Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Xargo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat-Earthers, can you explain this?
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:54:55 AM »
I, Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane, declare that you don't understand the meaning of "presenting something as a brute fact," as opposed to an approach characterized by sophistication, because you would not indeed know sophistication if it hit you on the head with a 2x4.

You obviously lack something in your head.
Your presentation in the other thread are no different from mine in this thread. That's nothing you can change as we presented our ideas in the same logic.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat-Earthers, can you explain this?
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:40:57 AM »
I, Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane, declare that you fail to grasp the difference between superficial meaning and depth of thought. The video presents magic as a brute fact. My image presents the FE v RE debate at a profound conceptual level.

You mean I fail to grasp the difference between your fantasies and your imaginations? Also, you presented the image in the other thread as the flat earth being a brute fact, which is no different to my video which proves that magic exists, finite.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat-Earthers, can you explain this?
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:34:45 AM »
I, Francois Tremblay, of the Infinite Plane, officially declare you a maroon. I further officially declare that there is a vast difference, indeed an unsurmountable gulch of difference, between a profound statement of metaphysical expression and a mere magic trick.

Thus I have spoken!

Not in the way you presented it in the other thread. You merely wrote "As you can see with your own eyes, this image proves the flat-earth theory!". And now I'm using your logic; As you can see with your own eyes, this video proves that magic exists.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Round Earthers, can you explain this?
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:25:09 AM »
The only thing this image "proves" is that optical illusions can be made with SMAX3D. Not that the Earth is flat, lol.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Flat-Earthers, can you explain this?
« on: March 16, 2007, 01:21:21 AM »
As a response to this thread: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11525.0

So how do you explain this, Flat Earthers? This is plain and undeniable proof that magic exists.

As you can see with your own eyes, there is no trick to it, it's real magic.

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Assumptions
« on: January 13, 2007, 08:15:51 AM »
Basically: The observations of our five senses is the basis of all science. However, if you cannot observe a thing with any of the five senses, you will have to pick the most probable theory made from other people, which is pretty much how religion works too. It's more or less that simple.  :?

7
Arts & Entertainment / Best PC/Video-game ever?
« on: January 13, 2007, 07:55:35 AM »
I'm currently playing Armored Core (1) on PS.


( Assembling your robot is the main ingredient of the game
)

And soon Armored Core 4 will be released for PS3. Crazy how time goes by.

8
The Lounge / This...is why christianity...is aweful
« on: January 09, 2007, 04:30:12 AM »
Quote from: "The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist"
Quote from: "That evil website"
A quick read of Romans 1 will show that those who debate are in the company of adulterers, sodomites and murderers.  Therefore, debating will not be allowed.


Christians make me boil inside. >:C

9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 09, 2007, 04:05:42 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Ok, is there a distinction between your version of God and the universe?

I'll tell you one last time: Universe is part of God. Not "Universe = God".
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

I probably wouldn't, but no matter what I did say, that's what I'd mean.

Yeah, but it sound a hell lot of better when you say you've made a "flower", yes?
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Well your definition of God fits the definition of Nature perfectly.

Sure, in your world maybe, but in reality they're not the same thing. Nature is not a conscience - God is. Nature belongs to the collective energies, the universal - not inclining that God is the universe alone - conscience (God).
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
So regardless of whether or not you said it "I am Nature," with your definition of God it means the same thing. Thus people not giving a frak is exactly what I think they should do.

I wouldn't write "I am nature"  since it's the wrong use of words, period.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

He is that which is not?  Is he a book that references all books that do not reference themselves?

What I meant was that he is that which is, which isn't, which could be, which cannot be, which will become, which has ever been and which will ever be. He is your imagination (not meaning he is imaginative or that he is imagination alone) as well as he is reality (not meaning "God = reality").

Quote from: "Knight"
By the way, there's no difference between saying "the universe is everything" and "god is everything" because "the universe is god" and "god is the universe."  However, the pantheistic word for god can also be expressed by saying "I am god" or "this book is god" or "my dinner is god" whereas you cannot substitute the word god here with the word universe.

I'm not a pantheist, though I share some of the same beliefs. I believe that God is everything, however, I do not believe that he is unconscious. Everything is the form of God - that is, his conscience, or the "Collective Energies of Everything". I wouldn't say a book is God, I'd say it belongs to God, to his form and his limitless conscience.


(Believing that God is Everything rather than seperated from his creation seems more rational to me than other religions.)

