Politics Is So Sick!

[elitek]

wondering how politicians live when they spend they lifetimes to think and talk BS 24/7, almost.

I am taking my first political course, it made me sick! I start to hate politics. Politics is just totally BS, political science? it is not even logical, it is no more logical than the story god creates earth in 7 days. Several books required for this course are all about anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, anti-bilingualism, pro-conservatism, pro-bushism. who cares? although I am liberal, I really don't care what the teacher believes, but why he must go one exteme direction? its a university course not a course for him to preach his rightism, its not a place for him to relieve his anger toward some political parties. You can imagine if your major is Politics, then the next professor will tell you rightism is wrong. What a joke! It surely will be my last political course.

I am reading this freaky book called "life at the bottom", everytime after telling his fairytales, the author begins to blame liberalism for causing proverty, underclass, crimes and so forth(England). its just your life, your responsibility for yourself, on one you can blame of. he tries to express ironically and pretends he's not hypocritical, so people think he's candid. Guess he will blame liberalism for file sharing if he works for RIAA.

[zacspeed]

:blink:

[Prodigy Girl]

@ Elitek - If what you say is true about how the course you are taking is one-sided, then it's good of you to realize this (there's many out there who don't have the ability to distingush opinions from facts).


Sometimes I felt the same way you did when I was taking my science courses. I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.

Anyhow, my advice to you is to just listen and learn what you need to know for your tests. After that, you can either retain the knowledge or forget about it. You don't have to allow the material to assimilate with your true thoughts and feelings.

And do keep in mind that though you disagree, it's never so bad to listen and understand the opposition's point of view. ;)

[elitek]

good point, what you said are quite true. you reminded me not all politicians are bad,i.e Washington.

btw, I don't buy religion or science though I think science is much more acceptable.

both religion and science are one-sided, one goes extreme spiritual side and the other goes extreme material and physical side. actually, most of the people out there don't know how to distingush opinion from facts(it's called animal-like ignorance). what I am trying to say and suggest is there is a perfect teaching doesn't have any biased opinion, it's so flawless no one can deny its saying. it's spiritual and scientific, it's Buddhism.

I really don't want to see people waste their time to argue for some little things or write up a 10,000 pages book to discuss some useless points of philosophy.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 01:10
both religion and science are one-sided, one goes extreme spiritual side and the other goes extreme material and physical side. actually, most of the people out there don't know how to distingush opinion from facts(it's called animal-like ignorance). what I am trying to say and suggest is there is a perfect teaching doesn't have any biased opinion, it's so flawless no one can deny its saying. it's spiritual and scientific, it's Buddhism.

I really don't want to see people waste their time to argue for some little things or write up a 10,000 pages book to discuss some useless points of philosophy.
How is science "one sided"?

Science is based on assuming that your hypothesis is wrong, and only by providing incontrovertible evidence are your claims considered to be worthy of consideration.

If I say that "x" will cause "y", in the following conditions, scientists around the world should independently be able to verify my claims.

Science is not a faith, but a growing document of evidence.

As for Buddism, it is a philosophy based in nothing. It is merely an opinion which cannot be substantiated. A childs toy, really.

Let me guess, you are between 18 and 21 years of age. The time in which we are awakened to abstract thought, but so vulnerable to the biases of your mentors.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 20:57
I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.


Like what, gravity? What don't you believe?

[clocker]

Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 15:57
I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.


Hmmm...
A pragmatic Christian who doesn't believe in Science.

I sense a logical disconnect here.

[elitek]

I was a completed science believer before. I am not denying its fact-extracting methods based on logic, thats why I said science is much more acceptable to me than religion. but why science is not "one-sided"? Pure material and physical reality is what science looking for, if this is not one-sided then what is one-sided.
tell you what? mind is not material, you can't see it, you can not feel it, you can only mind it. can science show me a physical mind through microscope?
scientists believe "everything is nonsense without the presence of material", aren't scientists as arbitrary as pope? how could they assert such statement which they cannot refute their opponent? when you say this is "reality", are you sure? what makes you think so? your eyes? if Plato wasn't an idiot, he wouldn't say "this is not the true reality". I would say science is another form of faith.

