T W A U ... The Chase....todays...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
The Answer!
817 Answers
Are you unhappy and upset and believe that some important knowledge crucial to living a joyful life has been denied you? Find the missing piece of the puzzle you've been seeking all your life here
Answers
Only 2900 . . . make that 2899 . . . tuh go . . . or . . . we could . . . move in with them
Phah! Child's play. What a pathetic attempt! Hardly Olympic standard. Why, we had cobwebs as thick as your arm hanging on the ceiling in our last place - and they don't appear overnight! (Mmm... we didn't do much housework did we).
Move in with them? Starman, wash your mouth out! It's a no go area for some of us. Of course, China the Brave sets foot in there, but that's 'cos she's brave .... .. and Theland sometimes has a funny moment and wanders in ..... but for the rest of us..... oooo..... the very thought makes me shudder. Why I can hardly bring myself to speak its name. Hang on. Cha...cha...chatterbank. There!
Oh, for one moment there, I felt a bit of a dance coming on.
Move in with them? Starman, wash your mouth out! It's a no go area for some of us. Of course, China the Brave sets foot in there, but that's 'cos she's brave .... .. and Theland sometimes has a funny moment and wanders in ..... but for the rest of us..... oooo..... the very thought makes me shudder. Why I can hardly bring myself to speak its name. Hang on. Cha...cha...chatterbank. There!
Oh, for one moment there, I felt a bit of a dance coming on.
-- answer removed --
I think our mutual ability to expose our soft underbellies to each other has made for an endearing relationship.
Naomi has perhaps more than any other individual in this forum, taken me for a ride on an ideological roller-coaster. I have yet to put all the pieces together but a picture is emerging of one who I can profoundly disagree with on crucial points and yet have an intelligent, productive discussion that enables self-evaluation and assessment of the strengths and weakness of my ability to communicate what I believe are important ideas. It is rare to find someone so willing to put my beliefs to task and through this contribute to an improvement of my own understanding, a value I believe is most worthwhile when shared mutually. I only wish I had more to give in the bargain . . . as indicated, for purely selfish reasons.
What appears most evident is that in order to communicate meaningfully with others a basic understanding based on mutually shared experiences is an inescapable prerequisite. Knowledge (assuming that is the goal) can only be shared through relating to and integrating with preexisting knowledge and all other attempts are inherently futile.
The key, which so few possess, that unlocks the door between perception and a conceptual grasp of reality is the understanding of what knowledge is, where it comes from and how to integrate it into a cohesive interrelated, interdependent and self-reaffirming non-contradictory whole.
It is not the branches so much as the tree which support them and not so much the tree as the roots that hold it fast to the ground and the soil from which the roots derive the nourishment that gives rise to the sweetness of the fruit that are the focus of my attention. To fully appreciate the fruit of the tree of knowledge it is the relationship between the tree and the Earth you must fully grasp.
Naomi has perhaps more than any other individual in this forum, taken me for a ride on an ideological roller-coaster. I have yet to put all the pieces together but a picture is emerging of one who I can profoundly disagree with on crucial points and yet have an intelligent, productive discussion that enables self-evaluation and assessment of the strengths and weakness of my ability to communicate what I believe are important ideas. It is rare to find someone so willing to put my beliefs to task and through this contribute to an improvement of my own understanding, a value I believe is most worthwhile when shared mutually. I only wish I had more to give in the bargain . . . as indicated, for purely selfish reasons.
What appears most evident is that in order to communicate meaningfully with others a basic understanding based on mutually shared experiences is an inescapable prerequisite. Knowledge (assuming that is the goal) can only be shared through relating to and integrating with preexisting knowledge and all other attempts are inherently futile.
The key, which so few possess, that unlocks the door between perception and a conceptual grasp of reality is the understanding of what knowledge is, where it comes from and how to integrate it into a cohesive interrelated, interdependent and self-reaffirming non-contradictory whole.
It is not the branches so much as the tree which support them and not so much the tree as the roots that hold it fast to the ground and the soil from which the roots derive the nourishment that gives rise to the sweetness of the fruit that are the focus of my attention. To fully appreciate the fruit of the tree of knowledge it is the relationship between the tree and the Earth you must fully grasp.
