"Real" ringworlds

[narf poit chez BOOM]

read it again. you define faith differantly than i do. i know that if i have faith that i will get an answer, i will get an answer. that is verification.

[Fyron]

I define faith correctly.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

dictionary definitions are not always accurate for each persons use.

[Fyron]

I never used a dictionary. In fact, my "definitions" are the complex extended ones, not dictionary ones. And, words have specific, universal meanings. They are not dependant upon the speaker.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

like, i don't think so. so you know, like not.
ok, that answers kinda cheezy, but the meanings of words, to the people involved, can change radically depending on region and dialect. any universal, overarching meaning isn't dependent on mortals. which is one reason to listen for the sense of the words.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Sigh. That applies in limited scope to words that are only in certain regional dialects, yes. But, complex words do not change drastically in meaning from one region to another. And even if the word is used in a slightly different manner, that is immaterial; it is the concepts that matter. You are not understanding the concepts of the various forms of faith. You are only able to make your argument because you are using the wrong meanings of the word faith in the wrong context. If you refuse to even listen to my arguments instead of just brush them aside as you are currently doing (no counter-argument has been made at all), then there is little point in discussing this with you.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

ok.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

You responded before I finished fixing my post...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.

it looks like a counter-argument to me. at the very least it's an argument and a statement of opinion.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:05: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

No, it is not a counter-argument. It is a repetition of your misuse of "faith" to try to prove a point.