On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:10:43 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam>
wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2003 14:55:29 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
>wrote:
>>*Facts* ARE absolute Cliff, make NO mistake about it.
>>
Battle of Hastings, 14 oct, 1066.
Is that a fact?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19c9c2f6a516433a98a308@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309092143.4e50084f@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Brian Dooley <brian-d@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > Battle of Hastings, 14 oct, 1066.
>
> > > Is that a fact?
>
> > I have seen nothing that contradicts that date and a fact is a fact if
> > there is nothing known that contradicts it.
>
> What happens if something was discovered in the future to contradict
> it? Would it still be a fact?
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
So what are you getting at Peter, that you have lived your entire life
uncertain of how, why or when to do anything because it may one day be
proven wrong?
Whether you like to think like Cliff, I care not, although I do think
you would be very silly to, all I DO KNOW Peter is, that many of your
decisions in your life have been made, based upon absolute facts, eg
you would not step out in front of a moving bus unless you had a death
wish or were menatally unstable, you would not attempt to breath under
water without some sort of aid, unless you had a death wish or were
menatally unstable.
This all started with Cliff saying "facts are not absolute" and when
he claimed "we live in the future" then silly Dooley did his usual
smart-arse one liner shit, trying to be a clever dick.
Cliff reckons, the future is what you see out the windscreen when you
are driving a car and he reckons the past is what you see out the back
window, which begs the question, so why doesn't my clock go backwards
when I stick my car in reverse, Cliff?
Mike
PS
Peter, don't associate yourself too much with what Cliff says, it just
makes you look stupid too.
--
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ef47a19d.0309092143.4e50084f@no-spam
: Brian Dooley <brian-d@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<6grnlvgn1ipbgogdrrvflir5o1c5eovqm6@no-spam>...
: > On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:10:43 +1200, Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >On 6 Sep 2003 14:55:29 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael
Gordge)
: > >wrote:
: >
: >
: > >>*Facts* ARE absolute Cliff, make NO mistake about it.
: > >>
: >
: > Battle of Hastings, 14 oct, 1066.
: >
: > Is that a fact?
:
: I have seen nothing that contradicts that date and a fact is a fact
if
: there is nothing known that contradicts it.
:
Okay. There was NO battle at Hastings on that date.
The battle you mention was -at- Battle
:
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ca70673fe1ed9f98a30b@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309101133.27391c74@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
> > > > I have seen nothing that contradicts that date and a fact is a fact if
> > > > there is nothing known that contradicts it.
>
> > > What happens if something was discovered in the future to contradict
> > > it? Would it still be a fact?
>
> > So what are you getting at Peter, that you have lived your entire life
> > uncertain of how, why or when to do anything because it may one day be
> > proven wrong?
>
> No. Why don't you try answering the question.
ummmmmmmmmmmmmm I'm trying really hard Bruce, but nope I cant answer
Bruce, the question seems too stupid to even have an answer, I reckon
only dumb people could answer such a question, so you tell us the
answer Bruce, please.
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19cbc4c88d0b117d98a31b@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309111054.3de200ca@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > In article <ef47a19d.0309101133.27391c74@no-spam>,
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
crap snipped, other than why cant I call you Bruce, given that you
seem to be siding or agreeing with Cliff, that there is no such things
as facts? Is it a absolute fact your name is not Bruce? really?
> I reckon it is only dumb people that could state that "facts
> are facts so long as there is nothing known to contradict
> them".
So if something is known that contradicts a piece of knowledge, then
how can it be a fact?
Why is a fact not a fact if nothing known contradicts it?
I think you need to get a dictionary and fine definition of fact,
Bruce.
Ask Cliff, he should know by now.
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19cc40f791370c6c98a328@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309112220.45327ced@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
>
> > So if something is known that contradicts a piece of knowledge, then
> > how can it be a fact?
>
> I'm tempted to respond the wave/particle duality of subatomic
> particles but a) this is not the point that I was making and
> b) you would only embaress yourself.
What does "embaress" mean? Oh dont tell me it was a "mistake"
As its you who has come to Cliffs aid, then perhaps, because he has no
idea on the answer to the question that started all this, perhaps you
can help him.
