"Real" ringworlds

[Fyron]

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning...

Here is the dictionary definition:
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

And here is a more succinct definition:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

I hope that clears things up!

---

As I have said countless times, dictionaries are great for a basic understanding of a term, but they often miss the more sublte meanings and uses of complex terms.

Jack:
I never claimed to have "authority" in this matter. Just because someone is contradicting me (though not very effectively) does not mean that I am autmotatically wrong.

Why should he post a conter argument when all you have been doing is contradicting him, and not arguing yourself?

I already posted my argument, and he ignored it up until the very Last post or two. There is not really much in his Posts to argue against. And, any more argument on my part would be repeating what I already said, which would be counter-productive. Most of my Posts were trying to get him to actually read my post, which took quite some time.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did post another argument, that his "definition" was included in part of my "definition". His is just too narrow.

Here is a quote of myself for you:

My "definition" includes all common usages of the term faith.

This is part of the argument that the term "faith" is much broader than Narf thinks it is.

[ May 22, 2003, 19:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[dogscoff]

As I have said countless times,

No you haven't

dictionaries are great for a basic understanding of a term, but they often miss the more sublte meanings and uses of complex terms.

They don't!

I never claimed to have "authority" in this matter.

Yes you did.

Just because someone is contradicting me (though not very effectively) does not mean that I am autmotatically wrong.

Yes it does.

I already posted my argument, and he ignored it up until the very Last post or two.

No you didn't.

There is not really much in his Posts to argue against.

Yes there is.

And, any more argument on my part would be repeating what I already said, which would be counter-productive.

No it... oh, I'm bored of this now. I wonder how long it will be before everyone else gets bored as well..?

[Fyron]

Just trying to expand people's vocabularies and help them stop making fundamentally flawed arguments...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said countless times,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No you haven't

I was talking about in the past, not so much just in this thread...

[ May 22, 2003, 21:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Erax]

Fyron, with your # of Posts, you have already said any given phrase a countless number of times !

Edit: 'Scoff is just baiting you.

[ May 22, 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Fyron]

Yes I know. That is why I did not respond to most of his post.

[minipol]

yeah seems like Fyron is going to boldly go where no poster has gone before: over 6000 Posts

[narf poit chez BOOM]

My "definition" includes all common usages of the term faith. You are just brushing off all but the one that fits your agenda.

is this another one of our useless arguments? because i thought you where brushing off my defintion because it doesn't fit your opinion. and i read your post on faith the first time i read that page, which was before you asked me to. i do not deny you your opinion of the defintion of faith, it just isn't mine. therefore, i have no need to contradict your defintion, only to post my defintion, which i have done.

[Fyron]

Do not try to defend your refusal to allow for the possibility of being wrong by brushing off the meanings of words as opinions. They are certainly not matters of opinion, and trying to claim that they are only hurts your points. You can not simply ignore some of the meanings of a word, picking and choosing the ones that you like best. This is what would be required to be allowed if they were merely matters of opinion.

I did not "brush off" your definition of faith, I clearly stated that your definition was limited and inadequate. "Mine" (in quotes because it is not actually "mine", it is the real definition) includes the narrow meaning which you place on faith as well as the other broader meanings of the word. Language is not nearly as narrow as you seem to think it is. Nearly all "complex" words (ie: not simple words like "one" or "cat") have many shades of meaning other than what a dictionary places on them.

[dogscoff]

Edit: 'Scoff is just baiting you.

No I wasn't.

Actually, I really wasn't. I was just joining in the spirit of debate that has dominated the Last few pages of this thread.

[Fyron]

Sorry... I was just trying to get Narf to actually read and respond to my post if he was going to contradict me instead of spouting off the same thing over and over again...