I responded in kind to Mr. Pedantic (or was it Professor Fuzzy?) who was talking down to someone or other.

You see, when someone tries to talk down to someone and then posts bad English, it is incument, nay, essential, to point things out like that.

That's all.

But you were actually pouting over something else, I suspect, and lashed out blindly and posted that weak response.

Speaking of ammo, don't give me none.

oh so now you are the saviour of the people. i thought that was bbguns job. well the board is now a better place since you eh..... what exactly did you do?