Originally posted by GalahOnTheBay
I can make 7 cents in the dollar with my money in the bank
Originally posted by tWp
<blockquote><span>Originally posted by GalahOnTheBay
I can make 7 cents in the dollar with my money in the bank</span></blockquote>
Really?
Which Bank?
I know mine doesn't offer rates quite that good...
Originally posted by gruezi
Hey Laurie, what you going to do with all this inellllllllllligance...?
It's all over my head .. I still focusing on getting my board skills down pat .. 
Originally posted by RAL INN
Why put your money in the bank, which bank, any bank.
They treat you like a nobody, agree meakly with you when you complain to their face, and then call you a scammer behind your back.
Banks! who would trust them.
Best winds
Tony L
Disclaimer: this is not an attack on Cabrinha.
quote:
Originally posted by GalahOnTheBay
hey Steve @ Kitepower, I thought there was not supposed to be any advertising on these forums!?!?!?
quote:
Originally posted by ottisgrey
G'day,
You'll of course be kind enough to notice, that whenever YOU CHOOSE to use a term like "advertising", then you have taken a posiitionality in reference to your perception of the alleged "advertising", so therefore logic 101 states that YOUR positionality is purely subjective, thenceforth and thereafter an advertisement is just not possible!
G'day to you Sir
LOL
You just have to wonder?
ottis
quote:
Originally posted by ottisgrey
G'day,
You'll of course be kind enough to notice, that whenever YOU CHOOSE to use a term like "top brand", then you have taken a posiitionality in reference to your perception of these alleged "top brands", so therefore logic 101 states that YOUR positionality is purely subjective,therefor it is just so much subjective babble.
G'day to you Sir
LOL
ottis
PS. How many names do you post under?
quote:
Originally posted by ottisgrey
So, that's a relief.
You are saying GalahOnTheBay is really just another nickname for Kitepower Australia then?
quote:
Originally posted by Kitepower AustraliaI post under my own name and no others on here or any forum.
Gruezi is not me, nor am I Galah, but they can tell you that.
quote:
Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.). Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states. Subjective reality would then include anything depending upon some (broadly construed) conscious awareness of it to exist. Particular instances of colors and sounds (as they are perceived) are prime examples of things that exist only when there are appropriate conscious states. Particular instances of emotions (e.g., my present happiness) also seem to be a subjective reality, existing when one feels them, and ceasing to exist when one’s mood changes.
“Objective knowledge” can simply refer to knowledge of an objective reality. Subjective knowledge would then be knowledge of any subjective reality.
There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person.
This is a prominent distinction in epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) because many philosophers have maintained that subjective knowledge in this sense has a special status. They assert, roughly, that knowledge of one’s own subjective states is direct, or immediate, in a way that knowledge of anything else is not. It is convenient to refer to knowledge of one’s own subjective states simply as subjective knowledge. Following this definition, objective knowledge would be knowledge of anything other than one’s own subjective states.
One last prominent style of usage for terms related to objectivity deals with the nature of support a particular knowledge-claim has. “Objective knowledge” can designate a knowledge-claim having, roughly, the status of being fully supported or proven. Correspondingly, “subjective knowledge” might designate some unsupported or weakly supported knowledge-claim. It is more accurate to refer to these as objective and subjective judgments, rather than knowledge, but one should be on guard for the use of the term “knowledge” in this context. This usage fits with the general connotation for the term “objectivity” of solidity, trustworthiness, accuracy, impartiality, etc. The general connotation for many uses of “subjectivity” includes unreliability, bias, an incomplete (personal) perspective, etc.
“Objective judgment or belief” refers to a judgment or belief based on objectively strong supporting evidence, the sort of evidence that would be compelling for any rational being. A subjective judgment would then seem to be a judgment or belief supported by evidence that is compelling for some rational beings (subjects) but not compelling for others. It could also refer to a judgment based on evidence that is of necessity available only to some subjects
quote:
Originally posted by gruezi
I'm pink and grey, have feathers and don't plagiarise.
Now I'm going flying.
quote:
Originally posted by Kitepower Australia
Hey Guys
If you were not so obsessed with beating me up then you would just not respond, so it is in fact you guys who are filling the forum with dribble, and gibberish.
Taken from the same article posted by Ral In to try to discredit what I wrote.
f. Is There No Escape From the Subjective?
Despite plausible ways of arguing that intersubjective disagreement indicates error and agreement indicates some probability of truth, defenses of objective knowledge all face the philosophically daunting challenge of providing a cogent argument showing that any purported “mark” of reliability (including apparent intersubjective agreement) actually does confer a high likelihood of truth. The task seems to presuppose some method of determining objective truth in the very process of establishing certain sorts of subjective impressions as reliable indicators of truth. That is, we require some independent (non-subjective) way of determining which subjective impressions support knowledge of objective reality before we can find subjectively accessible “markers” of the reliable subjective impressions. What could such a method be, since every method of knowledge, judgment, or even thought seems quite clearly to go on within the realm of subjective impressions? One cannot get out of one’s subjective impressions, it seems, to test them for reliability. The prospects for knowledge of the objective world are hampered by our essential confinement within subjective impressions
Seems like this guy has a problem with true objectivity too...
Lets move on eh?
This was all brought on by Ottis who is becoming obsessed with objectivity and my response to carbine about the use of the term rip off.
Cya and
Goodwinds
Steve McCormack
PS "I read it on the internet so it must be true"
