"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
On Feb 18, 4:58 pm, "The Big DP" wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 1:36 pm, "The Big DP" wrote:



"Eric Chomko" wrote in message

...
On Feb 17, 12:32 pm, "The Big DP" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
messagenews:d1vmn5h1hbrpo3sh79g1r1lmthjgr6qh6l@4ax .com...

"The Big DP" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "The Big DP" wrote:
:
: :
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: .. .
: : "The Big DP" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
: :
...
: : : The Big DP wrote:
: : :
: : : But that's probably because I'm a brown-nosing LLPOF
incest-cloned
: : Borg
: : : Zionist Nazi. :-D
: : :
: : :
: : : *SNORT* hee hee hee...good one, Pat
: : :
: : : It took me forever to figure out what the "LLPOF" was all
about.
: : : It's "Liar, Lier, Pants On Fire"... really hard language on
his
: part.
: : :-D
: : :
: : :
: : :Truth be told Pat....I actually had to ask him. How pathetic
is
THAT?
: : :
: :
: : They don't have Google on your planet?
: :
: :Ahhhh....I can rest in peace now, I've finally been snubbed by
Fred.
: Thanks!
: :
:
: That's not a 'snub'. Perhaps you should check a dictionary for
the
: meaning of that word while you're trying to figure out how to use
: Google?
:
:*Chortle* Remember Fred we're talking Brad Guth and his odd use of
the
:language. It never occurred to me that something Brad would type
would
be
:Google-able. Oh and Fred....being condescending to someone IS a
snub.
If
you
:don't think so I love to see you explain why it wouldn't be.
:

Because it's not. Red isn't blue. If you think it is, I'd love to
see you explain why it is.

You DO enjoy the semantic battle don't you. I would agree that Red
isn't
Blue....but I perceive your first remark as a snub, so thus whether or
not
you intended it as a snub it doesn't matter. Perception, as 'they' say
IS
reality.

With all those perceptions, isn't their only one reality?

In a word? No. Think about that. What you see and what Fred sees and
what
I
see are all a little different....it may look the same but it isn't,
quite.

The point is that we are all looking at the same thing, even though we
see it differently. Do you honestly think there are 6.3 billion
realities vs. 6.3 billion perceptions, or is it, 1 reality and 6.3
billion perceptions.

This is a classic case where "Film as Literature" has a real
philosophical aspect when discussing the objective vs. subjective
camera from the point of view of the film watcher and the characters
on the screen.

You do know the distinction between objective and subjective
viewpoints are, right?

=====================

Don't be condescending, jeez.

Okay, as long as you're not touchy or thin-skinned.

Works for me!

I'll answer that yeah, I do think everyone
sees things differently....and I think chaos theory agrees with me. In
other
words just the act of observing something causes the thing being observed
to
change in some small way.

I think the act of observing does nothing. Now acting on reality, as
small as it might be, does change it. But to claim a passive activity
changes reality; we might as well say video cameras change reality.

Chaos is so bizarre, as you probably know, and would claim that using the
photons to see the thing you're observing _IS_ changing the thing you're
observing. Stuff like that gives me a headache.

That's all...I am off on a long weekend.