inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 7, 2010 13:42:41 GMT -8
The only linguistic point I made is a mere result of the point about perception, both are contained within my comment... and both are raised in the original post since he refers to the fact that these differences would never be known. I casually placed the point of perception in the context of how we discuss our experience. When discussing perception there will certainly be a discussion of linguistics that follows. Fundamentally, this discussion lays in the individual perception of stimuli, whereupon it has been suggested that the same stimuli can produce different perceptions and that there would be no way to differentiate these perceptions within linguistics. This is somewhat of a strange notion since there is an intersubjective consensus as to what the perception of heat and coldness are. The same can be said for the perception of color. As I have said, your comments were only slightly unrelated in that it seemed undefined to whether perception or linguistics was the primary focus. Since I cannot know what your intentions were when you wrote it, I say simply that it seems as if you place more emphasis on the linguistics, and although I admit that it is relevant to the discussion, I think that it is not where the core of the discussion lies. There will be words to differentiate different experiences, though I hardly think that the variation in perception stems from common usage. I hardly planned for my original comment to be placed under such scrutiny. I worded it in such a manner (as to place more emphasis on why these differences in perception would never be realised) because that is a thread of discussion that had not really been discussed yet was very relevant, whereas the point centred on perception had somewhat discussed already in the thread. My aim was to introduce other instances of potential differences in perception whilst also mentioning why these differences would never be realised. Obviously, when I explain it seems like I put a lot more thought into it than I actually did. It seems as though your initial correction was entirely unnecessary but perhaps I'm being too defensive and I should merely have taken it as friendly discussion. If that is the case I'd recommend making an effort in the way you word your comments to convey the friendly nature as opposed to being as blunt as you were.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 7, 2010 11:01:50 GMT -8
This applies to all our experiences of the world apart from things like shape, solidity and motion. I could feel what you would call the sensation of coldness when I touched a flame, but because we both call the sensations we feel 'hot' we never know. That is a slightly unrelated concept that has more to do with linguistics rather than perception. The OP seemed to have suggested that there were variations in perception rather than common usage. For example, the flame to individual A would feel cold and individual B would feel hot. However, to both A and B, they would both describe the sensation as 'heat'. The only linguistic point I made is a mere result of the point about perception, both are contained within my comment... and both are raised in the original post since he refers to the fact that these differences would never be known. I casually placed the point of perception in the context of how we discuss our experience.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 7, 2010 9:21:46 GMT -8
This applies to all our experiences of the world apart from things like shape, solidity and motion.
I could feel what you would call the sensation of coldness when I touched a flame, but because we both call the sensations we feel 'hot' we never know.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 7, 2010 7:16:21 GMT -8
Totally the wrong advice, that's why there are so many idiots on the road. The word is to be 'progressive', meaning that you keep moving as best you can without endangering other road users or yourself. I used to drive a minibus, i now drive a Discovery, yet i am curteous, i leave home a little earlier to allow time to get where i'm going, i let in agressive drivers as well as good drivers, i've rarely been late getting to my destination (except when there's an accident or tailback) The more you drive on a highway, the more you get used to doing it, take your time and observe driving practices of others, be more obbservant, use mirrors a lot more. And around here if you let other people determine how you're going to drive, you end up injured. Hesitation is a critical factor in many accidents. If you're waiting for some two dozen other people nearby to determine your next move, you're hesitating. Aggression isn't necessarily speed. It's also not stupidity. It's simply driving offensively, not defensively. Aggressive is probably not the ideal word, I'd say drive assertively.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 7, 2010 3:03:16 GMT -8
Agnostic, Sceptic, 'Free-thinker' and Secularist.
I'm guessing that will be a popular 4 choices...
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 5, 2010 11:28:57 GMT -8
Even if the law is wrong? What law is wrong? DUI, murder, illegal street racing? I'm assuming you have an opinion on whether gay marriage should be legal. Now, some states allow it and other don't. Do you believe both those contradictory laws to be right?
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 5, 2010 5:40:05 GMT -8
I think people have too black and white a view of love, it's not as simple as so many people make it out to be. There are no guidelines on how you fall in love. It's an emotion and everyone is different. I also don't think it's the same for everyone who can justifiably claim to be in love with someone.
Having said that love at first sight is a strange idea. You look at a lot of people you never talk to. How many people have looked at someone and been compelled to talk to them because they've immediately fallen for them? How many people have looked at someone, fallen in love with them, and then never seen them again because they didn't have an opportunity to talk to them? How many of those people are still in love with the person they saw? You'd sound pretty crazy if you spent your whole life longing after the girl you saw stepping onto a bus.
Maybe when people say "It was love at first sight." they mean they knew they were going to fall in love with that person.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 4, 2010 8:32:49 GMT -8
I heard that Europe won it. Yeah, came down to the very last match; McDowell vs Mahan. McDowell won 2 and 1.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 4, 2010 6:26:48 GMT -8
That put by McDowell on 16 was huge. When Fowler managed to square against Molinari I thought it might swing to the US but McDowell held his nerve. Absolutely brilliant.
Really feel happy for Monty, clearly means so much to him.
Yesterday was where it was won really though, great performance from nearly everybody.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 3, 2010 12:04:46 GMT -8
Not really sure if I'm allowed to use the two words I dislike the most but watchers of the Inbetweeners (not that I am included in that group) will know which word I mean. The other word is used to mean the same thing my first word but is also a type of flesh wound.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 3, 2010 9:50:46 GMT -8
Religious believers. Having faith and something to believe in makes them wrong.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Sept 29, 2010 0:41:18 GMT -8
I wouldn't support Stalin's methods to achieve economic growth.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Sept 27, 2010 12:33:11 GMT -8
Brunette, round face, pale isn't a bad thing. Minimal make-up.
Intelligent and laughs at my jokes, tough combination.
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Sept 27, 2010 8:50:46 GMT -8
Der Untergang is a really good film that everyone should watch. It is about the last days of Hitler's life.
The Edukators was a pretty good film also. It stars Daniel Bruhl who you may recognise from Inglourious Basterds.
Another German language film with him in is Goodbye Lenin!
I think they may be the only 3 German films I've seen. Apart from Das Boot..
|
|
inherit
Too Good For Stars
5680
0
Oct 8, 2010 1:35:41 GMT -8
Zephyr
13,398
October 2002
zephyr2
|
Post by Zephyr on Aug 6, 2010 2:35:21 GMT -8
Were you going for irony when you titled this thread 'Interesting'?
|
|