I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods…

[Frank Apisa]

I asked: A QUESTION IF I MAY: Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE there are gods...AND...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

Your response:

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

Okay...so you are saying that you do NOT agree that it is POSSIBLE there are gods...AND...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

I guess we should be done here then.

 

[William Rea]

I asked: A QUESTION IF I MAY: Do you agree that it is POSSIBLE there are gods...AND...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

Your response:




Okay...so you are saying that you do NOT agree that it is POSSIBLE there are gods...AND...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

I guess we should be done here then.

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

You are asking me to support: It is POSSIBLE there are gods...and...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

Are you just kidding around...or what?

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

I'd prefer to stick with my words, William.

 

[William Rea]

You are asking me to support: It is POSSIBLE there are gods...and...it also is POSSIBLE there are none?

Are you just kidding around...or what?

I'd prefer to stick with my words, William.

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

So, ahhh William...have you seen any good movies lately that you would like to recommend?

 

[William Rea]

So, ahhh William...have you seen any good movies lately that you would like to recommend?

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

Well...that is the last time I come to you for a movie reference.

I was stationed in the UK for two years...courtesy of the Strategic Air Command. You certainly do not sound very British to me...so I will assume you are an American living there. (Otherwise I woulda used cinema reference.)

If you want to use my wording...use my wording. I'm not nuts about the way you have changed it.

 

[William Rea]

Well...that is the last time I come to you for a movie reference.

I was stationed in the UK for two years...courtesy of the Strategic Air Command. You certainly do not sound very British to me...so I will assume you are an American living there. (Otherwise I woulda used cinema reference.)

If you want to use my wording...use my wording. I'm not nuts about the way you have changed it.

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[William Rea]

This is how it goes.

X=2

LINE 10

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - OK, but that depends upon how you define mountain and height.

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - OK, let's try this another way, how are you defining mountain, do you mean individual peaks?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - But, if I want to know the truth of that assertion, I need to understand what you mean.

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - OK, how about we try this. Do you consider the topographic prominence of a mountain peak to be significant in your definition?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

1 - Well, actually, I accept that topographic prominence is a factor so I will accept that we can use that.

X - Great, OK so now we are getting somewhere so, we can say that we will only consider individual peaks with a certain topographic prominence, yes? And you will add that to your assertion for clarity?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - But you accept the clarification of individual peaks?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

X - OK, this has gone on far beyond what it needs to but hey, let's try something else. Are we talking about from the base on land, the base under the sea or above sea level?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - Can you offer us something to work with here, maybe it's us, so let's just go step by step. What height definition are you using?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

1 - Well, it was obvious all along that I was using above sea level.

X - Well actually no, we can't assume that, we have to understand the assertion, could you not just say, 'this is the second highest individual peak above sea level'?

1 - NO I WILL DO NO SUCH THING WHAT I AM ASSERTING IS AXIOMATIC AND YOU MUST ACCEPT IT AT FACE VALUE.

X - Well, I don't have too do...

X=X+1

GOTO 10

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

Is there an echo in here. Maybe the Lincolnshire Echo.

 

[Frank Apisa]

This is how it goes.

X=2

LINE 10

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - OK, but that depends upon how you define mountain and height.

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - OK, let's try this another way, how are you defining mountain, do you mean individual peaks?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth.

X - But, if I want to know the truth of that assertion, I need to understand what you mean.

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - OK, how about we try this. Do you consider the topographic prominence of a mountain peak to be significant in your definition?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

1 - Well, actually, I accept that topographic prominence is a factor so I will accept that we can use that.

X - Great, OK so now we are getting somewhere so, we can say that we will only consider individual peaks with a certain topographic prominence, yes? And you will add that to your assertion for clarity?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - But you accept the clarification of individual peaks?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

X - OK, this has gone on far beyond what it needs to but hey, let's try something else. Are we talking about from the base on land, the base under the sea or above sea level?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

X - Can you offer us something to work with here, maybe it's us, so let's just go step by step. What height definition are you using?

1 - This is the second highest mountain on Earth. It's self evident and obvious.

CONTINUE THIS WAY FOR ABOUT 700 POSTS.

1 - Well, it was obvious all along that I was using above sea level.

X - Well actually no, we can't assume that, we have to understand the assertion, could you not just say, 'this is the second highest individual peak above sea level'?

1 - NO I WILL DO NO SUCH THING WHAT I AM ASSERTING IS AXIOMATIC AND YOU MUST ACCEPT IT AT FACE VALUE.

X - Well, I don't have too do...

X=X+1

GOTO 10

Uhhh...this has to do with the topic...how?

 

[William Rea]

Is there an echo in here. Maybe the Lincolnshire Echo.

Frank, just in case you missed it the first time, I will reiterate.

NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will, I do not accept things that I don't understand, I don't sign blank cheques or legal forms that I have not read and understood.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[Critter7r]

If you want to use my wording...use my wording. I'm not nuts about the way you have changed it.

