You actually thought your explanation that a mountain lion gnawing off someone's face would be a "bad" experience for that person had something to do with the observation that interpretation of reading material can be subjective? Wow.
The dumbest threads on forums are...
Sort:
@bigpoison: regarding plaice, check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plaice
polydiatonic wrote:
........................ Not really. For example things that taste better well cooked than raw: rice, beans, beef ribs or short ribs, brisket, liver, potatoes, flour, oatmeal, pancakes, eggs, bacon, waffles....should I go on? ................. ....................... bigpoison wrote: polydiatonic wrote: You know that for most fish, the more you cook them the worse they taste... That's basically true for anything.
Let's see, from your list, I'll agree with: beans. I was thinkin' about it last night, knowing that some things do taste better the longer you cook them. I came up with chili, tacos, and cabbage stew. But if it is the flesh of a dead animal on its own, the shorter the better. Liver?! You're nuts, man: don't ruin the best part of the critter!
Thanks for the link Dunce. Sounds yummy.
I'd like to note that most recent posts gives me:
The dumbest threads are...
About Bobby Fisher
Which is pretty much to the point.
Hee hee
Now it's:
The dumbest threads are...
gg is arrogance
Aug 31, 2010
0
#127
Phil_A_S wrote:
I'd like to note that most recent posts gives me:
The dumbest threads are...
About Bobby Fisher
Which is pretty much to the point.
I'm glad you're getting into the spirit of things...
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
Aug 31, 2010
0
#129
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
what good manners
Aug 31, 2010
0
#132
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
Nobody knows what you're talking about...
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
Nobody knows what you're talking about...
exactly, read my comment above
and FIRST
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
Nobody knows what you're talking about...
yet everybody understands why you should chose to start a thread like this, and to pursue it as you have done....bearing in mind the subject matter of the thread that you chose to create and pursue.
Aug 31, 2010
0
#135
paul211 wrote:
Everyone has a right to post an opinion as long as it is not offending, saying that dumb threads exist, unless thy are offensive, is an offense to the individual thet opened a forum or posted a thread.
Not eveyone has the same perception of things, which people often refer to, wrongly, as intelligence.
I believe that people that post a thread are genuenly and truly interested in obtaining support or ideas or comments.
Some are, yes. But there are a number of trolls who post to either make people angry, or just see how many responses they can get. There are a number of non-offensive, yet dumb posts on the forums (not just here, most places.)
Aug 31, 2010
0
#136
furtiveking wrote:
But there are a number of trolls who post to either make people angry, or just see how many responses they can get.
And there's a huge difference between those two goals, IMO. Posting a racist or otherwise inflammatory comment is a world removed from those who make frequent posts just to give the usual gang (myself included) a fresh thread for the day where we can meet and swap a few observations and jokes and insults.
Aug 31, 2010
0
#137
...
....okay Shakespeare, I've reread your comment and I still have freaking idea what you are talking about...
....
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
giratina999 wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
paul211 wrote:
Dumb threads do not exist. The perception of the reader is in cause here.
Some people want to be funny, others inquisitive or challenging or make a statement to get an opinion.
Paul, really? I get your concept here, like: "there are no bad parts, just bad actors". The problem is that by your logic there are also no such things as:
Bad cars, bad breath, bad intentions, bad science, bad chess moves, etc, etc...
Sorry Mahatma, but we live in a world, at least I do, where things (some times know as "reality" are judged based upon our subjective EXPERIENCE. So, that means that what's bad for me might be good for you because of what we, relative to our experiences, take away from that which we are currently experiencing. However, it also means the opposite can be true. Thus what is good for me may be bad for you.
If a mountain lion decided to gnaw your face off, that would be a "bad" experience for you. Sorry, but it really would...even if you ultimately gained some rich experience from the injury later, in the moment it would be bad.
maybe he was 'just' referring to good manners
oh the irony....
go back right up to the top and see how Shaggy prioritised good manners.
Nobody knows what you're talking about...
yet everybody understands why you should chose to start a thread like this, and to pursue it as you have done....bearing in mind the subject matter of the thread that you chose to create and pursue.
Like, zoinks!
Sep 1, 2010
0
#140
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
And that guy thought I forgot my meds!
Oh now I'm the "that guy", guy. Hey a little respect I am the OP afterall. But seriously sorry about the strange bipolar schizphrenic looking post. It's really not my fault when I post to threads from my ipad that's what ends up happening. Really, it's true. Hey, knock it off. Stop that. Hey did you guys hear that? What was that sound. Okay, I think I'm ok...
That might be one of the dumbest comments I've seen here. And on chess.com, that's not easy. Of course, that opinion is based only on my "subjective EXPERIENCE".
Seriously, are you off of your meds?