what are you talking about x cause y? never mind, I am wondering how much you know about Buddhism? but I can tell you the further science goes, the closer science gets to Buddhism. If you know Buddhism a little bit, you wouldn't even call it a philosophy. about 2500 years ago, Buddha said "there are countless planets and the universe has no center", more than 1500 years after Buddha, people around the world still claimed earth is the center of the universe and then the sun. Buddha also told his students "if I go to another planet stay there for one day, when I come back, all of you would be already dead"(not the original translation), the theory of relativism was only discovered recently by genius Einstein, he said "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism". You can see many similarity between science and Buddhism except science still cannot figure itself out. so if Buddhism is basd on nothing then how it tells people so many scientific, logical and beyond logical facts and thinking even in the age when science was blank. only people have blind faith would call it child toy. If you can prove any statement of it wrong, even just a reasonable explanation, I will take your words immediately.

one more thing, age doesn't matter, even old people have more bias than young people.

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 July 2004 - 03:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 July 2004 - 03:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 20:57
I am a Christian and I don&#39;t buy much of what science says, but I wasn&#39;t going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.


Like what, gravity? What don&#39;t you believe? [/b][/quote]
The development of science is pretty much based on conjecture and refutation, by asserting bold statement, old theory was replaced by new one. that is to say, science is not alway true.

“One may throw objects up one million times and see them fall one million times. But that still does not prove ‘what goes up comes down’. For NASA might then &#39;throw&#39; a Saturn rocket up into space to explore Mars, and that never comes down to earth again. One negative instance is enough to disprove the theory with absolute certainty”(Ajahn Brahmavamso, a buddhist who was a science student graduated from cambridge university)

[hobbes]

I have blind faith in what?

Since science is based on the reproducible confirmation of a hypothesis and is the of anti-thesis of faith, you are babbling. Remember, it is not my obligation to prove Buddism wrong, but your obligation to prove it right.

Science has no goal but observation and description. Unlike religion, we are not attempting to make an experience fit the predictions of a written document.

Your retorts are so rambling and illogical that you must either not speak English well, or you are the enthusiaistic, but myopic child, I predict you to be.

Your quote about going to another planet fails to mention how he got there and how he returned. The theory of relativity requires that you travel just below the speed of light.

Don&#39;t press babble into a confirmation of scientific theory. You are pounding square pegs into round holes.

Oh yes, I have eviserated the Buddist argument before.

I assume that my guess at your age was spot on.

As a point, "faith" is belief without proof. So what is blind faith? You sound like a little boy, repeating the crap spoon fed to him.

The Buddist may have a wise and balanced perspective on life, but it in no way is related to divinity and is more a guide on how to lead a happy life. It is a philosophy, not a religion.

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 July 2004 - 05:51
I have blind faith in what?

Since science is based on the reproducible confirmation of a hypothesis and is the of anti-thesis of faith, you are babbling. Remember, it is not my obligation to prove Buddism wrong, but your obligation to prove it right.

Science has no goal but observation and description. Unlike religion, we are not attempting to make an experience fit the predictions of a written document.

Your retorts are so rambling and illogical that you must either not speak English well, or you are the enthusiaistic, but myopic child, I predict you to be.

Your quote about going to another planet fails to mention how he got there and how he returned. The theory of relativity requires that you travel just below the speed of light.

Don&#39;t press babble into a confirmation of scientific theory. You are pounding square pegs into round holes.

Oh yes, I have eviserated the Buddist argument before.

I assume that my guess at your age was spot on.

As a point, "faith" is belief without proof. So what is blind faith? You sound like a little boy, repeating the crap spoon fed to him.

The Buddist may have a wise and balanced perspective on life, but it in no way is related to divinity and is more a guide on how to lead a happy life. It is a philosophy, not a religion.
I can see your logic here: repeat saying that I am babbling over and over again but provide no explanation. I am not good at expressing my opinions but I don&#39;t think it should be a problem.
you are definitely not getting my points I have to list the points here.

1. "Since science is based on the reproducible confirmation of a hypothesis and is the of anti-thesis of faith, you are babbling."
Did I say science is not based on logic and facts?

2. "Unlike religion, we are not attempting to make an experience fit the predictions of a written document."
Buddhism is not a religion by its nature, it doesn&#39;t predict in principle.

3. "Your retorts are so rambling and illogical"
for example?

