|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 53 responses total. |
selena
|
|
response 25 of 53:
| 
Jan 24 16:38 UTC 1995 |
well, thank you so very much!
|
jwp
|
|
response 26 of 53:
|
Jan 24 16:40 UTC 1995 |
No I see to...and no one ever belives what I say...this cf is proof...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 27 of 53:
|
Jan 28 19:04 UTC 1995 |
I am not saying that I don't belive it if i can't see it--no, not me--all that
EXISTS is what we sense--that includes word of mouth tho--the Roman Empire
existed because I heard about it--it's just that if we can't experience it or
hear about it, it might as well not xsist.
|
jwp
|
|
response 28 of 53:
|
Jan 30 16:23 UTC 1995 |
But dosen't that defeat the purpose of life itself?...
|
selena
|
|
response 29 of 53:
|
Jan 30 19:11 UTC 1995 |
Indeed, orin, the Roman empire is just as real to you, then, as another
dimension, now that you've heard about it.
|
snafu
|
|
response 30 of 53:
|
Feb 3 22:01 UTC 1995 |
About "Bigland" <4-d>, Slena was right. Ive seen it. uh, sort of. I mean
I've had dreams of some place where I was walking thorugh a 4-d museum.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 31 of 53:
|
Feb 7 01:57 UTC 1995 |
selena: yeah, so...
snafu: interesting. howdja know it was 4-d with your 3-d eyes?
|
selena
|
|
response 32 of 53:
|
Feb 10 20:08 UTC 1995 |
So, your guideline as to what is and isn't real is very flawed.
Also, in dreams, you do not percieve with your eyes, but with your
mind, which is capable of a far more detailed account than your eyes, ears,
nose, or tactile senses are.
|
jwp
|
|
response 33 of 53:
|
Feb 16 10:19 UTC 1995 |
<DreamWalker decides a no comment is in order here>
|
orinoco
|
|
response 34 of 53:
|
Feb 18 23:54 UTC 1995 |
Look at it this way, selena. There is no boundary as to what is or isn't real.
Rather, some things are more real than others. I've never seen the Roman
Empire, but I've heard of it, and I belive that it existed. Therefore, it
is more real than 4-D, which I've never seen, and don't belive in.
|
selena
|
|
response 35 of 53:
|
Mar 14 15:22 UTC 1995 |
But you've heard of 4-D, too, and your belief is thus not based on
anything rational. Reality is as reality does.. except in your case, it
seems..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 36 of 53:
|
Mar 14 21:08 UTC 1995 |
or, put another way, it is irrelevant to say that something is "real" or not.
all that exists is the mind; everything else could well exist, but we could
never know
|
selena
|
|
response 37 of 53:
|
Mar 15 20:16 UTC 1995 |
WORD WRAP, YOU NUT!
|
jwp
|
|
response 38 of 53:
|
Mar 16 08:12 UTC 1995 |
Reality is more then we'd like to imagine...it has it's own set of
rules...and it's own way to protect itself...but I digress...
|
selena
|
|
response 39 of 53:
|
Mar 23 20:50 UTC 1995 |
..at least you word wrap.
|
plork
|
|
response 40 of 53:
|
Mar 28 02:15 UTC 1995 |
Well, I agree, even chimpanzees have had a bad habit of predicting
earthquakes....
|
jwp
|
|
response 41 of 53:
|
Apr 28 06:40 UTC 1995 |
Gee selena I miss you too <DreamWalker Smiles slyly at selena>
|
plork
|
|
response 42 of 53:
|
May 7 19:09 UTC 1995 |
Am I being ignored??
|
selena
|
|
response 43 of 53:
|
May 8 18:55 UTC 1995 |
<selena ignores plork>
|
orinoco
|
|
response 44 of 53:
|
May 13 17:07 UTC 1995 |
thou shalt not ignore the plork!, says a voice thundering down from the heavens
|
selena
|
|
response 45 of 53:
|
May 13 22:18 UTC 1995 |
Thou shalt not make commandments for practitioners of other faiths,
either..
|
plork
|
|
response 46 of 53:
|
May 18 19:40 UTC 1995 |
<Plork goes and cries in the corner>
|
kain
|
|
response 47 of 53:
|
Jun 16 23:10 UTC 1995 |
<kain comforts plork <no-one should be ignored>>
|
setzer
|
|
response 48 of 53:
|
Jun 21 14:38 UTC 1995 |
What about Clinton? He SHOULD be ignored, shoulnd't he/she?
|
eldrich
|
|
response 49 of 53:
|
Jun 22 15:49 UTC 1995 |
Whole Government should be, lil lying scum!
<Eld goes off in tangent>
|
