where have i ever made a chauvenistic statement? where in my post did i even mention the sexes? i suppose i did refer to you as she. and of course i did use your name. jane is generally a female name isn't it. nevermind, you're right. i suppose i was being quite the male chauvenist pig calling you a she and jane. my appologies. as i said, meant no offense.

By "chauvenistic generalizations" I meant your assuming my having to resort to "copying/pasting any definition from the dictionary" -- as if logical thinking is inherently a male domain!!!

That's why the main postulate of the computer programming is:

Never assume, cuz when you ASSuMe, your making anASS out of U and ME!!!

Otherwise, no offence taken!

just don't know what to say jane. i've never even begun to suggest that "logical thinking is inherently a male domain". that's simply unfair of you. i copy/paste dictionary definitions often when i think it's called for. and yet i consider myself a logical thinker. the fact that the logical definition was yours and not copy/paste, lends to you being a logical thinker. if i need to qualify my statements to you regarding your posts as being as logical as any male's, then i'll try to accomodate. as i don't normally feel i have to identify the sex of whom i'm addressing, i may slip up on occassion thinking you are equal to any human, male or female, but i'll do my best in your case to emphasise my feeling that you indeed are my equal. k?

As jeanie says, "Oh, nevermind!"

All I was really objecting to was your condescending remark:

Actually, not even the whole remark, but only one word (underlined) -- as if a weak-minded female is incapable of any logical ideas of her own -- so, OBVIOUSLY, she must've copy/pasted a dictionary definition...

Though, your right -- perhaps I'm taking this too far...

Perhaps?

then perhaps we can leave it at this. i did not mean to sound condescending. i made a mistake in assuming something that was incorrect. your definition was a good one. if i offended you i'm sorry.

If someone copies and pastes something into a post and does not put it into a quote box I am going to assume that it is their words.

Even if it is not their words, if they do not indicate that they are using someone else's words they must take full responsibility for the content of the words they did use as if they said them if they don't tell us otherwise.

If I copy and paste something and do not put it in quotes or tell people where I got it, I will take full responsibility for the contents as if I had said them myself because I agree with everything that I posted.

If I post something I do not agree with, then I make sure I put it in a quote box and name my source.

one more such post and you could have retained the honorary title of Miss Mingle's Drama Queen

Yeah, perhaps I did carry that offence a bit toooooo far!

I simply can't stand the chauvenistic remarks from the "distinquished learned men"...

i think i'll just not read anything that could be even remotely mistaken as a copy/paste ever again. and if ever i copy/paste anything myself without quotes somebody please loan me a high caliber revolver. my estate will pay for the bullet i swallow.

The statement I now make is this: If a fact is something observed and repeatable and accepted as right and years down the road smaller means of observing disprove this fact, how can one differentiate between a fact if very few things are so concrete in nature?

yep. facts, other than those we experience ourselves, don't exist.

"JR & JaneStar, sittin' in a tree..."

Jeanniebean, it is possible that we exist within a virtual reality supported by a Matrioshka brain

can you believe it? finally my inescapable charm has gotten me to first base. let's blow suds of a few cold ones later and i'll tell you how it goes. if i do get lucky i'll buy the beer k?

a fact is the truth

example, its a fact we are going to die at some point in our lives

its a fact that there is a moon

its a fact we do exist

its a fact we live on earth

I don't think all facts are true.

1.)Are we going to all die at some point? We believe we are. We call that belief a fact. We all agree this is a finite universe and our bodies are finite. But are we our bodies or do we have an eternal consciousness?

2.) We all can see the moon so we all agree it is there.

3.) I am certain that I exist. I accept on faith that you do and that you are not a figment of my imagination.

4.) This place we live appears to be a planet that rotates around the sun. We all accept this as a fact and we believe it to be true. We call this planet "earth." Could we be wrong? Perhaps its just an illusion or a holographic simulation. Until we know for sure, we accept the fact that we live on a planet that we call "earth." That is not to say that some aliens don't call it by another name.

There is no way to know if this isn't a simulation supported by a Matrioshka brain,or even if there is a difference. A Matrioshka brain would have enough processing power to simulate an entire universe. We could actually be a Type III or IV civilization living within a holographic reality universe.

As I mentioned previously -- before being misadvertently sidetracked:
.
FACT: AN UNDISPUTED TRUTH

TRUTH: AN ESSENCE OF A SUBSTANCE OR IDEA

However, since most of the facts depend upon our current level of sophistication, then the Truth is a relative matter.

Therefore, most of the facts are just Agreements!

Example: the sun always sets at the West...
However, West, East, (not to mention South and especially North) are just labels, i.e. agreements.

I like to try to turn things "inside out" or "backwards" to see what it looks like from the other side (metaphorically speaking).

So with that in mind, here's a question: Is there, or can there be, such a thing as a "fact" that is not agreed on by anyone?