4." I predict you to be"
no you scientist don&#39;t predict

5. "Your quote about going to another planet fails to mention how he got there and how he returned", hmm, he didn&#39;t mention he&#39;d travelled to another planet. he said "if...", what he meant was there is no absolute time and space, the time in any other planet can be very different from the earth&#39;s.

6. "Oh yes, I have eviserated the Buddist argument before"
yep? show me. do you know how many sutras in Buddhism? can you name one of them without searching google?

7. "I assume that my guess at your age was spot on."
why do you care about my age so much? what&#39;s the logic here?

8. "As a point, "faith" is belief without proof. So what is blind faith? You sound like a little boy, repeating the crap spoon fed to him."
"faith" also means "believe in something". Not all faiths are fake, you can have faith in science. Science deny spiritual world without any proof, it&#39;s blind faith.

maybe your writing skill is better than mine, but I think if your skip saying the words such as "babbling","child", it would make your arguments stronger.

[hobbes]

Point 1: How am I exhibiting blind faith?

Blind faith makes no sense as I stated. And being into science, "faith" has nothing to do with anything. Got it?

Point 2: I clearly stated the Buddism was a philosophy, NOT a religion.

Point 3: Calling my opinions "based on blind faith", that makes no sense.

Point 4: Scientists do predict. We don&#39;t do so based on scripture, but based on observation and experience.

Point 5: You don&#39;t have a clue what Einstein meant. Could you pound a more square peg into you round hole?

Travel to another planet and returning to Earth in a spacesship would prove that time does "slow down" as one approaches the speed of light.

Point 6: check the forum in regard to Wizardmon

Point 7: I care about your age only in that it shows that you are "rookie". I don&#39;t think as simplicitically now as I did at your age.

Point 8: Faith is "belief without proof", nothing else.

[elitek]

1. All right, no argument about the definition of "faith", I should use "believing" or "belief". I meant no one should believe in anything completely without testing or examining by themselves. Now, I don&#39;t know what&#39;s your point defending science or denying Buddhism or both? what are we talking about?

2. Philosophy is Univeristy course, is generally considered as science, but Buddhism is not a university course and it&#39;s not in catalog of science.

3. I am not calling your opinions based on blind faith. I meant science isn&#39;t perfect, why should we worship it like it&#39;s God? I stated the innate inability of science is it fails to explain mind, emotions stuffs.

4. if scripture is true, then what&#39;s the difference between following the scripture and following Newton&#39;s three laws?

5. they are basically the same, the research methods are not the main points of Buddhism. Did Buddha say his knowledge was acquired through studying science?

6. can you post it please?

7. so you think Einstein thinks simplistically? he didn&#39;t say this when he was young.

8. ok, "believing".

[j2k4]

Boy, this is getting heavy. <_<

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks. ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 06:13
3. I am not calling your opinions based on blind faith. I meant science isn&#39;t perfect, why should we worship it like it&#39;s God? I stated the innate inability of science is it fails to explain mind, emotions stuffs.

Science is not intereseted in your worship.&nbsp; It is simply a field which seeks to enlighten.&nbsp; In regard to "mind emotions stuff",&nbsp; I am guessing that you are referring to mind/brain dilemma.

This is how I see it:&nbsp;

When you examine a beautiful stone statue, you can break it down into the individual atoms that compose the structure. No one atom is art, individually they are nothing but matter and space. When you arrange them in a complex pattern, the summation is something possessing a property that no single component has. The product is more than the additive properties of the atoms, the complex interaction creates a new property called "artistic beauty".

So analogously, the brain is a complex functioning of many different neurons with axons and dendrites, and the cummulative effect of these components working together create something more than the sum of the parts, they create the mind.

So the mind is a product of the functioning brain, and not a location in it. The mind is the soul.

People with brain tumors can undergo a complete personality change because of changes in chemicals produced and pressure effects on the normal brain.&nbsp; How can this be if the "soul" is extra-corporeal.&nbsp; It should be immutable.


4. if scripture is true, then what&#39;s the difference between following the scripture and following Newton&#39;s three laws?

I don&#39;t need to follow Newtons laws (they work on their own), but I can observe them in action.&nbsp; Predictable and reproducible.&nbsp; How do I prove so conclusively that scripture is "true"?



6. can you&nbsp; post it please?
ok (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=103286&view=findpost&p=915326)<---- that should be blue

7. so you think Einstein thinks simplistically? he didn&#39;t say this when he was young.