First impressions? Good question ��. but ��.oo-er, a difficult one.
Luna, yes I thought you were a girl - and I thought you were about 18. You seemed very gentle, and innocent, although a deep thinker. I imagined you to be very slight in stature - elfin like - and blonde. You reminded me very much of Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter books - in fact I used to think of you as Luna, so you didn�t have another name.
China, I think I first encountered when I was talking to the Professor in Science, and she popped in to tell us both how much she admired our intelligence, or some such flattery. Ah yes - it's true. Flattery does get you everywhere. From that moment she came across as a very intelligent sort of a girl. I liked her immediately. ;o) I thought she was in her early 20s, short, with dark hair, and probably called Rebecca. I didn�t imagine her to be nearly as feisty or as fun-loving as she subsequently turned out to be - nor quite so daring!
continued
Luna, yes I thought you were a girl - and I thought you were about 18. You seemed very gentle, and innocent, although a deep thinker. I imagined you to be very slight in stature - elfin like - and blonde. You reminded me very much of Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter books - in fact I used to think of you as Luna, so you didn�t have another name.
China, I think I first encountered when I was talking to the Professor in Science, and she popped in to tell us both how much she admired our intelligence, or some such flattery. Ah yes - it's true. Flattery does get you everywhere. From that moment she came across as a very intelligent sort of a girl. I liked her immediately. ;o) I thought she was in her early 20s, short, with dark hair, and probably called Rebecca. I didn�t imagine her to be nearly as feisty or as fun-loving as she subsequently turned out to be - nor quite so daring!
continued
Continued..
Starman, I think I came across him in R&S when he went off on one of his �got-to-read-it-at-least-three-times-before-you-understand-it� dissertations. At first I thought he was an elderly (but that means nothing, because I thought Chakka was about 18!) and a well educated atheist with a very cweus mind. I imagined him very studious, dark hair, deep voice, well spoken, and quite stockily built. (I�ve changed my mind about the elderly bit now - although I could be wrong about that as I know I must be with all my other imaginings!). I thought he could be a George. That seemed a sensible sort of name.
Theland came across as a determined and passionate bible thumper, impossible to reason with - in fact brainwashed by religion - but when he forgot about religion, very, very funny. From the word �go�, I thought his daft sense of humour was absolutely superb,. I thought he was intelligent and I thought he was in his 40s, quite short, with fair hair - and his real name might be Brian.
(I�m making myself laugh here. Haaaaaaaaaa. Oh, this is fun!).
Come on, everyone, your turn - but I won�t guarantee I�ll confirm or deny anything you say.
Yikes! Hope I haven�t insulted anyone! Apologies now if I have.
Starman, I think I came across him in R&S when he went off on one of his �got-to-read-it-at-least-three-times-before-you-understand-it� dissertations. At first I thought he was an elderly (but that means nothing, because I thought Chakka was about 18!) and a well educated atheist with a very cweus mind. I imagined him very studious, dark hair, deep voice, well spoken, and quite stockily built. (I�ve changed my mind about the elderly bit now - although I could be wrong about that as I know I must be with all my other imaginings!). I thought he could be a George. That seemed a sensible sort of name.
Theland came across as a determined and passionate bible thumper, impossible to reason with - in fact brainwashed by religion - but when he forgot about religion, very, very funny. From the word �go�, I thought his daft sense of humour was absolutely superb,. I thought he was intelligent and I thought he was in his 40s, quite short, with fair hair - and his real name might be Brian.
(I�m making myself laugh here. Haaaaaaaaaa. Oh, this is fun!).
Come on, everyone, your turn - but I won�t guarantee I�ll confirm or deny anything you say.
Yikes! Hope I haven�t insulted anyone! Apologies now if I have.
Now come on Starman - tell me cweusly now. Do you honestly never wonder what people here are like physically, or what they do, or what their name might be? Is it really only the brains (or not) you see? (I've just reminded myself of that Steve Martin film. I like his films - irrelevant I know, but I just thought I'd share that with everyone).
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Could The Conservatives Try To Change...
News5 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
