Come On

[niffer]

That's true. Everything else seems to be knowing it's shit.

 

[wildcat]

That's true. Everything else seems to be knowing it's shit.

Unless the thing is not divided from what it measures.

They are totally unrelated. Hypocrisy starts when you attack someone else.

You can feel guilty for being hypocritical. In this situation, I suppose you would only be able to feel guilty at the end, because you weren't able to do anything. And then the feeling of being hypocritical would come.

The opposite poles exist beyond their continuum?

In science we look at the measure.
Whose measure?

Does the measure measure beyond the measure?

Why does the optical science disagree with physics?

What is the exact location where they disagree?

Is the end of the line but the extension of the line?

Is the home base of the measure divergent of the end base of the measure?

Does the zero add a component?

Does it add anything?

 

[lowtech redneck]

The truth is not the answer.
The truth is a question.

State your question.

What good are the answers without the questions?

 

[Xander]

Wildcat,
In reference to lines intesecting at their limit or their extension, why do lines have ends?

Am I to assume that this limit which has been placed on the line is merely the limit of the range of vision of the viewer or is it limited by the intersection of another line which then merges the two lines and produces a new and different direction?

If ideas are line then you must consider how far you extend them before they become unwieldy and irrelevant.

If the relevant area is where you are then the further you extend away from that relevance, the more irrelevance you include. Irrelevance brings with it torque which alters the subject around it like a gravity well. The further you extend, the more torque you allow, the more irrelevancy warps the subject.

What good are the answers without the questions?

Answers lead to questions but yes questions are always more important and usually filled with more wisdom than the answers they produce.

 

[wildcat]

Wildcat,
In reference to lines intesecting at their limit or their extension, why do lines have ends?

Am I to assume that this limit which has been placed on the line is merely the limit of the range of vision of the viewer or is it limited by the intersection of another line which then merges the two lines and produces a new and different direction?

If ideas are line then you must consider how far you extend them before they become unwieldy and irrelevant.

If the relevant area is where you are then the further you extend away from that relevance, the more irrelevance you include. Irrelevance brings with it torque which alters the subject around it like a gravity well. The further you extend, the more torque you allow, the more irrelevancy warps the subject.


Answers lead to questions but yes questions are always more important and usually filled with more wisdom than the answers they produce.

Whose end?
The end of the limit of the spectator is not the end of the line.

Is the or/and divergent of the beholder?
Is relevance but your need?

If our need is the object of our study we are blind.
The object of study is beyond of and indifferent to our need.

 

[Xander]

Whose end?
The end of the limit of the spectator is not the end of the line.

Is the or/and divergent of the beholder?
Is relevance but your need?

If our need is the object of our study we are blind.
The object of study is beyond of and indifferent to our need.

The point is that you can learn the wisdom of an old man, it can make sense but if you apply it as a rule (which would be the logical outcome of extension) then at some point you will over extend the rule and out balance yourself.

Lines exist only as long as the context lets them. We are the providers of context and ergo we decide how long the line can be. However others bring their own context and ergo define for themselves how long the line can be. Hence there is no objective length of the line and ergo no means by which to persuade others of a particular turning point without describing the context.

I think that makes sense anyhow

Basically if you apply anything as a rule then soon enough you will find an exception or something else which happens to collide with your straight path. Now you can believe that the path is straight and fight the entirety of existence that a line exists without bend nor break or you can flow with the other paths and hence your line becomes more of a spline and more intertwined/ intermixed with other things. Of course after a while it would be difficult to claim it was the same line as the original.

Capisce?

 

[wildcat]

The point is that you can learn the wisdom of an old man, it can make sense but if you apply it as a rule (which would be the logical outcome of extension) then at some point you will over extend the rule and out balance yourself.

Lines exist only as long as the context lets them. We are the providers of context and ergo we decide how long the line can be. However others bring their own context and ergo define for themselves how long the line can be. Hence there is no objective length of the line and ergo no means by which to persuade others of a particular turning point without describing the context.

I think that makes sense anyhow

Basically if you apply anything as a rule then soon enough you will find an exception or something else which happens to collide with your straight path. Now you can believe that the path is straight and fight the entirety of existence that a line exists without bend nor break or you can flow with the other paths and hence your line becomes more of a spline and more intertwined/ intermixed with other things. Of course after a while it would be difficult to claim it was the same line as the original.

Capisce?

I try. If I get decent coffee.

All right. The line exists only within the context. I try to remember that.

Let us accept an analogy.
The train leaves the ISP station at 12.
It goes backwards in time but forwards in direction.
It stops at the ISX station at 9.
The next stop is the IXJ station at 6.
It reaches the XNJ station at 3.
It goes on and arrives at the ENJ station at 00.
The train goes on forward in time and forward in direction.
It reaches the ENX station at 3.
The EXP station at 6.
The XSP station at 9.

And it is back at the original ISP station at the original time.
Nothing did collide with the straight rail.

Where is the damn coffee?

 

[wildcat]

What good are the answers without the questions?

You cannot have the cake and eat it.
Take your pick.

The answers without the questions.
Or the questions without the answers.

 

[Xander]

I try. If I get decent coffee.

All right. The line exists only within the context. I try to remember that.

Let us accept an analogy.
The train leaves the ISP station at 12.
It goes backwards in time but forwards in direction.
It stops at the ISX station at 9.
The next stop is the IXJ station at 6.
It reaches the XNJ station at 3.
It goes on and arrives at the ENJ station at 00.
The train goes on forward in time and forward in direction.
It reaches the ENX station at 3.
The EXP station at 6.
The XSP station at 9.

And it is back at the original ISP station at the original time.
Nothing did collide with the straight rail.

Where is the damn coffee?

I can tell you're a banana sandwich and thermos person aren't you.

Okay if your line is a circle then the line which you have described has no breaks but there is one flaw in your thinking and that is that you have simplified for clarity and hence have lost your accuracy. Normally a fine trade but this time an error. You see your line, as with all things, does not exist in isolation. We know that things are connected and do interact. For example what some call a straight road is often not and, being pedantic, even if it lacked any form of bend or chicane it would still have the curvature of the earth and therefore would not be straight.

Your line does not exist in a vacuum. So what happens when it meets, crosses, collides, intersects or otherwise interacts with another line?

One line of thinking is that no matter what a dog is man's best friend. Another line of thinking is that dogs are daft and attention seeking and that cats are much better. Now these two lines intersect/ collide when the discussion about which is better is brought up. Now you have new lines where dog lovers reason why they do not like cats as much and vice versa. The lines have been altered.

That should only be a cappuccino paragraph as opposed to yesterday's Parisian

 

[developer]

The truth is not the answer.
The truth is a question.

State your question.

Will you ever put your type below your avatar ?

 

[wildcat]

Will you ever put your type below your avatar ?

I placed also the location in case you wished to drop by.
In case you levitate, of course.

 

[wildcat]

I can tell you're a banana sandwich and thermos person aren't you.

Okay if your line is a circle then the line which you have described has no breaks but there is one flaw in your thinking and that is that you have simplified for clarity and hence have lost your accuracy. Normally a fine trade but this time an error. You see your line, as with all things, does not exist in isolation. We know that things are connected and do interact. For example what some call a straight road is often not and, being pedantic, even if it lacked any form of bend or chicane it would still have the curvature of the earth and therefore would not be straight.

Your line does not exist in a vacuum. So what happens when it meets, crosses, collides, intersects or otherwise interacts with another line?

One line of thinking is that no matter what a dog is man's best friend. Another line of thinking is that dogs are daft and attention seeking and that cats are much better. Now these two lines intersect/ collide when the discussion about which is better is brought up. Now you have new lines where dog lovers reason why they do not like cats as much and vice versa. The lines have been altered.

That should only be a cappuccino paragraph as opposed to yesterday's Parisian

My dear friend. Hot Campbell's vegetable soup with rye and butter, please.

My line does not meet, cross, collide, intersect or interact with another line.
Xander, there is the secret. My line is a beauty. It is exquisite, utter. It is a capital thing. I say it is a masterpiece.

Cat, Xander, cat. This thing is not even discussible. Cat is man's best friend.

Ti amo! Ma si! Penso di si! Il Cappucino! Bellissima! Ci siamo, lo so.

 

[Xander]

My dear friend. Hot Campbell's vegetable soup with rye and butter, please.

The tea and banana sandwich is an institution! You shall be persecuted for your deviance!! All trainspotters MUST conform!!!

My line does not meet, cross, collide, intersect or interact with another line.
Xander, there is the secret. My line is a beauty. It is exquisite, utter. It is a capital thing. I say it is a masterpiece.

It is an error. Either your thinking is in error or our communication thus far is in error.

A singular line of reasoning, thought, concept or otherwise which does not intersect is a branchline, a dead end, a construct made purely for illustrative needs or comfort. All things interact or cease to exist. There is no particle or element to real life, imagination or concept which exists by itself. All lines exist connected to all others via some pathway. That is the nature of things. When someone sees only deadends and branchlines then it is either that they cannot see the other lines or for some reason refute them and ignore their existence.

Cat, Xander, cat. This thing is not even discussible. Cat is man's best friend.

Well the stray that we're pandering to at present is rather nice but there again it mimics a dogs behaviour quite well. I'm afraid though that dogs will always remain superior as they nurture and give, cats only control and take.

Ti amo! Ma si! Penso di si! Il Cappucino! Bellissima! Ci siamo, lo so.

One language person here translating. What's Penso?

 

[developer]

I placed also the location in case you wished to drop by.
In case you levitate, of course.

Mmh, so it IS possible to rattle your cage.

 

[miss fortune]

If I'm not a cat will curiosity kill me?

Penso would be "I think"

 

[wildcat]

If I'm not a cat will curiosity kill me?

Penso would be "I think"

Why curiosity does not kill the cat?

Why the leaf blower has only one life?

 

[wildcat]

Mmh, so it IS possible to rattle your cage.

To rattle the cage is one thing.

To put your arms through the bars is another thing.

 

[Xander]

To rattle the cage is one thing.

To put your arms through the bars is another thing.

***sign on front of cage***
NO FEEDING THE WILDLIFE.
INCLUDING THAT CAT.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

1. Who is Spain?
2. Why is Hitler?
3. When is right?
4. Where was that stooped and mealy-colored old man I used to call Poppa when the merry-go-round broke down?
5. How was trump at Munich?
6. Ho-ho beriberi.
7. Balls!
8. Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

 

[wildcat]

***sign on front of cage***
NO FEEDING THE WILDLIFE.
INCLUDING THAT CAT.

Unless you do it from a helicopter.