I am saying that young people are more easily swayed into "fads", than those who have been around the block longer.&nbsp; As for Einstein, he merely pointed out that the philosophical nature of Buddism made it more adaptable to science than the rigid teachings of diety based religions.

[clocker]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 01:13


2. Philosophy is Univeristy course, is generally considered as science, but Buddhism is not a university course and it&#39;s not in catalog of science.


Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 15:46

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?
It just wouldn&#39;t be a proper contretemps without you.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 July 2004 - 13:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 July 2004 - 13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@17 July 2004 - 15:46

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?
It just wouldn&#39;t be a proper contretemps without you. [/b][/quote]
I prefer Iran contretemps, myself. :)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:33
Boy, this is getting heavy. <_<

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks. ;)
My boy is good at these. I can do the "bounce it off the floor and hit yourself in the face" one. :( Something I rarely volunteer to do for some reason.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+17 July 2004 - 14:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 17 July 2004 - 14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:33
Boy, this is getting heavy. <_<

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks. ;)
My boy is good at these. I can do the "bounce it off the floor and hit yourself in the face" one. :( Something I rarely volunteer to do for some reason. [/b][/quote]
In my "dotage", I realize I have totally forgotten more than I ever knew about yo-yo-ing. :huh:

I have, however, retained my mastery of the trick you describe, Biggles. :D

[elitek]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 17:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-elitek@17 July 2004 - 01:13


2. Philosophy is Univeristy course, is generally considered as science, but Buddhism is not a university course and it&#39;s not in catalog of science.


Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science? [/b][/quote]
we are going back into this dilemma again. if its not a science course, why would it be a subject of general education in most of the university. now you are saying most of the universities provide non-scientific courses. what is science? strictly, math geometry.. are not science. they deals with abstract concepts and calculations(see my "why 1-1=0"?). the concept of triangle will be always there when all material triangles are destroyed.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by j2k4+17 July 2004 - 20:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 July 2004 - 20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@17 July 2004 - 14:32
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:33
Boy, this is getting heavy. <_<

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks. ;)
My boy is good at these. I can do the "bounce it off the floor and hit yourself in the face" one. :( Something I rarely volunteer to do for some reason.
In my "dotage", I realize I have totally forgotten more than I ever knew about yo-yo-ing. :huh:

I have, however, retained my mastery of the trick you describe, Biggles. :D [/b][/quote]
How about the hang-yourself-by-a-ceiling-fan? I was only able to do it once, then I never picked up a yoyo again.

[clocker]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 14:40

we are going back into this dilemma again. if its not a science course, why would it be a subject of general education in most of the university. now you are saying most of the universities provide non-scientific courses. what is science? strictly, math geometry.. are not science. they deals with abstract concepts and calculations(see my "why 1-1=0"?). the concept of triangle will be always there when all material triangles are destroyed.
Huh?

Don&#39;t tell me...this is all leading up to a big "Who&#39;s on third" recitation.

[hobbes]

http://www.musicman.com/big/whos1.gif

Who is on First base? (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/uncat/wewow.wav)

[clocker]

Damn.

That&#39;s two screwups in one thread.

Bill O&#39;Reilly made me do it.

[elitek]

3. I don&#39;t worship science, I don&#39;t deny science either. it&#39;s not perfect never will be as I mentioned it&#39;s one-sided, logically, anything goes one-sided will be a failure.
I am just standing on the middle between religion and science, I want to point out there is limitation of science. what you said are merely a theory.

"individually they are nothing but matter and space."
atom is matter in the human eyes under microscope. atom must be composed by smaller particles. if so, atom is empty. Ultimate science fails to explain it already. thats why I said science will never be perfect.

"So analogously, the brain is a complex functioning of many different neurons with axons and dendrites, and the cummulative effect of these components working together create something more than the sum of the parts, they create the mind"
who knows mind creates brain or brain creates mind? isn&#39;t science just a theory too?

"People with brain tumors can undergo a complete personality change because of changes in chemicals produced and pressure effects on the normal brain. How can this be if the "soul" is extra-corporeal. It should be immutable. "

there is no conflict with the theory of a independent soul, you have understand the concept of soul, without a body, a soul doesn&#39;t contain thoughts like human do, it&#39;s like a media, if a soul goes to an animal like a dog, it will be inhibited within the traits of a dog. so soul and substance interact with each other.


