Attack or retreat?

[fr0d0]

It was meant in 6000 ways, in C speak that is

[Violet]

It was meant in 6000 ways, in C speak that is

I don't understand that either...?

I suppose you could have meant it as a joke too... but that would be a strange way to interpret it... esp. right after having told me to stop being an idiot

[fr0d0]

Haha you're absolutely right. But as your language seems to be this existentialist nothingness I thought replying in it would make it easier for you.

[Violet]

Existentialist nothingness??? I'm all the more confused now ^_^

I think I've mostly spoken english on this forum... I might be wrong though. That's what it means to be an existentialist: that I'm always open to possibility

[fr0d0]

I think you proved my point LMAO

Could you maybe suspend the existentialism every now and again? I really hate it. Yeah it sorta means you entertain every possibility which is good, but then you are also strongly biased at the same time, which doesn't fit. And the existentialism facade seems like just a huge smoke screen. Come out and play Saerules.. we won't bite

[Violet]

I strongly believe much of what I have convinced myself of. I don't switch my beliefs every other day... because I have done much thinking before I came to my conclusion. I am always open to having thought wrongly... and in the event that it comes to my attention: I rectify the mistake, and rejustify myself. More later, must leave

Anyway, it is one of few cores to my philosophy... and shapes my personality quite a bit. oh they lovely question of 'Why?'

[Rhizomorph13]

Why?......

[Edwardo Piet]

" "Why?" what?" That is the question...

EvF

[Violet]

@Rhizo: As my friends say... "DAMN THAT QUESTION!"

Anyway... i don't understand what you mean by 'Existentialism facade' or its being a smokescreen to anything. My 'strong bias' towards certain beliefs comes from me having concluded that something most likely could not happen (or from the fact that it absolutely could not have happened in some way, unless the understanding of such is incorrect).

In example, I have | | | | and | all in a row. If I look further along, and I see another | ... why should I rejustify believing/disbelieving in what appears to be a point I have repeatedly considered?

With anything I have already considered... I am open to change. But I am only open to this change when I can see my justification were false... and my current position is justifiably incorrect because of the new data presented. In other words, I believe what I conclude... and reopen the idea when new data appears. If you see me have any amount of apparent 'bias' toward anything: it is because I have already considered the issue at length... or it is because it is my gut reaction.

However, as bias is a preconceived opinion not based on reason... any bias you have seen my have toward anything must disbecome bias: for my opinion was neither preconceived... nor lacking its justifications. My opinion was formed by thinking about the issue... and I justified it (however wrongly) before I believed it.

So what are you so upset by, fr0d0? I'm here and I'm 'playing', and I've no fear of your teeth

[theblindferrengi]

Congratulations! You can recognise a pattern. Nothing special; and when the pattern changes, YOU FIGURED IT OUT!!!