Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: GreenDistantStar <pde63539@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:02:55 GMT
Wayne Dobson wrote:
GreenDistantStar wrote:It seems your confusion stems from missing Ollie's refusal to assign a
definition to chi.
Irrelevant! *You* denied the existence of something which you couldn't
define.
Uh, no...which *he* couldn't define.
> The onus is on *you* to make sense of what *you* say.
All I'm saying is that when someone says "X exists" and I ask "And what is X?" and the reply is given "There is nothing to define X" what then is one to say of "X"? Is it irrational to suggest that without a definition (and thus any attributes) to say "X exists" is meaningless? I'd say it's quite rational that would be the case.
In such a case, the onus is very much on him to prove he is not talking
absolute nonsense.
No it isn't. He has described chi in much the same way you'll hear it
described, most other places you look.
There seems little concensus on its meaning.
What did you expect?
What I asked for...what any rational person would ask for.
As with
everything else, you want a definition spoon-fed to you.
Just being provided with a definition would be sufficient. Or I can choose my own, which you'd likely not accept, and then we're talking about what *I* think it is, which isn't the point.
I explained to
you a long while ago that this was unlikely to happen; it went just so.
I told you that the arguments would only go around in circles; they
went around in circles. I even predicted ahead of time, what arguments
each party would use to defend their respective position.
Well aren't you a smart little man.
You imagine that the onus is on others to spoon-feed you.
You've already said that.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
.
- References:
- Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Renli
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Renli
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Greendistantstar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Renli
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Greendistantstar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Chas
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Greendistantstar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Chas
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Greendistantstar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: GreenDistantStar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Pierre Honeyman
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Pierre Honeyman
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: GreenDistantStar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: GreenDistantStar
- Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- From: Wayne Dobson
- Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- Prev by Date: Re: I won
- Next by Date: Re: Finally!! Proof!
- Previous by thread: Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- Next by thread: Re: Who here is capable of a rational discussion of Chi?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading