Fyron's 5000th Post

[narf poit chez BOOM]

you havn't proven me wrong.
and i think i have come up with oposites that wouldn't exist without each other. are we doing more than going in circles, though?

[Fyron]

I never said there are no opposites that would not exist without each other. But your point was that everything that exists must have an opposite. This is what I have argued is wrong. There are many things out there without opposites, and they exist just fine.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i came up with one for a clock
but i don't think this is going anywhere. we've started to repeat ourselves.

[Fyron]

Yeah... I already showed how your argument for an opposite to a clock was invalid...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

where?

[ April 18, 2003, 09:13: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Read back in the thread. I posted counters to every argument posted for the existence of a clock's opposite.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

My arguments have had far fewer holes in them than those arguing for an anti-clock, actually. [Wink]

Your point about something useless being the opposite of something useful does not mean that all useful things actually have something that is the opposite of them. In fact, almost none of them do. Only a very small range of objects/ideas/concepts actually have an opposite. You have yet to prove that there is anything that could be the opposite of a clock (even with a narrower definition of what a clock is).

that was your Last post on the clock.

it's an anti-matter device that never lets any clock run and always gives incorrect time.
unless you want the oposite of a single clock, in which case it only has to never let that clock run.
and for most of this, theoretical is as good as were gonna get.

and that's my Last post on the clock and i think i met all the requirements.

[ April 18, 2003, 22:11: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]