OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

spirokeat · #1 July 29th, 2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

posted by Stormbinder
But if you prefer to believe all his crazy stories that he keep telling about himself, that's your choice

But surely if we accept that people somewhere do own vehicles of that nature albeit decomissioned ones, then what difference does it make if Norfleet has one or not?. Its not like hes trying to park it on your lawn ?

I propose, neither believing nor disbelieving and am quite sure I will have forgotten about this conversation in the next week or two, thus making ownership or non ownership moot. And if I have forgotten about it, well its tantamount to not having had it in the first place.

Spiro.

Arryn · #2 July 29th, 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.

T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures, and I've probably been doing it since before you were born).

BTW, I've not only seen tanks, I've driven one (the M1A1, as well as the old M113 APC).

Stormbinder · #3 July 29th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spirokeat:

quote:
posted by Arynn

It gets worse yet: no brain, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts at all. Sounds like oblivion to me.

Quote:

posted by stormbinder
But according to your logic, after death the human will lack not only receptors, but pathways and even brain itself. At this point the question of your afterlife existense become rather moot

Filthy Monists ! and material ones at that !

Heh, Arryn had beat me by few minutes to it.

Aye, it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it. But you have walked this road first with your neurological pathways, I just could not resist...

Norfleet · #4 July 29th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already.

*golf claps*

Bravo. Good for you. As you can see, it's not too hard to get to one.

[ July 29, 2004, 10:49: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Stormbinder · #5 July 29th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.

T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures

Than we both share the photography hobby Arryn. Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses???

Arryn · #6 July 29th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

Stormbinder · #7 July 29th, 2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

I am not arguing with that Arryn. The cold hard logic is very materialistic.

And there is nothing wrong with being materialist, I was just playing along with Spike.

As for my personal believes, I can say that I am more or less agnostic, if I have to put a label on myself.