Quote from: "Astantia"
I am me, in that all of these things that I percieve, my memory included, are incased within a frame of reference that is inherent only to myself.  I do not have the memories or experiences of others, and this distinguishes the 'I' from the 'we.'  I am not you, nor am I anyone else, I am I.

You're you. lol.
Quote from: "Astantia"

Now, why are you 'God?'

I'm not, I'm assuming his role to explain how I think he is like.

Here's fuel for the conversation btw:
Good/right or evil/wrong does not exist; there is only good/right in different perspectives. Hitler fought for what he thought was the right thing, just as anyone does. Did he end up in hell?

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Faster Than Light Travel
« on: January 07, 2007, 09:22:02 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
...and Star Wars sucks, so...


Omg. Omg. Omg.

11
The Lounge / Anyone like flash games?
« on: January 07, 2007, 08:25:43 AM »
Best flashgames are Samorost 1 and 2:
http://www.amanitadesign.com/

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 07, 2007, 08:16:17 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You are correct.


Yep.

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 07, 2007, 05:58:38 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

That the flag was not waving.  Which is why I said motionless...


If so, the flag obviously stopped waving eventually. It did wave at any rate, as evidence and eye-witnesses show - why else would everyone talk about it?


But I suppose you're incapable of observing this for yourself, Engineer, as you already have proved to be incapable of seeing that the horizon bends even though you're a pilot. Forgot, my mistake.

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 07, 2007, 05:54:17 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Because the universe is not a supernatural deity.

1. Who said it was? Universe is part of God. He is everything, so he is also that which is not.
2. Why could not the universe belong to a "supernatural" power?

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

When I say universe I'm not talking about the known universe. There is no "outside the universe." The universe is everything that exists.

If there is anything outside of the known universe, it's still part of God. If there is nothing outside the known universe, it makes little difference to the fact that God still is everything.
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

You might, but you'd be wrong. You haven't made a flower, you've made something resembling a flower.

So you, always fighting for the correct use of words, would not say that you've made a flower. You would say "Hey! Look! I've made something resembling a flower!"?
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

How about Nature?

Well, I'm not talking about Nature alone. If I would have posted "I am Nature", it wouldn't only have been the wrong choice of words, it would also result in people not understanding shit and not giving a fuck.

God is the collective energies of everything; The collective energies of everything, is God. Call me a pantheist if you wish.

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 08:02:13 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
I fail to see the difference. You're saying that God is everything, therefore God is no longer a supernatural deity that created the universe, God is simply...The universe.

And for this reason he could absolutely not be a supernatural deity, because...?
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

There is no distinction between God and the universe, thus the word God has the same meaning as the word universe.

No. The universe is only part of God. God = the collective energy of the known Universe and everything beyond and inside of it.

You're wrong, anyways. The meaning of and definition of something are very different from eachother. If you take some clay and form it into a flower, you might say "Look! I've made a flower!". This does not, however, mean "clay" = "flower", or that you've actually made a flower. But you've made a flower, right?
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
You've simply changed the definition of the word God.

No, I haven't. I've made my own version of God, that is not the same as changing the actual word.

Here's a question for you: What word should I use instead of "God" in your opinion?..

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Yet again Satelite Theory.
« on: January 06, 2007, 07:10:07 AM »
Lodburst=Strader? Join date.

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 06, 2007, 07:07:26 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

That the flag was not waving.  Which is why I said motionless...


If so, the flag obviously stopped waving eventually. It did wave at any rate, as evidence and eye-witnesses show - why else would everyone talk about it?

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 07:02:56 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Calling a rock a flower does not make it a flower. You've just redefined the word 'rock'.

No, this is not at all the same thing. I'm not defining the word, I'm defining the thing, and I've never said God is anything but God. Saying "God is everything" is not the same as saying "The word 'God' means 'Everything'".
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

You've redefined the word God to indicate a set that includes you, and are now claiming to be God. But you aren't. You're still a rock, you're just calling yourself a flower.

As I did write to Erasmus, it's easier to explain God if you take the role of being him, rather than speaking of him.

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 06, 2007, 06:19:01 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
There is an exterior shot that shows the flag to be motionless for 25 minutes, before the camera is shut down.


I bet. Point being?

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 06, 2007, 05:53:20 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Set to look like it was?  No.  It was stowed folded, but when they got to the moon, they could not exactly iron out the creases.


