🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10292322.79320.9942@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>> I wrote:  
>> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he  
>> >> actually saw.    
>>   
>> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (H
>> >and how would you know that ?    
>>   
>> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later  
>  
>yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...  
>  
>> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
>> had been mistaken.  
>  
>then you saw it better...  
>  
>>   
>> >I think you are in a loop.  
>>   
>> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion  
>  
>how do you know ?  
>  
>> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
>> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
>  
>we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of  
>the word "see"....  
>  
>> sense of the word I had in mind.  
>  
>and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless  
>you can put it on the sceen :-)  

If you have a point which is relevant to the discussion, please make it.
All I can get from this is that you don't like my word choices.  If, on the
other hand, this whole line of commentary was a joke, it wasn't funny.