Yes well mine aren’t on purpose, whereas Nietzsche is a suspect.
On Little Professors with Large Moustaches– One’s size is the origins of one’s manner of winning. Smaller men develop intellectually better, have more cunning and rhetorical authority. Exchanging work for talk. That makes Fritz a better writer than detrop; detrop doesn’t make sense naturally, Fritz has the ability to decide to write badly.
You are an imaginer, not the imagined. Why won’t you accept that?
Imagination is thought - it is another word for “thought”, “ich stelle vor” (“I imagine/put forward”) being Nietzsche’s translation of cogito (and a good one at that).
Words may be thoughts, but thoughts are not Thought. Thoughts are the contents of thought, not the thinking process itself.
Methinks that is a belief on your part and not knowledge.
I will accept it when I am certain of it.
Saully, that made no sense. 
Thought’s not thought, it’s thought!
Lol, just ask someone who’s actually had their brain operated on if they imagined what was being done. Unless, of course, they’re believing without knowing too. After all, they’ve only been there, and you can’t accept experience since it’s all imagined anyway, right?
Dammit Sal I’m tellin you you are in the envelope of your words. There has to be “real” before epistemology can even begin.
Again, how would you know when you found certainty man? What would be the proof? It could be “imagination.”
Its suprising how the rule is only used when in favor of your premise. My premise is that the supposition itself proves there is “real.”
I wrote it with a capital because I did not mean the participle perfect.
Let me get this straight, and please listen carefully: how do I know, when I speak to these people, that they do actually exist?
Because that’s what existence is. Speaking to people, interacting, experiencing, that’s existence. You exist.
[size=75]Ask him to define “people,” SS.[/size]
Lol, ok. What is this “people” of which you speak?
“People” is a plural of “human being”. “Human being” is a designation for a certain bundle of impressions.
I hope you aren’t waiting for me, SS. This is your argument.
I’m just a cheer-leader.
You miss this?
'Cause Saully, that answers your question right there.
No, Silly, that only expresses your dogma.
Oh, so I’m not experiencing, interacting, and speaking to people who are there? I don’t exist? It’s dogma?
This is all thought. You exist be it you’re being imagined or not. You exist. You experience. You interact. You speak. You can’t tell me that you don’t exist, Saully. I won’t believe you because I experience you.
Hey, this thread took off!
Yeppers, and now I’m bored 'cause Sauwelios hasn’t replied yet.
And look closer. Here we have an opportunity to examine discourse at a deeper level. The moral tone is decisive in her specific use of words. Notice how she didn’t call him “Saully” this time.
There is a very real pattern to this behavior, that is indeed a dynamic quality to human discourse. We suspect that by calling him his proper screen name, she is offering a subtle apology in case he has stopped cooresponding with her because she has consistently called him “Saully.”
However, the formal motive of her intentions are two-fold; she is, by spelling his name correctly, also apologizing for being rude in general, and this is done by the secret notice of the use of words, that is, until we just examined it did we notice its intentional structures. That she is apologizing for several things by apologizing for one apparantly, for it would be suspicious to assume that such an offering would have been provided had Saully not ended the correspondence.
Context! Two languages are being spoken here. What is not said creates a context.
Truely fascinating.
Was I right or was I right, SS?
You are calling a truce.
What’s truly fascinating is that I can’t disagree with what you just said because you’re not Saully. 
I’m late in the game, but I figured I’d play anyway. Chugathu! I don’t know what it is, but since I said it it must exist? Can’t we say a word like “nothing” which stands in for the concept of “absolute nothing” without “absolute nothing” being a something? If we can’t, is my “chugathu” a “something”?
I think nothing is a concept that is BOTH the absence and the presence of. It is paradoxical.