Ok, I can admit when I am wrong. The portion of we, which is not you, is having fun. Delirious fun, in fact. As well, it seems the portion of we, which is you, is the part that has wandered off to do other things.
Philosophy is a lot harder than I thought it was. No wonder Nietschtcshtschtsche is dead.
<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>
------------------ There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.
–Cicero
Whee! Fun and games.
So Aristotle is an electron and Nietzschetche was a photon? Or is Aristotle and object who worships the photon whose electron is Nietzschetche’s time?
So if the superset of the subset of the object is the object’s photon, and the electron is waving the form across the atom, what time is it?
Thank you, Libertarian, for yet another shining example that a membership in a profession does not imply the ability to use the tools of said profession appropriately.
Thank you also for demonstrating how ridiculous it is to carry a grudge from one thread into another. Most among us would have simply replied (however nonsensically) to an offending post in the place where it was made. You, however, have gone the extra mile just to deliver this lovely object lesson in the ethical principal of noncoersive posting. That was your point, right?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
My only point was to have fun, Spiritus. I don’t really think you tear my posts up that bad. 
I’m really sorry I offended you. I think you’re a very sharp debator, and I probably shouldn’t have made the above post. Again, I apologize.
Damn you, Lib! You go all reasonable on me at the most inopportune times. Apology accepted. Here, you can have one of mine for overreacting.
Personally, I blame it on Zarathustra. I haven’t been the same since I read about Superman and the Mole People.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Thank you, Spiritus. I’m pretty sad right now, so your forgiveness means a lot. And that’s no joke.
I am sorry to hear you are sad. Though we disagree on many particulars of how to get there, I have always felt that we shared a very similar view of life’s goal (for lack of a more concise expresion of the ineffale). Despite our sometimes heated exchanges, my view of our conflict is restricted entirely to the realms of idea and expression. I certainly bear you no ill will, and I would never wish sadness upon you. I hope whatever weight is pressing you down soon lifts.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
pqlier’s peculiar [sic] theory reminds me of The Universe is One Wavicle, by Ronald Arthur Bert (a.k.a. “Bertonian Mechanics”).
It was presented in two Usenet articles that were so bad, I had to subject them to the Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment.
Be careful folks.
It’s all fun and games and La-de-da, until somebody gets whacked in the eye with a subset of a photon.
Often wrong… NEVER in doubt
Surgoshan wrote:
Except if they’d called them Red, Blue, Green, and Orange, we’d have gotten all confused, because the terms “red”, “blue”, and “green” were already in use by subatomic physicists to refer to the three kinds of “charge” exhibited by the strong nuclear force.
And “orange” is a flavor of Jell-O[TM] brand gelatin dessert.
Serious question: “strangeness” was originally considered to be a quantum property like charge or spin, invoked to explain why certain particles behaved in a peculiar way. Now it’s known that those particles contain one or more strange quarks (or anti-strange quarks). Is strangeness still considered a fundamental property? If so, are “upness” and “downness” properties?
I stand corrected, Tracer. How about Mahogany, Ebony, Teak, and Birch?
You know, Lumpy, they just might be. I’ll look into it (ask my dad).