The Order of Things......

[worm]

We have three things at play here, not two. We have a pre-existing world, our experience of it and our knowledge of it. We create knowledge of it from our experience of it, but we cannot say anything about the pre-existing world because our minds are incapable of conceiving of it - it cannot fathom the chicken egg paradox so all we can do is grab a starting point and an end point from our experince of it and use it as an analogy.

Thus, all knowledge of the world is temporary and experience based. And if evolutionary theory is true, then the faculties of our experiences (such as logic and sense of history) are determined in relation to our temporal stage of development and not the world as a whole. We're a temporary organism trying to assess the enormity of time and space with tools limited to our temporal position within it.

[feral chile]

We have three things at play here, not two. We have a pre-existing world, our experience of it and our knowledge of it. We create knowledge of it from our experience of it, but we cannot say anything about the pre-existing world because our minds are incapable of conceiving of it - it cannot fathom the chicken egg paradox so all we can do is grab a starting point and an end point from our experince of it and use it as an analogy.

Thus, all knowledge of the world is temporary and experience based. And if evolutionary theory is true, then the faculties of our experiences (such as logic and sense of history) are determined in relation to our temporal stage of development and not the world as a whole. We're a temporary organism trying to assess the enormity of time and space with tools limited to our temporal position within it.

Edited April 2, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

I think thre disagreements you've been having are related to you appearing not to believe in a pre-existing world.

Edited April 2, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

I've not once disputed a pre-existing world. What I've said is that the only way we can conceive of it is through analogies based upon our experience of a temporary world. Experiences that are determined by our faculties provided by a temporary world.

We can't conceive of time and space because our minds, and all of our knowledge systems, absolutely require a start and end. We are limited by it. So evolution is fine, but it cannot be used as an analogy to explain origin because it's based upon a temporal position in space and time. The only theory that can is one devoted to existence as a starting point.

[worm]

I'm sure a lot of people can relate to this - we can only conceive of the world by using our experience, and as temporal, finite beings, we're looking at it from that perspective. Just as you rightly say that all our knowledge about the world is based on appearance - how we perceive things. So there's probably loads more going on that we have no knowledge of whatsoever.

Edited April 2, 2011 by worm

[rabid]

I'm sure a lot of people can relate to this - we can only conceive of the world by using our experience

[eFestivals]

I think the disagreements you've been having are related to you appearing not to believe in a pre-existing world.

I think the disagreements he has are related to him appearing not to believe in anything pre-existing.

Edited April 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

I think the disagreements he has are related to him appearing not to believe in anything pre-existing.

[eFestivals]

There's only ever the present.

OK then, I think the disagreements you have are related to you appearing not to believe in anything present.

After all, you've a solid record of it - from your made up rules of football to your made up everything else.

[worm]

OK then, I think the disagreements you have are related to you appearing not to believe in anything present.

After all, you've a solid record of it - from your made up rules of football to your made up everything else.

Edited April 4, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Oh, you mean you're just being contradictory and spoiling for a personal ruck aka trolling. I see.

The particular rule you raised was irrelevant to the point I was making, as per usual.

If you had any point, then that point can only have been "football should be played to the rules I invent and not the rules it has".

But ever all you really got to prove was that you're worm the wing nut.

[worm]

If you had any point, then that point can only have been "football should be played to the rules I invent and not the rules it has".

[worm]

But ever all you really got to prove was that you're worm the wing nut.

[eFestivals]

No, the point was that I thought it wasn't a foul, it was a jostle. According to the rule you provided, the jostle would have to have been intentional. Are you psychic?

I provided no rule, I just laughed at you not knowing the rules. And your post here shows that you still don't, but like to believe that you do.

Is there anything -= any lie - you won't make up?

[worm]

I provided no rule, I just laughed at you not knowing the rules.

[eFestivals]

I did know the rule. The rule explicitely states that intention is a factor in determining a foul.

Yeah, you know the rules - as you've just proven yet again.

Worm the wing-nut, when will you realise that when you wing it as you constantly do, when you claim to know something but show you know absolutely f**k all, that you merely show yourself as winging it? Your belief in yourself being the best-read person using these boards just gets to show you as an ignorant prick who will always believe what he's made up above the truth of the matter.

Until you actually read the rules you won't know the rules, will you?

[worm]

Blah, blah, blah......

Edited April 4, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Until you actually read the rules you won't know the rules, will you?

[eFestivals]

It must be awful being so inferior as to constantly look to undermine people, more often than not making a complete twat out of yourself in the process.

All I'm doing is correcting you, just as I did with dialogue.

But what happens is that you believe yourself to always be right, to never be wrong. And so we get to the same place every time, because even when you're indisputably wrong you just can't ever admit it.

[eFestivals]

Irrelevant.

I know that for an arm across a player to be considered a foul, an intent to foul is required.

What is irrelevant is you making up the rules of football from nothing and believing that doing so makes you right.

What is irrelevant here is your made up rules. Until you know the rules you don't know the rules.

How many times can you be utterly wrong about the same thing? lol:

[eFestivals]

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

[worm]

What is irrelevant is you making up the rules of football from nothing and believing that doing so makes you right.

[worm]

All I'm doing is correcting you, just as I did with dialogue.

Edited April 4, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Aye, but you were wrong. Dialogue is a two way street in that two people are required, whether fictional or real. That's a fact.

The problem isn't that I'm winging it, it's that you lack the fuculty to understand what's being said, in this case by both myself and Mr Fry.

Yes, it's very hard to understand Mr Fry when he says (and I quote exactly):-

"two people could be in dialogue, but, er . . . it could be one person; it could be a hundred".

PMSL.

The order of things...

1. someone says something.

2. using only gross ignorance worm wings it.

3. it's pointed out to worm that he's winging it and wrong.

4. using only gross ignorance worm insists he's right.

5. continue ad infinitum.

Edited April 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Yes, it's very hard to understand Mr Fry when he says (and I quote exactly):-

"two people could be in dialogue, but, er . . . it could be one person; it could be a hundred".