You and he claim, "facts are not absolute" all I want to know is,
"does that claim include that statement?"
Yes or No
>
> > Why is a fact not a fact if nothing known contradicts it?
>
> If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, is it a fact
> that it made a sound?
What you are asking is, does a noise have to be heard for there to be
a noise?
I reckon birds and animals would hear the tree falling, does that
count?
I went shooting a few years ago and two of us walked around a corner
and there were two freshly shot ie still twitching, deer lying on the
road in front of us, they had been shot less than a minute before with
a 308 rifle.
Neither I or the chap I was with heard a thing, and yet the chap who
shot them and the chap he was with, both said his gun echoed for what
seemed like minutes and there were no less than 5 shots fired, we were
less than 200 meters away when the deer were shot.
>
> > I think you need to get a dictionary and fine definition of fact,
> > Bruce.
>
> Only if you get one that distinguishes between find and fine.
Um yeah right, mista embaress what ever you say.
In article <ef47a19d.0309121832.18563e2b@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > > So if something is known that contradicts a piece of knowledge, then
> > > how can it be a fact?
> > I'm tempted to respond the wave/particle duality of subatomic
> > particles but a) this is not the point that I was making and
> > b) you would only embaress yourself.
> What does "embaress" mean? Oh dont tell me it was a "mistake"
> As its you who has come to Cliffs aid, then perhaps, because he has no
> idea on the answer to the question that started all this, perhaps you
> can help him.
I'm not coming to Cliff's aid. I'm asking a simple question
about your definition of a fact. So far, you have evaded,
insulted and insinuated but the one thing you have not done
is answer the question.
> You and he claim, "facts are not absolute"
I never made this claim.
> > > Why is a fact not a fact if nothing known contradicts it?
> > If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, is it a fact
> > that it made a sound?
> What you are asking is, does a noise have to be heard for there to be
> a noise?
> I reckon birds and animals would hear the tree falling, does that
> count?
In one ear and out the other...
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ced66b64cdc18f98a32c@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309121832.18563e2b@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
> > > > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > > So if something is known that contradicts a piece of knowledge, then
> > > > how can it be a fact?
>
> > > I'm tempted to respond the wave/particle duality of subatomic
> > > particles but a) this is not the point that I was making and
> > > b) you would only embaress yourself.
>
> > What does "embaress" mean? Oh dont tell me it was a "mistake"
>
> > As its you who has come to Cliffs aid, then perhaps, because he has no
> > idea on the answer to the question that started all this, perhaps you
> > can help him.
>
> I'm not coming to Cliff's aid. I'm asking a simple question
> about your definition of a fact. So far, you have evaded,
> insulted and insinuated but the one thing you have not done
> is answer the question.
Because it is a stupid question that I have already answered, so you
tell me, how can something be a fact, if somethig contradicts it?
>
> > You and he claim, "facts are not absolute"
>
> I never made this claim.
>
> > > > Why is a fact not a fact if nothing known contradicts it?
>
> > > If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, is it a fact
> > > that it made a sound?
>
> > What you are asking is, does a noise have to be heard for there to be
> > a noise?
>
> > I reckon birds and animals would hear the tree falling, does that
> > count?
>
> In one ear and out the other...
what do you mean, you are the one claiming that a noise has to be
heard for it to be a fact, not me, a noise is the factual result of an
action, man doesn;t need to hear it for it to be a fact and that is a
fact
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
In article <ef47a19d.0309151835.20510df8@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > I'm not coming to Cliff's aid. I'm asking a simple question
> > about your definition of a fact. So far, you have evaded,
> > insulted and insinuated but the one thing you have not done
> > is answer the question.
> Because it is a stupid question that I have already answered,
It's not a stupid question and you haven't answered it.
> so you
> tell me, how can something be a fact, if somethig contradicts it?
That's not your original definition that I was questioning. Try
again.
> > > > If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, is it a fact
> > > > that it made a sound?
> > > What you are asking is, does a noise have to be heard for there to be
> > > a noise?
