What is "social mood"?

[ruby]

So you’re coming by foot?

I’m sorry – don’t want to ridicule you (which can’t be done anyways … I’ve been here before). But your question is so heart-warmingly naïve. No matter from which philosophical perspective I answer it, it will ruin your weekend. And it’s not ruin-Tom’s-weekend day today. It’s enough that my weekend is ruined.

Which is not your fault. Not even if “it always is”.


P.S.: I’m not saying that you are naïve! I just see where your thought ends.

[TS Hennessy]

(08-07-2010 06:30 PM)ruby Wrote:  So you’re coming by foot?

I’m sorry – don’t want to ridicule you (which can’t be done anyways … I’ve been here before). But your question is so heart-warmingly naïve. No matter from which philosophical perspective I answer it, it will ruin your weekend. And it’s not ruin-Tom’s-weekend day today. It’s enough that my weekend is ruined.

Which is not your fault. Not even if “it always is”.


P.S.: I’m not saying that you are naïve! I just see where your thought ends.

Well the idea that you could actually answer my heart-warmingly naive
question is so intriguing in itself that I would gladly risk having your view.

Not to diminish in any way that I respect your viewpoint, it is clearly the
kind of question which must remain unanswered until EW could first be
proven or considerably well afterwards.

However I am stunned that you find this question should NOT be asked.

This is from the standpoint that I do not seek a philosophical but
scientific answer.

Sorry about your weekend though, whatever the source.

[ruby]

1) It’s after 5:00 AM over here, but I doubt that I missed something that I will easily see later today. Within the context of your prior posts it was reasonable for me to believe that you asked a metaphysical, if not a theological question.
2) Underlining “scientific” a posteriori is an invalid move. Science is a category within philosophy, not its opposite.
3) Any metaphysical train of thought will inevitably lead to the answer that counting waves is superfluous. I didn’t want to spoil your weekend with that notion.
4) I’m an agnostic – no need to beat around the bush. If I also get to choose a movie, I’ll take Inherit the Wind by Stanley Kramer.
5) Thank you.

[TS Hennessy]

(08-07-2010 10:41 PM)ruby Wrote:  1) It’s after 5:00 AM over here, but I doubt that I missed something that I will easily see later today. Within the context of your prior posts it was reasonable for me to believe that you asked a metaphysical, if not a theological question.
2) Underlining “scientific” a posteriori is an invalid move. Science is a category within philosophy, not its opposite.
3) Any metaphysical train of thought will inevitably lead to the answer that counting waves is superfluous. I didn’t want to spoil your weekend with that notion.
4) I’m an agnostic – no need to beat around the bush. If I also get to choose a movie, I’ll take Inherit the Wind by Stanley Kramer.
5) Thank you.

Sorry,

I do not wish to add to someone's troubles on a weekend or otherwise.
We'll leave it for another day then.

Hope the remainder of your weekend goes much better.

[ruby]

Tom, you don’t add to my troubles. On the contrary – I’m grateful that you’re up, offering some distraction. I have to stay up, because my cat is ill. He has diabetes, which on most days isn’t a problem. But tonight it is, because he started vomiting all over the place after I had already injected the insulin.

I think we should be able to prove EW. It cannot be that hard.

And never forget: You're the best.

[TS Hennessy]

(08-08-2010 01:13 AM)ruby Wrote:  Tom, you don’t add to my troubles. On the contrary – I’m grateful that you’re up, offering some distraction. I have to stay up, because my cat is ill. He has diabetes, which on most days isn’t a problem. But tonight it is, because he started vomiting all over the place after I had already injected the insulin.

I think we should be able to prove EW. It cannot be that hard.

And never forget: You're the best.

We are just discovering that many ingredients of the pet's foods are
GMO (genetically modified organism) and especially anything with
corn in them are related to this sudden increase in diabetes in pets.

It is likely changing their nutrition may eliminate it entirely. It is also
likely that there is a fungus mycotoxin link to the whole picture which
means that a systemic undiagnosed condition exists of which diabetic
condition is rather a symptom than only just a disease.

You may wish to investigate for that noble feline who's body may be
being harmed by a switch that is not very subtle internally but whose
owner, being just human and wanting the best may have been influenced
by all the claims and clever advertising and then duped by the use
of "Natural" ingredients (the term found in almost every product
these days but far from it).

http://knowthecause.com

I also recommend a documentary called, "Food Inc.".

Our pets in USA are also getting these kinds of diseases at an alarming
rate as well.

Hope this helps.

[ruby]

Thank you so much – you can remove the link now ;-) I have to turn the computer off for an hour or so – bodacious thunderstorm here. Bis später.

[ruby]

What a raging madness outside – still.

My cat’s diabetes was induced by depot cortisone. He used to eat mainly mice and other cats. When he still had teeth. But yes, most canned pet food contains garbage. It always has. The type of garbage just varies.

You did scare me last night: I thought you wanted to discuss EW from a creationist perspective. The transition “it always is” added to my discomfort. So when I said that your question was heart-warmingly naïve (not in the sense of oafish, but in the sense of all too trustful), it was a subtle warning that you wouldn’t be preaching to the choir.

While I take my little beauty rest, you might enjoy some of the essays by the wonderful Brand Blanchard on AnthonyFlood dotyouknowwhat – essays by others. They are really a joy to read.

Thank you again.

[TS Hennessy]

(08-08-2010 08:14 PM)ruby Wrote:  What a raging madness outside – still.

My cat’s diabetes was induced by depot cortisone. He used to eat mainly mice and other cats. When he still had teeth. But yes, most canned pet food contains garbage. It always has. The type of garbage just varies.

You did scare me last night: I thought you wanted to discuss EW from a creationist perspective. The transition “it always is” added to my discomfort. So when I said that your question was heart-warmingly naïve (not in the sense of oafish, but in the sense of all too trustful), it was a subtle warning that you wouldn’t be preaching to the choir.

While I take my little beauty rest, you might enjoy some of the essays by the wonderful Brand Blanchard on AnthonyFlood dotyouknowwhat – essays by others. They are really a joy to read.

Thank you again.

No problem. Whether you are made comfortable or uncomfortable by the
question, I understand either way.

My intent for any discussion is nuclear.

What is at the core?

What makes it tick?

[ruby]

So, do you think that counting the letters of a verbal exchange in which you participate will tell you anything about where you are and where you want to be next? I doubt you do, but it may turn out to be an interesting approach – who knows? ;-)

You want to know what’s at the core? – You know what’s at the core. An IQ that makes you pray for a stroke every night is hardly a blessing. It’s a social impairment. You may muddle through, but you rarely truly enjoy. And yes, comfortable or uncomfortable, we’re still talking, right?

And that’s just one aspect of the big picture.