dimreepr

I sometimes wonder about biased views, my pattern of behaviour seems to piss off some more than other's; to the point that I wonder if we're reading the same thread. I didn't pretend I didn't neg him, read it without the blinkers, I just asked question's. Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised), all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's; as I've previously mentioned, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted, so if I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify.

Can we please just discuss the topic, without all these emotional appeals and excuse's to dodge my question's; PLEASE, just answer the (fucking) question's. No it doesn't, it's just part of the process... Douglas Adam's puddle is a good analogy, that explains why you're wrong...

Did you not recognise the question mark? For humans to communicate effectively we have to recognise relative and relevant information, or IOW empathise with their reality, and the fact is some people enjoy pain So, I'll ask again are these people unreasonable? BTW How sure are you that I gave you a neg and why do you believe it was out of spite? And what makes you think it was unmerited?

We do indeed, but that shouldn't be an excuse not to learn at all. Finding relevant material's, that engages the student is key to teaching, it's also key to keeping you scrolling (kerching 🤑) and, it seems, hasn't taught you anything useful. LLM's does have the potential to be an excellent teacher, but only when the kerching is cut from the equation.

Perhaps, but some people enjoy the pain, for whatever reason, are these people unreasonable? Almost no 'normal' humans can empathise with their reality, bc pain is to be avoided for us 'norms'.

Surely truth defines the fact? Who's head are you/it in?🙃 If I had to take a guess, I'd say it would be, in this case, bc you were told by the OP that this is not about reality or consciousness; god knows what the +1 clicker was thinking...

But I asked first and I even said please, and you're gaslighting an answer.

Not really, I meant some truth's can be extrapolated into the future and remain constant, there's a reason most prophets predict a future prophet, in the various traditional religions; when the conditions are right/wrong in a culture, that culture will birth the next iteration, that will lead them out of the desert. And tomorrow's fact, will probably change.

Most/all of what we consider to be facts is an accumulation of historical knowledge, that we have curated to represent our museums artifacts. I would argue that a truth transcends time and a fact only exists in the past. For instance, isn't it true that we never learn from history and therefore allow the Trump's of our time to impose their own facts?

You all have, another gap in my understanding filled, thanks.

So, getting back to the topic, your statement is both a fact and true; but your historic, in this thread, posting suggests that you consider, that a fact is of greater value than a truth. So be it. You make a habit of this, you lose the argument, or can't think of a legitimate come back, and then suggest that it's not worth your time and effort. That doesn't strike me as an honest approach to a discussion, I'd much rather we could be friend's enjoying a single malt and a friendly chat, unafraid of being wrong.

Some sort of god that the bad actor's fear, would be a useful asset...

You may not, but if memory serves didn't the impact cause immense volcanic disruption on the opposite side of the world?

That's as may be, but it neither explains your conclusion or an answer to my question. Please explain the parodox of your agreement with my point, whilst suggesting that my point is not logical. That makes no sense, if a hydrogen atom couldn't change, we couldn't exist. And please correct my wrongness, when I state that quantum physics undermines the certainty of classic physics.

You're the expert...

For some reason a 'goal hanger', in the past, was considered a cheat. I think the modern game would benefit from the threat, perchance a more honest game where the team's try to win, rather than trying not to lose.

Isn't the Earth, essentially, a closed system?

Thank you. Your list of references doesn't seem to back up your conclusion, can you quote the relevant passages please. A fact may be be deducted from a number of pertinent truth's, sounds reasonable. Atoms can change, given the right circumstances, it's also true of facts

Indeed and fear of failure leads to ever more boring games and ever more exciting, and expanding, half time spectacles; the most enjoyable game I've watched was the England v France game, probably the best game in terms of the beautiful game... I'll leave you with an SAS internal joke, apparently, "who cares, who wins."

Wouldn't that amount of energy suddenly introduced into a closed system, cause a catastrophic system failure anyway?

My apologies to everyone, especially @sethoflagos my only excuse is, my friend invited himself to mine with a bottle of JD, insisting we finish it before he leaves. My normal tipple is a locally sourced scrumpy (hard Cider) which gives me plenty of time, post tipsy (about an hour) to see the event horizon of incoherent BS approaching. With JD it's so much faster, in fact the moment of recognition is already too late. To clarify my position on the topic and hopefully resume the scheduled program's, both word's should be subject to the same rules as the judiciary, as in beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps the scientists/philosophists can come up with a more accurate word that describes certainty.

It's satirical...

Please clarify your question...

Why should I, you haven't answered mine... 😉 Is that a fact???

Why not?