|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 680 responses total. |
llanarth
|
|
response 77 of 680:
| 
Nov 14 01:55 UTC 1996 |
are you crazy nistel?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 78 of 680:
|
Nov 23 21:08 UTC 1996 |
Is it just me, or has the conversation died off in here?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 79 of 680:
|
Nov 24 01:35 UTC 1996 |
Didn't anyone notice that I quit?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 80 of 680:
|
Nov 24 14:11 UTC 1996 |
Wouldn't my previous question imply that *I* at least noticed?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 81 of 680:
|
Nov 25 05:35 UTC 1996 |
How can you notice something that isn't true?
|
robh
|
|
response 82 of 680:
|
Nov 25 14:14 UTC 1996 |
If we couldn't notice things that weren't true, would we even
have a word for "false"?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 83 of 680:
|
Nov 25 23:42 UTC 1996 |
Since my first question wasn't true was it false? Have *you* ever heard of
a false question?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 84 of 680:
|
Nov 26 00:45 UTC 1996 |
If you haven't heard of something, does that mean it doesn't exist? And can't
a question *imply* a falsehood if it wants to?
|
toking
|
|
response 85 of 680:
|
Dec 31 20:20 UTC 1996 |
if a question is posed in such a way that the answerer tells a lie but
beleives it to be the correct answere is the question itself a bad influence?
shouldn't the question then be beaten with a stick?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 86 of 680:
|
Dec 31 22:52 UTC 1996 |
How can you beat an intangible object with a stick? Are there objects with
which you *can* beat an intangible object?
<orinoco pulls out his wooden stake and silver bullets and starts hunting for
an evil question to kill>
|
toking
|
|
response 87 of 680:
|
Jan 1 02:31 UTC 1997 |
if the question wasn't really a question, but really a person, wouldn't you
then be able to pummle it with anything you wanted? But what if the question
were a statewment>?
|
gulliver
|
|
response 88 of 680:
|
Jan 1 04:13 UTC 1997 |
If the question were a statement and the statement didn't stick,
can the question indigestion cause the facts to make you sick?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 89 of 680:
|
Jan 1 20:18 UTC 1997 |
what is wrong with you people? Are you making sense and I'm just not
noticing?
|
robh
|
|
response 90 of 680:
|
Jan 1 21:18 UTC 1997 |
If you don't notice, then what's the difference?
|
toking
|
|
response 91 of 680:
|
Jan 2 12:36 UTC 1997 |
didn't you notice that this item is basically senseless?
|
robh
|
|
response 92 of 680:
|
Jan 2 16:24 UTC 1997 |
And how does that make it different from any of the other
items here?
|
toking
|
|
response 93 of 680:
|
Jan 3 14:30 UTC 1997 |
should it make it different?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 94 of 680:
|
Jan 3 23:09 UTC 1997 |
Just because it's senselessness doesn't make it different, should that make
it's senselessness unimportant?
|
gandalf
|
|
response 95 of 680:
|
Jan 5 00:54 UTC 1997 |
Huh?????????????????
|
jradio
|
|
response 96 of 680:
|
Feb 18 20:52 UTC 1997 |
Does [Danybody really know what time it is?
[A[B[BDoes anybody really care?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 97 of 680:
|
Feb 18 20:56 UTC 1997 |
[A[B[BDo you think I care?
[D[BDo I look like I would [A[C[BDo something like that?
|
toking
|
|
response 98 of 680:
|
Feb 19 15:23 UTC 1997 |
what took people so long?
what's the deal with the [A[B[B's?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 99 of 680:
|
Feb 21 01:13 UTC 1997 |
You mean you don't understant the [A[B[B's?
|
robh
|
|
response 100 of 680:
|
Feb 22 12:24 UTC 1997 |
If the computer understands [A[B[B, do you really need to
understand it yourself?
|
rkm
|
|
response 101 of 680:
|
Feb 23 08:55 UTC 1997 |
Do computters understand anything ?
|