View Full Version : Lost In Space
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Thought I would do a little experiment to see how it would turn out.
http://www2.zbrushcentral.com/zbc_uploads/user_image-1027535213huj.jpg
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:40 AM
I'm reminded of a story Lenny Bruce told once when he was stranded in a snowed out place and needed to get to a concert. He tried to hire a plane but he was told that it was too dangerous to fly. He said well I'll fly it myself.
The owner asked him if he had flown before. Lenny, in his own inimitable style answered...
"No, but everybody hasn't flown a plane at one time"
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Do you know that you can be very funny if you tried.
:D :D :D
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I think so too, alas sometimes my jaded sense of humour is not fully appreciated. Glad you could see my point.
It's taken a while and you might be a little intimidated with the modelling tools at first but you'll probably really enjoy learning them. I would suppose Robo would be a good influence for you as his style is using objects as a basis for painting. Ken did that recently and so did the newly departed ed, bless him.
Here's something that you might try, I don't know if you already know this but regarding the object you have created, I guess they have been made with the fast shader or basic shader material. Were you aware that materials are always "live" as long as the ZBrush document exists. So you could if you wished turn off Z add and turn off mrgb and turn on "m" in the draw palette and select the simple brush and paint a new material that replaced the material you used.
It took me a while to work this out. Having Zadd off is what stops the material spilling outside the objects.
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
Stonecutter
07-24-02, 01:00 PM
Glad to see this Joe, and that is a good tip H gave you for future experimentation...
:tu: :tu: :tu: :cool: :)
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image.
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Nice experiment DeeVee. It reminds me of candy corn. Hmmm, guess I better go eat lunch. :D
:tu: :tu: :tu:
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One could also simply load a new material onto the old one. This would replace the old material in every instance in the image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if we did this we would do it on purpose but what happened to me when I was first learning about this is that I would continually change the whole instance of the material UNintentionally. It seems so simple now but I try to place myself in the mind of someone learning the program when I describe something.
I know that people learning are more concerned with doing all sorts of fun things rather than being deliberate. And you have to admit it is more fun to paint lots of different materials on to a single object. Eventually this leads on to more subtle employment of the technique as it quickly becomes apparent that the shortcomings of doing this is that it looks ugly where the materials join. So the search begins on how to blend it elegently.
After a while one realises that the trick is to paint with subtle variations of the same material. When one is learning the program one can come across lots of people mentioning this in different threads but although not very complex for the more experienced user it, can be very frustrating for the novice who misses a crucial bit like forgetting to leave edit mode etc.
So I sometimes suggest things that get one accustomed to the gross uses of a tool first before diving in to the subtle use.
I'm ranting I know. Never mind.
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Ahhh, I get where you were going on that, Hanuman. And very true, I might add. Maybe one does not want to change every instance of a material, either, but only, for instance, the object on the left.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." :)
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Hanuman
07-24-02, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Sometimes I get the impression that you are insulted when people add to your comments, or in some way contradict them. I hope that I am only reading this into your statements, rather than really offending you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This compels an answer. I'd first like to get straight to the point and say yes, you are projecting what isn't there. This is a very common thing among humans. Causes a lot of friction in marriages. I'll try not to rant but simply say that I can understand the concept of one who is offended, but I also understand that it is completely invalid. It's similar to those who demand respect. If one analyses it, it just disappears. There is no logic at all. One has to do a lot of work to feel offended. Its root cause is our old friend the fundamental human problem of self judgement due to ignorance of what is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I certainly welcome the contrast that your opinions often bring, and in no way intend to challenge their validity to the point of attempting to change your mind. I guess you could call it "a friendly exchange of opposing viewpoints." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see any opposing viewpoints I'm just supplying some reasoning. It was just fun to say.
Anyone can challenge anything I say all I ever ask if that if someone wishes to engage me in a discussion that objective facts and subjective facts are clear and also that there is an honest desire to find the truth.
Like if a Jehovas witness comes to my door and asks if they could discuss their beliefs I would ask them if I can show that they are incorrect, if I can come up with better arguments would they be prepared to change their view. The answer is invariably no, so that's the end of the discussion. Ruthless logic and a fair amount of objectively verifiable facts.
However I didn't say anything that was challengable I just reported my own discoveries. I have my way of passing on knowledge others have theirs. Now if I said something like one cannot say "I don't believe in god" then that could be challenged. But if you think about it, it's simple logic; One first has to know what is god before one can say they believe it or not. Most people's version of god is simply a belief. Which by definition cannot be proved nor disproved. However those who say "I don't believe in god", first of all have their belief of what god is and then they are effectively saying "This belief that I have of god, well I don't believe it". Believers all the way.
As simple as this logic is it seems to be very difficult for many to understand. If I said to you "I don't believe in gaggabugai" what would you say. You'd say and what is that?
monkey.
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Frenchy Pilou
07-26-02, 03:23 AM
Hi Hanu
Additional Leica's victim, you are also a very redoubtable Aristote rhetorician :)
Pilou
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.