4. "I don&#39;t need to follow Newtons laws (they work on their own), but I can observe them in action. Predictable and reproducible. "
thats pretty cool, we don&#39;t need scientists anymore.

"How do I prove so conclusively that scripture is "true"?"
you cannot prove it is "not true" either.

6. coudn&#39;t open it, please post it again.

7. I never thought about your age, 15 or 45 the same to me. Buddhism has scientific and spiritual nature not philosophical nature. Einstein didn&#39;t say he want to make it more adaptable to science, he meant theres possiblity science and Buddhism can get along with each other. he could see the similarity but couldn&#39;t prove the difference, he never gave opinion which one is better.

[elitek]

all right thats it. you judge it by yourself. end of discussion

[hobbes]

My conclusion is that English is not your first language thus explaining your rather odd rebuttals and that you are a naive young man. In 15 years you will look back on yourself and laugh. There is no substitute for experience.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 18:31
3. I don&#39;t worship science, I don&#39;t deny science either. it&#39;s not perfect never will be as I mentioned it&#39;s one-sided, logically, anything goes one-sided will be a failure.

Try this, then:

1. A yo-yo is science.*

2. A yo-yo has two sides, and is therefore non-scientific.*

3. A one-sided yo-yo does not work; science proves this.*


* From "The Yo-Yo Philosophy: A Scientific Study"

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 22:56
Damn.

That&#39;s two screwups in one thread.

Bill O&#39;Reilly made me do it.
The source of the dark side by all accounts.


I have to say I am having difficulty following this one. I can, however, say with certainty that Philosophy was not in the Science Faculty at my University. Neither was Politics or Psychology come to think of it and History definitely wasn&#39;t (or if it was I spent 4 years in the wrong building :blink: ).

Buddhism is one way of understanding our sense of being in the material world. It neither contradicts nor supports science.

The zeal of the convert is as ever somewhat like being hit with a steam hammer, but it is a necessary evolution.

[j2k4]

My Dad always told me to stay away from steam hammers. ;)

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 July 2004 - 00:11
My conclusion is that English is not your first language thus explaining your rather odd rebuttals and that you are a naive young man. In 15 years you will look back on yourself and laugh. There is no substitute for experience.
you are just going back to where we&#39;d started. "babbling", "child", "I am right because I&#39;m older than you", "You are illogical because you said I had blind faith, I don&#39;t care what else you&#39;ve been talkin", then you have "your rebuttals are odd because you don&#39;t speak Egllsih well" rather than "I don&#39;t understand what you are talking about", which isnt so bad, at least you didn&#39;t say they were wrong(either you don&#39;t understand them or you don&#39;t want to accept them), I noticed you had spelling errors, I don&#39;t bother to point it out, I could use as an excuse but I didn&#39;t, I never talked about anything like age, your personality.... Finally "I am naive because I will laugh at myself some years later", what will I laugh at myself, specifically? could be many, my writing style, my english.... they&#39;ll never be the points in this discussion. why don&#39;t you examine my words after 15 years?

I am no expert in Science or Buddhism, but at least I gave my thoughts. I am sure you are a conservative rightist rather than a scientist, back to my political topic, now we are talking.
I speak French and English(not first) btw.

[elitek]

Originally posted by Biggles+18 July 2004 - 00:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 18 July 2004 - 00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@17 July 2004 - 22:56
Damn.

That&#39;s two screwups in one thread.

Bill O&#39;Reilly made me do it.
The source of the dark side by all accounts.


I have to say I am having difficulty following this one. I can, however, say with certainty that Philosophy was not in the Science Faculty at my University. Neither was Politics or Psychology come to think of it and History definitely wasn&#39;t (or if it was I spent 4 years in the wrong building :blink: ).

Buddhism is one way of understanding our sense of being in the material world. It neither contradicts nor supports science.

The zeal of the convert is as ever somewhat like being hit with a steam hammer, but it is a necessary evolution. [/b][/quote]
its hard to define "science" man
art can be science if the definition of science is only based on material and physical reality, art is the discovery of nature too

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:38
My Dad always told me to stay away from steam hammers. ;)
Real ones or the philosophical (i.e. "two-sided") type?

