General lee chargers. Is there more To a 69 charger faith?

[MaximRecoil]

Truth hurts?   

Say what? You mean the truth about your apparent reading disability? If so, then no, that doesn't "hurt" at all. If you are talking about the truth of the knowledge I have, then no, that doesn't "hurt" either. Knowledge is a good thing; always preferable to ignorance. If I had my way, I would know everything, no matter how trivial.

[JB400]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

[MaximRecoil]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less. If I knew it all I would be tantamount to God.

[JB400]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less. If I knew it all I would be tantamount to God.

We can't discuss the 2nd sentence.  But in response to the first, has it crossed your mind that maybe you should?

[MaximRecoil]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less. If I knew it all I would be tantamount to God.

We can't discuss the 2nd sentence.

The second sentence is the reason why I couldn't care less, because being tantamount to God would trump everything. It is like if you said that a majority of people would hate me if I suddenly had a billion dollars fall into my lap. My response would be, "So?" But knowing everything would be way better than simply being given a billion dollars, because with omniscience, you could easily acquire as much money as you want, plus so much more in areas not related to money.

But in response to the first, has it crossed your mind that maybe you should?

Why should I? Knowing everything isn't even a remote possibility. The most knowledgeable person on Earth doesn't even possess a significant fraction of 1% of all possible knowledge.

[Fred]

You're fighting a losing battle.

Trust him...........he's speaking from experience. 

[Fred]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less. If I knew it all I would be tantamount to God.

We can't discuss the 2nd sentence.

The second sentence is the reason why I couldn't care less, because being tantamount to God would trump everything. It is like if you said that a majority of people would hate me if I suddenly had a billion dollars fall into my lap. My response would be, "So?" But knowing everything would be way better than simply being given a billion dollars, because with omniscience, you could easily acquire as much money as you want, plus so much more in areas not related to money.

But in response to the first, has it crossed your mind that maybe you should?

Why should I? Knowing everything isn't even a remote possibility. The most knowledgeable person on Earth doesn't even possess a significant fraction of 1% of all possible knowledge.

How do you know it's not 2%?

[Fred]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less. If I knew it all I would be tantamount to God.

We can't discuss the 2nd sentence.  But in response to the first, has it crossed your mind that maybe you should?

And even if we could it wouldn't be worth it because HE doesn't know everything either. No one does.

[JB400]

You're fighting a losing battle.

Trust him...........he's speaking from experience. 

And am again heading my own advice.  Deaf ears do not listen

[MaximRecoil]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

[Fred]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

[MaximRecoil]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

I already gave you the proof. Reread my post, and pay particular attention to the word "establish". And I didn't claim my figure is right (which is why I said "might be somewhere in the neighborhood of"). What is right is that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%", which makes it not 2% (nor anywhere near 2%) by default.

[69finder]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less.

GOOD GRAMMAR!

[69finder]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

I already gave you the proof. Reread my post, and pay particular attention to the word "establish". And I didn't claim my figure is right (which is why I said "might be somewhere in the neighborhood of"). What is right is that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%", which makes it not 2% (nor anywhere near 2%) by default.

If you didn't claim your figure is right, why did you post it?  Derg.

[MaximRecoil]

Ask a majority of people and they'd tell you they hate a know it all.  Just food for thought

I couldn't care less.

GOOD GRAMMAR!

Yes, it is perfect grammar.

By the way, I ignored your low-rent sarcasm and replied as though there was no intended sarcasm, as I often do with laughable attempts at sarcasm. In any event, I thought I'd mention that the fact that you think that "I couldn't care less" is bad grammar, is hilarious. You're a "special" one, that's for sure.

If you didn't claim your figure is right, why did you post it?  Derg.

Reading disability alert #7. I said, "It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent". Does the bolding help? I never stated a specific figure as a fact, I only stated that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%" as a fact.

[69finder]

Actually you did a quick edit of your post and you did make an exact 'estimate' (I know, an oxymoron like you).

Do you constantly repeat yourself?  I guess the truth did hurt?   

[69finder]

'I couldn't care less' is horrible grammar.  It means you actually do care more.

See, I knew you would eventually wind up caring.  Awww!  Need a hug?   

[RECHRGD]

I guess there's no hope of this thread ever getting back on topic, so I'll just chime in with my  on the grammar thing.  The term "I could care less" is described as wrong slang.  The term "I couldn't care less" is correct.

[Fred]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

I already gave you the proof. Reread my post, and pay particular attention to the word "establish". And I didn't claim my figure is right (which is why I said "might be somewhere in the neighborhood of"). What is right is that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%", which makes it not 2% (nor anywhere near 2%) by default.

I don't see that as being proof at all. All I see is "because I said so"

[ws23rt]

Actually you did a quick edit of your post and you did make an exact 'estimate' (I know, an oxymoron like you).

Do you constantly repeat yourself?  I guess the truth did hurt?   

He does quick edits.  I have watched this more than several times just in his responding to my replys.

I even had to edit my reply once because he fixed his before I posted.
At least I identified my edit as one and why.

He is sometimes too quick on the draw and shoots his foot.  That is when it is not in his mouth
Come to think of it he is typing.  He can proceed with his foot in his mouth.

[jaak]

 

[Back N Black]

Truth hurts?   

Say what? You mean the truth about your apparent reading disability? If so, then no, that doesn't "hurt" at all. If you are talking about the truth of the knowledge I have, then no, that doesn't "hurt" either. Knowledge is a good thing; always preferable to ignorance. If I had my way, I would know everything, no matter how trivial.

[Cooter]

What was that about an explanation? 

[MaximRecoil]

Actually you did a quick edit of your post and you did make an exact 'estimate'

That's a bald-faced lie. Fred quoted my post when he replied to it, and the quoted text in his post is no different than the text in my post.