> > > I reckon birds and animals would hear the tree falling, does that
> > > count?
> > In one ear and out the other...
> what do you mean, you are the one claiming that a noise has to be
> heard for it to be a fact,
Nope. I am making no claims. I am simply pointing out the inadequacy
in _your_ definition of fact.
> not me, a noise is the factual result of an
> action, man doesn;t need to hear it for it to be a fact and that is a
> fact
Which as at odds with your original definition of a fact.
--Peter Metcalfe
In article <ef47a19d.0309161050.316b9e4e@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > > so you
> > > tell me, how can something be a fact, if somethig contradicts it?
> > That's not your original definition that I was questioning. Try
> > again.
> It IS and does fit with my original defintion.
Wrong. Your original statement was that since _you_ knew nothing
to contradict it, it was a fact. If that isn't a subjectivist
definition, I don't know what is...
> > Nope. I am making no claims. I am simply pointing out the inadequacy
> > in _your_ definition of fact.
> You asked me if it was a fact that if no one heard a tree fall does
> that mean it did not make a noise, the answer is, man doesn't have to
> hear a noise for there to be have been a noise, and that is an
> absolute fact.
Which contradicts your original definition whether you like it or
not. So either your original definition was wrong or you are too
stupid to realize the implications of what you think.
> > Which as at odds with your original definition of a fact.
> It is NOT at odds with ANYTHING I have said in regards to what is a
> fact,
Either you are a liar or hopelessly thick. My guess is on the latter.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d25ae836fd720198a347@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309161050.316b9e4e@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
> > > > so you
> > > > tell me, how can something be a fact, if somethig contradicts it?
>
> > > That's not your original definition that I was questioning. Try
> > > again.
>
> > It IS and does fit with my original defintion.
>
> Wrong. Your original statement was that since _you_ knew nothing
> to contradict it, it was a fact. If that isn't a subjectivist
> definition, I don't know what is...
>
> > > Nope. I am making no claims. I am simply pointing out the inadequacy
> > > in _your_ definition of fact.
>
> > You asked me if it was a fact that if no one heard a tree fall does
> > that mean it did not make a noise, the answer is, man doesn't have to
> > hear a noise for there to be have been a noise, and that is an
> > absolute fact.
>
> Which contradicts your original definition whether you like it or
> not. So either your original definition was wrong or you are too
> stupid to realize the implications of what you think.
>
> > > Which as at odds with your original definition of a fact.
>
> > It is NOT at odds with ANYTHING I have said in regards to what is a
> > fact,
>
> Either you are a liar or hopelessly thick. My guess is on the latter.
Careful Peter, you'll confuse him :-)
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d25ae836fd720198a347@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309161050.316b9e4e@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
> > > > so you
> > > > tell me, how can something be a fact, if somethig contradicts it?
>
> > > That's not your original definition that I was questioning. Try
> > > again.
>
> > It IS and does fit with my original defintion.
>
> Wrong. Your original statement was that since _you_ knew nothing
> to contradict it, it was a fact.
You are getting things confused AGAIN, the question was asked, was the
Battle of Nelson 1066 or some such crap etc etc, I replied "as there
was nothing that I had seen or heard that contradicted that date, then
as far as I was concerned it - was - a "fact."
I then said, "a fact can not be a fact if there was something known
that contradicts it" Which is what seems to have got you all wound up,
relax Peter.
IF someone can offer a contradicting bit of information on that date,
(which hasn't happened in nearly a thousand years) then I would
consider that NEW information in relation to other information that
was available, as nothing was said, I am still happy to regard that
date as a "fact."
Facts can only ever be considered or determined on available evidence
and on our current knowledge of existence. It is just plain absurd,
typically christain, nonsense, (as Cliff and it appears you too) to go
around thinking, that just because the future may uncover new
information, of what we KNOW as facts today, therefore the information
and knowledge we have today is therefore NOT a fact.
It is NOT my fault that you and Cliff do NOT accept the concept of
reality Peter, are you one of those silly christian people too, Peter?
you certainly talk and seem to think like one.
>
> > > Nope. I am making no claims. I am simply pointing out the inadequacy
> > > in _your_ definition of fact.