No, I haven&#39;t a clue what that means either...just getting into the spirit of things here.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by elitek+17 July 2004 - 23:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elitek &#064; 17 July 2004 - 23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 July 2004 - 00:11
My conclusion is that English is not your first language thus explaining your rather odd rebuttals and that you are a naive young man. In 15 years you will look back on yourself and laugh. There is no substitute for experience.
you are just going back to where we&#39;d started. "babbling", "child", "I am right because I&#39;m older than you", "You are illogical because you said I had blind faith, I don&#39;t care what else you&#39;ve been talkin", then you have "your rebuttals are odd because you don&#39;t speak Egllsih well" rather than "I don&#39;t understand what you are talking about", which isnt so bad, at least you didn&#39;t say they were wrong(either you don&#39;t understand them or you don&#39;t want to accept them), I noticed you had spelling errors, I don&#39;t bother to point it out, I could use as an excuse but I didn&#39;t, I never talked about anything like age, your personality.... Finally "I am naive because I will laugh at myself some years later", what will I laugh at myself, specifically? could be many, my writing style, my english.... they&#39;ll never be the points in this discussion. why don&#39;t you examine my words after 15 years?

I am no expert in Science or Buddhism, but at least I gave my thoughts. I am sure you are a conservative rightist rather than a scientist, back to my political topic, now we are talking.
I speak French and English(not first) btw.[/b][/quote]
Personal Computer- &#036;2000

High-Speed Internet Access- &#036;40

Posting on KLF- &#036;0

Being able to express your thoughts in English- priceless.


For everything else, there is MasterCard.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by hobbes+16 July 2004 - 22:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 16 July 2004 - 22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 20:57
I am a Christian and I don&#39;t buy much of what science says, but I wasn&#39;t going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.


Like what, gravity? What don&#39;t you believe? [/b][/quote]
Nothing against christains, but :lol: :lol: that struck me as really funny

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes+18 July 2004 - 02:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 18 July 2004 - 02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 23:20
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@18 July 2004 - 00:11
My conclusion is that English is not your first language thus explaining your rather odd rebuttals and that you are a naive young man. In 15 years you will look back on yourself and laugh. There is no substitute for experience.
you are just going back to where we&#39;d started. "babbling", "child", "I am right because I&#39;m older than you", "You are illogical because you said I had blind faith, I don&#39;t care what else you&#39;ve been talkin", then you have "your rebuttals are odd because you don&#39;t speak Egllsih well" rather than "I don&#39;t understand what you are talking about", which isnt so bad, at least you didn&#39;t say they were wrong(either you don&#39;t understand them or you don&#39;t want to accept them), I noticed you had spelling errors, I don&#39;t bother to point it out, I could use as an excuse but I didn&#39;t, I never talked about anything like age, your personality.... Finally "I am naive because I will laugh at myself some years later", what will I laugh at myself, specifically? could be many, my writing style, my english.... they&#39;ll never be the points in this discussion. why don&#39;t you examine my words after 15 years?

I am no expert in Science or Buddhism, but at least I gave my thoughts. I am sure you are a conservative rightist rather than a scientist, back to my political topic, now we are talking.
I speak French and English(not first) btw.
Personal Computer- &#036;2000

High-Speed Internet Access- &#036;40

Posting on KLF- &#036;0

Being able to express your thoughts in English- priceless.


For everything else, there is MasterCard. [/b][/quote]
LOL, we can watch ads here without turning on the tv. thanks for the advice,anway. and I guess I&#39;d talked a litte too much.

[clocker]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 19:14

LOL, we can watch ads here without turning on the tv.
Gee, your planet sounds really interesting.
I&#39;d love to visit...could you send a brochure?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 20:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:38
My Dad always told me to stay away from steam hammers. ;)
Real ones or the philosophical (i.e. "two-sided") type?

[/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t know; can&#39;t find that book-the yo-yo study doesn&#39;t cover steam-hammers. :huh:

[elitek]

Originally posted by clocker+18 July 2004 - 02:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 18 July 2004 - 02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-elitek@17 July 2004 - 19:14

LOL, we can watch ads here without turning on the tv.
Gee, your planet sounds really interesting.
I&#39;d love to visit...could you send a brochure? [/b][/quote]
we can watch ads everywhere here, newspapers, stores, streets...of course Tv too, your planet sounds more interesting.