(I know, an oxymoron like you).

Be careful with that honed "wit" of yours; you could put an eye out.

Do you constantly repeat yourself?  I guess the truth did hurt?  

How's the weather out there tonight, in deep, deep left field?

'I couldn't care less' is horrible grammar.  It means you actually do care more.

This is hilarious.

You + an idiot = 2 idiots.

See, I knew you would eventually wind up caring.  Awww!  Need a hug?  

See above, Archimedes.

I guess there's no hope of this thread ever getting back on topic, so I'll just chime in with my   on the grammar thing.  The term "I could care less" is described as wrong slang.  The term "I couldn't care less" is correct.

Exactly. Additionally it is not even a grammar issue to begin with, regardless of which version of the saying you use. Both "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are grammatically correct sentences. The issue with the former is that its literal meaning is the opposite of its usual intended meaning.

Actually you did a quick edit of your post and you did make an exact 'estimate' (I know, an oxymoron like you).

Do you constantly repeat yourself?  I guess the truth did hurt?  

He does quick edits.  I have watched this more than several times just in his responding to my replys.

The person you replied to was lying. Anyone can compare the text in my post with the quoted copy in Fred's post just below it and see it is the same.

I even had to edit my reply once because he fixed his before I posted.
At least I identified my edit as one and why.

I didn't "fix it". The funny thing about that post to which you're referring is that I was acknowledging an error on my part, and even though it was clear that I was acknowledging an error on my part (because I quoted someone's reply that pointed out the error, and I told him he was correct), after posting it I had a feeling that someone who lacks the ability to put two and two together would come along and ask if I was acknowledging an error on my part, so I edited it to add the text: "which was an error on my part". After the edit posted, there you were, right on cue, the guy that couldn't put two and two together, asking if I was acknowledging an error on my part.  

He is sometimes too quick on the draw and shoots his foot.  That is when it is not in his mouth
Come to think of it he is typing.  He can proceed with his foot in his mouth.

Now it is you with the bald-faced lie. When I edit my posts it is to fix typos or to add clarification, which doesn't fundamentally alter the content of the post. I've seen you do the same thing, except when you do it it is usually to add an entirely new section to your post. "stroker400 wedge" does it a lot too (probably more than anyone else), as do some others. But that's what the edit button is for, though it should mark the post with the time of the last edit like nearly all other forums do.

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

I already gave you the proof. Reread my post, and pay particular attention to the word "establish". And I didn't claim my figure is right (which is why I said "might be somewhere in the neighborhood of"). What is right is that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%", which makes it not 2% (nor anywhere near 2%) by default.

I don't see that as being proof at all. All I see is "because I said so"

Your first sentence is a product of a lack of comprehension, and your second sentence is a product of reading difficulties on your part.

With regard to your lack of comprehension, let's look at one of countless categories for which you'd need to have exhaustive knowledge in order to know everything:

Exact location of every elementary particle in the universe.

It is commonly estimated that there are 10^80 to 10^90 particles in the universe. So that's say ~10^80 unique pieces of information right there that no human knows. But wait, everything in the universe is in motion, so those locations are constantly changing. That means you'd have to know the exact location of every particle in the universe for any given point in time in the history of the universe. Just knowing their exact location for any given point within a single second would multiply that ~10^80 unique pieces of information exponentially. And that's only one category of knowledge; there are countless others.

And you think it is possible that any human could possibly know 1/50th (2%) of everything? As I said before: utterly absurd.

[Fred]

How do you know it's not 2%?

Is that a joke? I know it is not 2% because it is not even a significant fraction of 1%, as I already said. It might be somewhere in the neighborhood of one googolth of one percent (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%).

Just the fact that there is an unfathomably vast section of the universe out there that no human has ever explored or even observed, is enough to establish that no human possesses anything even close to 1% of all knowledge, much less a full 2% (which is utterly absurd).

My figure is wrong but your figure is right...............Where's your proof?

I already gave you the proof. Reread my post, and pay particular attention to the word "establish". And I didn't claim my figure is right (which is why I said "might be somewhere in the neighborhood of"). What is right is that "it is not even a significant fraction of 1%", which makes it not 2% (nor anywhere near 2%) by default.

I don't see that as being proof at all. All I see is "because I said so"

Your first sentence is a product of a lack of comprehension, and your second sentence is a product of reading difficulties on your part.

With regard to your lack of comprehension, let's look at one of countless categories for which you'd need to have exhaustive knowledge in order to know everything:

Exact location of every elementary particle in the universe.

It is commonly estimated that there are 10^80 to 10^90 particles in the universe. So that's say ~10^80 unique pieces of information right there that no human knows. But wait, everything in the universe is in motion, so those locations are constantly changing. That means you'd have to know the exact location of every particle in the universe for any given point in time in the history of the universe. Just knowing their exact location for any given point within a single second would multiply that ~10^80 unique pieces of information exponentially. And that's only one category of knowledge; there are countless others.

And you think it is possible that any human could possibly know 1/50th (2%) of everything? As I said before: utterly absurd.

First of all, I comprehend very well, I'm not the village idiot. Secondly, I read just fine. Thirdly, your imagined superiority doesn't give you the right to treat me as inferior.
Just to clarify matters, I never said I believe any human may know 2% of everything. I merely asked, how do you know it's not 2%.

As it happens, I'm entitled to my own thoughts and opinions as are you and if I choose to believe it's possible the a human being might know 2% of everything I'll do so especially given that I only have your word stating otherwise.  How can you assume what you are stating to be true. And it can only be an assumption unless you have tested every single human being on this Earth to find out exactly what and how much each one knows.

And I'm still waiting for that proof.