>
> > You asked me if it was a fact that if no one heard a tree fall does
> > that mean it did not make a noise, the answer is, man doesn't have to
> > hear a noise for there to be have been a noise, and that is an
> > absolute fact.
>
> Which contradicts your original definition whether you like it or
> not.
Are you saying that because I had not seen or heard anything
contradicting a date, therefore from that you "ASSUME" - I - must -
hear or see - everything for anything to be a fact?
Advice, dont assume anything, its bad for you. Science is not such a
bad thing Peter.
>
> Either you are a liar or hopelessly thick. My guess is on the latter.
Unlike you socialists and silly christians, I dont live or tell lies
Peter, unless they are life saving of course.
Hopelessly thick? well I know for a fact that is not true, so if you
tried to ridicule or offend me Peter, you have failed yet again. Now
go away and say a prayer, ask for gods help and then come back with
something that makes sense or at very least offer some proof of what
you claim.
may your god bless you Peter
Mike Gordge
In article <ef47a19d.0309162259.3995abd2@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Wrong. Your original statement was that since _you_ knew nothing
> > to contradict it, it was a fact.
> You are getting things confused AGAIN,
Oh really? How come the following:
> the question was asked, was the
> Battle of Nelson 1066 or some such crap etc etc, I replied "as there
> was nothing that I had seen or heard that contradicted that date, then
> as far as I was concerned it - was - a "fact."
backs up exactly what I said? Considering your demonstrated train
of thought, you wouldn't know what a fact was if it sodomized you
in the street.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d2f327d9bbccf898a34a@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309162259.3995abd2@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > mikegordge@no-spam says...
>
> > > Wrong. Your original statement was that since _you_ knew nothing
> > > to contradict it, it was a fact.
>
> > You are getting things confused AGAIN,
>
> Oh really? How come the following:
>
> > the question was asked, was the
> > Battle of Nelson 1066 or some such crap etc etc, I replied "as there
> > was nothing that I had seen or heard that contradicted that date, then
> > as far as I was concerned it - was - a "fact."
>
> backs up exactly what I said? Considering your demonstrated train
> of thought, you wouldn't know what a fact was if it sodomized you
> in the street.
You can always trust a socialist to resort to filth when the going
gets tough. Finding it hard to explain your position are you Peter? or
perhaps you have as silly an idea on what a fact is, as silly Cliff
has.
god bless
Mike
In article <ef47a19d.0309171014.14825d82@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > backs up exactly what I said? Considering your demonstrated train
> > of thought, you wouldn't know what a fact was if it sodomized you
> > in the street.
> You can always trust a socialist to resort to filth when the going
> gets tough.
Clear evidence of your socialism can be found here then:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ef47a19d.0307011628.4399e877%40posti
ng.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> Finding it hard to explain your position are you Peter?
I've explained my position. You have not understood.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d37f8b85fde68898a34e@no-spam>...
> In article <ef47a19d.0309171014.14825d82@no-spam>,
> mikegordge@no-spam says...
> > Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
>
> > > backs up exactly what I said? Considering your demonstrated train
> > > of thought, you wouldn't know what a fact was if it sodomized you
> > > in the street.
>
> > You can always trust a socialist to resort to filth when the going
> > gets tough.
>
> Clear evidence of your socialism can be found here then:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ef47a19d.0307011628.4399e877%40posti
> ng.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> > Finding it hard to explain your position are you Peter?
>
> I've explained my position. You have not understood.
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
You'll have to do a cut and paste, because it wont "open".
In article <ef47a19d.0309201243.3751cb56@no-spam>,
mikegordge@no-spam says...
> Peter Metcalfe <metcalph@no-spam> wrote in message news:
> > In article <ef47a19d.0309171014.14825d82@no-spam>,
> > > You can always trust a socialist to resort to filth when the going
> > > gets tough.
> > Clear evidence of your socialism can be found here then:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ef47a19d.0307011628.4399e877%40posti
> > ng.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> [...]
> You'll have to do a cut and paste, because it wont "open".
So you admit you are stupid?
--Peter Metcalfe