At least, that's what I heard from a documentary on the hoax on tv. Anyways:

"A Waving Flag
Everyone has seen the video of astronauts planting a US flag on the Moon.  You can see the flag flexing and rippling. How can that be?  There's no breeze on the Moon. But then, there's no atmosphere, either.  When the astronauts planted the flagpole they twisted it back and forth to sink it into the lunar soil.  On the Earth, that would have made the flag "wave" for a few seconds, then stop.  But that's because the flag pushes against air as it flaps, and the air slows it down.  On the Moon, there was no air to stop the flag's motion, so it continued, just as Newton's First Law of physics says it should.  So of course the cloth flag waved and rippled beneath the metal rod holding it out. "

21
The Lounge / Your age?
« on: January 06, 2007, 05:45:40 AM »
Quote from: "Red Skull"
I'll be 20 in October.


Scorpio? :)

22
The Lounge / Nexus: The Jupiter Incident
« on: January 06, 2007, 05:40:04 AM »
Link?

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Moon Landing Hoax
« on: January 06, 2007, 05:34:43 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Actually, no it doesn't.


Actually, it was set to look like it waves in a breeze. Hard to tell the difference, though.

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 06, 2007, 04:57:10 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
So like I said, it's pointless. What you're saying is "I'm God and you can't prove I'm not because I define the word "god" to mean anything I want it to."
Whatever. I'm a genius. Yay me.


I'm not defining the word, I'm defining the "object" behind it. One flower isn't identical to another flower just because you would use the same word when you speak of them.

25
The Lounge / Drunk?
« on: January 06, 2007, 04:48:43 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
You've never lain in a freezing street at 2am in a puddle of your own vomit, have you?


Getting drunk, and getting that drunk is quite different. :)

26
The Lounge / Drunk?
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:33:01 AM »
Rick, could you explain the effects (or the rush) of weed and ecstasy?

27
The Lounge / Classification of Members
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:30:33 AM »
Black people and white people?

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / I am God
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:20:21 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Are you saying God/Xargo is limited in that he cannot view the universe on the same scale on which I view it?  or that he cannot tell what scale I am referring to when I say, "near"?

What gives you these crazy ideas, Erasmus? No, really..? Who says God couldn't do any of those things? You assume this because you have never seen, heard or felt him do it?
Quote from: "Erasmus"

You declared me to be getting the hang of it, which, your being God, must be true, and adequately serves to answer my question in the affirmative.

No, I was trying to cheer you up, Erasmus.
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Either you were wrong that I was getting the hang of it, or you were wrong in believing that there was a coffee mug in my near vicinity.

As I said, I was just trying to cheer you up by telling you that you we're getting the hang of it, and about the coffee cup I never really considered if there was a coffee cup in your near vicinity or not as it was really rather irrelevant to the point you we're attempting to make.
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Either way, you are not God.

Yeah, I guess you just proved that! :roll:

Edit: Even if you have not proved anything yet, Erasmus, I'll admit that it's much easier to explain what God is like by taking the role of being him, instead of just talking of him. Satisfied?
Quote from: "Astantia"
Let me try something a little different:

Why are you God?


Let me try something a little different:

Why are you you?

29
Arts & Entertainment / Best PC/Video-game ever?
« on: January 05, 2007, 06:05:24 AM »
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
I don't know if you guys are as nerdy as me, but have you guys been tracking the game Spore by any chance?



Yeah, I have. It looks pretty ridiculous to me. :P I don't think it's half as good as everyone is trying to convince people off. Still seems pretty interesting, but I doubt it will turn out to be the best game ever. :D

Speaking of nerdy games, have you tried The Neverhood? Now, there's an underrated game! The developers of the game built up the game world in clay, and filmed it with a camera, so when you're walking  around in the world you're really watching movies taken of the actual clay-model. Gives a cool (and funky) realism to it. I think the developers used like six tons of clay to create everything, from the world to the characters etc.. And the music in the game feels like having reeeaaal good sex.

http://www.neverhood.se/

The artist who designed everything is pretty cool too, he's the guy who designed the Earthworm Jim games and series.
http://www.tennapel.com/

30
Arts & Entertainment / Online gaming
« on: January 04, 2007, 04:10:09 PM »
Quote from: "Masterchief2219"
I've only played it for the 360, so I don't know what its like for the PC. But most PC RPG's involve a lot of clicking.


Try Gothic. The battles are realtime but definetly not clickfests. You actually needs to think and use tactics, unlike Oblivion where all you need to do is get a good weapon+armour and you're good to go  (clicking, that is).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23