I'd prefer to stick with my words, William.

And this is the crux of the problem.

You don't have to switch your wording to his wording, you can stick to your words, but would you agree that it is saying the same thing?

 

[William Rea]

And this is the crux of the problem.

You don't have to switch your wording to his wording, you can stick to your words, but would you agree that it is saying the same thing?

I'll go with that, over to Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, just in case you missed it the first time, I will reiterate.

NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will, I do not accept things that I don't understand, I don't sign blank cheques or legal forms that I have not read and understood.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

The "cheques" was a nice touch.

 

[William Rea]

The "cheques" was a nice touch.

Frank, just in case you missed it the nth time, I will reiterate.

NO, I do not accept your assertion without understanding exactly what I am accepting. I never will, I do not accept things that I don't understand, I don't sign blank cheques or legal forms that I have not read and understood.

It is your positive assertion so support it.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY SUBSTITUTION USING YOUR WORDS SUCH THAT WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ASSERTIONS AS FOLLOWS...

5, 'It may or may not be that there are no beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

6, 'It may or may not be that there are beings capable of creating what we call the Universe?'

Strangely Frank, it is not MY wording, it is YOURS, all I have done is substituted the terms to come to a complete form. I have stated nothing that you have not already said but, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that this should settle it for the neutral observer. I'll refer back to this conversation for future reference Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And this is the crux of the problem.

You don't have to switch your wording to his wording, you can stick to your words, but would you agree that it is saying the same thing?

No...he is not.

 

[Critter7r]

No...he is not.

Would you agree that he is effectively saying the same thing using surrogate words - the definitions of which you had already agreed upon?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Would you agree that he is effectively saying the same thing using surrogate words - the definitions of which you had already agreed upon?

I would agree that if he is going to agree or disagree with something I have said...

...he should use my words EXACTLY AS I WROTE THEM.

 

[Critter7r]

I would agree that if he is going to agree or disagree with something I have said...

...he should use my words EXACTLY AS I WROTE THEM.

You'd be a horrific school teacher Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You'd be a horrific school teacher Frank.

Why are you saying I might make a great school teacher, Critter?

What have I said to cause you to think that?

 

[Critter7r]

Why are you saying I might make a great school teacher, Critter?

What have I said to cause you to think that?

Here we are, a classroom full, trying to understand and digest the words that are coming out of your keyboard ...

"Could you state that another way?"

Frank - NO. It's obvious and perfectly clear the way I said it.

"Could you give us a definition of what possible means?"

Frank - NO.
Well, ok, but you can't use that definition.

"Could you help us reformulate your statement so that it makes more sense to us?"

Frank - NO. It's perfectly clear the way I already told you. Why can't you see that it's perfectly clear?

"Can you give us another example of how what you're saying applies to anything else in the world?"

Frank - NO. You don't need another example to understand why it's the most perfectly worded, clear and concise statement on the planet that has been pondered by all the greatest minds on earth since the beginning of time.

"Ok, well, we still don't quite understand exactly what you mean"

Frank - I already gave you the statement, You should be able to understand it without any sort of explanation. It's self-evident.


That's why.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Here we are, a classroom full, trying to understand and digest the words that are coming out of your keyboard ...

"Could you state that another way?"

Frank - NO. It's obvious and perfectly clear the way I said it.

"Could you give us a definition of what possible means?"

Frank - NO.
Well, ok, but you can't use that definition.

"Could you help us reformulate your statement so that it makes more sense to us?"

Frank - NO. It's perfectly clear the way I already told you. Why can't you see that it's perfectly clear?

"Can you give us another example of how what you're saying applies to anything else in the world?"

Frank - NO. You don't need another example to understand why it's the most perfectly worded, clear and concise statement on the planet that has been pondered by all the greatest minds on earth since the beginning of time.

"Ok, well, we still don't quite understand exactly what you mean"

Frank - I already gave you the statement, You should be able to understand it without any sort of explanation. It's self-evident.


That's why.

Okay!

When stuff like that happens to me in someone else's thread...I just leave.

I don't do it in a huff...with drama.

I just leave.

Ummmm...well, I think that's enough about that.

 

[Critter7r]

Okay!

When stuff like that happens to me in someone else's thread...I just leave.

I don't do it in a huff...with drama.

I just leave.

Ummmm...well, I think that's enough about that.

Who's in a huff?

I may have thrown some drama in there for comedic effect, but there's no huff.

Christ, Frank, I've been trying to get you to open your mind just a tiny little wedge for two weeks, to no avail. I can see why you might think there's some huff involved, but I enjoy a good challenge, so this isn't upsetting to me.

And I'm no quitter.

 

[William Rea]

What does it tell you and why does William mentioning cycling tell you something about him, what is that something and why does Frank mentioning golf tell you nothing about him? While you're at it you could perhaps address the subject of the thread too.

This could be my first 750k month if I can get the hours in. Bit of an Easterly out there today and riding solo makes it harder work. It'll pay off when the TT season starts.