GENIUS FORUMS

Have the three wise men on GS ever disagreed about something? If so, what was it and why?

Recently?
1) Forum administration (David's changing of all references of "QRS" to "wisdom")
2) Kevin's trip to America
3) Which posters to reply to and what to say to them

It's really hard to nail this one down, since they don't really function as a unit at all. I feel almost guilty that when you said "three wise men" I knew who you were talking about, but that's only because lots of people seem to lump Kevin David and Dan together. Maybe it's time for a new trio of unrelated philosophers: Cory, Ryan, and Carl.

You know Castro and Stalin? They were both Socialists right? Did they ever disagree on anything?

Off topic: I find it interesting how the posting at Genius Forums seems to go in cycles of intense philosophical discussion followed by rampant trolling, and then a calm-down period before it starts again.

Today, or perhaps late yesterday, we've tipped into the trolling phase (during which most of the serious posters withdraw). It's almost like deep talk somehow pulls trolls to the board. What is that the universal law of, being illustrated here?

Carl,
It could be a "bait and switch" thing. The trolls get snagged on the bait of decent discussion, try to ruin everything, and then the three wise men destroy all their delusions and save the day. One or two trolls turn into members, staying behind to restock dwindling participation. Forevermore, these trolls are QRS drones, trapped talking about absolute truth until the next cycle of trolls decide to disagree with truth.

I think in ecology it's called a "J-curve".

Ugh... I wanted to say something snide about you talking without the back-up of Cory and Ryan, but reason got the better of me. They'll be here soon enough. Fucking DRG. You need to form your own opinions once in a while.

Can someone explain to me the relationship between the thread title and the original question?

Carl wrote:

Off topic: I find it interesting how the posting at Genius Forums seems to go in cycles of intense philosophical discussion followed by rampant trolling, and then a calm-down period before it starts again.

The masculine depths of night must always give way to more feminine day….and there will be two contrasting qualities of energy operating during these times.

btw Carl, keep up the good work, and if these types of posts continue, I’ll think of updating our name from the DRG to the DR-G giving you your own special hyphen for distinction.

Bold is for pansies. Thought it best you knew.

its magic Dan, beyond causality.

Actually, its your shadow, bro

(To Ryan on that)

Ryan is so transparent he doesn't cast a shadow.

Dan the Equalizer ... yeah

Dan wrote:

Ryan is so transparent he doesn't cast a shadow.

I know you’re being sarcastic, but here is a relevant truism -

At a certain stage of development, ones shadow only becomes existent when the rays of a brighter star is powerful enough to reveal it.

You mean your shadow is only visible because of the light shining out of Carl's arse? :)

Just sort the fuckin chat function Dan, ok?

My original question:

Have the three wise men on GS ever disagreed about something? If so, what was it and why?

and the title of this thread:

I'm right!

...The other isn't. You know, disagreements...Dan? (Big Ego-cheese)

Carl,

Off topic:

Yeah you seem to being doing this quite a lot. Funny how you should mention trolls...

...................................................................................................................................................

I wrote this thread for obvious reasons; It's interesting to find-out why three highly logical people would disagree.

I'm having problems understanding certain types of material on GS and when I ask a question I hardly ever seem to get a meaningful answer...Why?

I'm not sure phpBB supports an IRC function. Anyway, chat has a bad habit of ruining post dynamics due to its tendency to take over. Plus, I don't think Kevin would be the least bit interested in the idea and it's his baby in a technical sense. You can always go to some obscure Ezboard and use theirs anyhow.

There you see, that's a meaningful answer.

Ignis Fatuus wrote:I'm having problems understanding certain types of material on GS and when I ask a question I hardly ever seem to get a meaningful answer...Why?

To be honest, your constant demands to be paid attention to put me off quite a lot. Plus, there's only so many hours in a day. If you have to wait a fews days for a reply, suck it up.

Only with hindsight did I realise you were talking to me there Dan.

And it's only with the benefit of hindsight that I realised how clever it would be to say fuck off Dan.

Well, hindsight is supposed to be 20/20, but I'm not sure what I said to you that would prompt that.

It was a joke mate.

British sense of humour and that.

It's actually part plagiarised from Blackadder.

Ignis Fatuus wrote:I wrote this thread for obvious reasons; It's interesting to find-out why three highly logical people would disagree.

People can easily agree on general principles and yet disagree on certain details, especially if the subject matter contains empirical matters and judgments. They may also elect to express the same idea with different words.

Dave Toast wrote:It was a joke mate.

British sense of humour and that.

It's actually part plagiarised from Blackadder.

David Letterman - Paris Hillton interview..

D: "As you move forward looking back, do you see what you have done wrong?" <-Stealth bomber humor!

ps. The last time they had argument was in this thread (AFIK) Thanks to those I visited in the US and Canada

;)

Dan,

People can easily agree on general principles and yet disagree on certain details, especially if the subject matter contains empirical matters and judgments. They may also elect to express the same idea with different words.

I was refering to absolute truths and the use of logic. After all logic can be applied in one way and one way only, right? By this I mean: There's no such thing as bad logic. It makes sense to think of it as one path to reach a desired destination. So, it seems to me, that one person may lose direction and take a longer route, while the other takes the shortest one. This seems to be why people argue and have different opinions and so on.

I don't see how there can be two enlightened people at odd ends with each other. That is, unless there are degrees to enlightenment.

What were or are some differences that have been resolved by two sages, why did they even occur? (examples please)