Maybe the technology has not changed much over the last decade, but society's use of that technology has changed.
When mobile phones first appeared they were very expensive, now they are so cheap that almost everyone uses them. And because so many people now use smart phones they are used instead of computers for social networking. You don't have to go home and sit at the desktop, or find a place to connect your laptop to the internet to tell everyone what you ate for lunch.

I have told you before, do not talk behind my back. If you have something to say about my way of thinking please grow a set of balls and tell me about your problem.

Thank you,have a nice day.

Let's substitute the word "event" for "fact" here. — numberjohnny5

event:
Something that happens at a given place and time

fact:
Knowledge acquired through study, experience or instruction
A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn

I really do find that difficult to agree with. Information about the event, yes, that would be fact but the event itself no.

But in this example, mental events do not cause non-mental events to occur.
In other words, the statement/claim about someone driving in another country has no direct effect on the event of someone driving in another country. — numberjohnny5

But the event causes the information, on that we agree. This sort of brings us back to the falling tree. Millions Zillions of events are happening in the universe as we discuss this, which are facts? I think that we can only call facts the ones that we know about.
Did you read about the supernova in the Orion Belt? No,me neither. Probably because no one saw it. It might have happened or it might not. So can the supernova be a fact? Only when the information is available.

I don't define "fact" the way you do, and I don't think that's the conventional way in philosophy of talking about "fact" (not that things being unconventional/conventional are "wrong/right"). — numberjohnny5

I use the definition I gave above.

It seems that you think that facts are only facts if they are tied to truth-statements. — numberjohnny5

No, facts are only facts if they describe correctly reality. Facts are statements of truth because they describe reality.

Sure. A person driving a car in another country. — numberjohnny5

The "fact" of someone driving in another country is information, is the information not in your head?

Facts are observer-independent. Things don't graduate to become facts. Facts exist; observers can happen to experience/perceive facts; and they can make judgements about facts if or when they experience them. — numberjohnny5

Information might be observer independent, but a fact is something that has been proven/judged/evaluated to be true. That can only happen in someone's mind which means that a fact is not independent of the observer. Many things might be true even if we have no knowledge of their existence, but a fact is a human construct used to define the level of reliability of information.

I don't know what I meant either. Do you have any idea, Sir2u? :snicker: — Sapientia

Oh happy day, I am not on Sappy's list of Dingbats.

As to you question, I think that you are full of shit. Not that you are not telling the truth though, because you probably have no freakin idea what you meant. Not many others do either I think because it makes no sense at all in the context of any sane discussion.

Is it not strange that when I claimed that you should have explained better your OP in that obnoxious self pitying thread about whether philosophy makes people pretentiousness, you said that even a half witted person should be able to figure it out because it was so OBVIOUS and that there is no room for misinterpretation. But then you have the balls to post this.

That's not how the title is worded. That's just one interpretation of it. I interpreted it differently. It's down to the person behind the title to clarify its meaning. If the question is whether some people are better than others, as per the title and opening post, then my answer is yes, in some respects they are. Some people are better than others at the 100 metres, for example. — "Sapientia

One more time.
Learn to be civil, learn to try and see other peoples point of view.
And try to understand that we are not in a battle to be right all the time. You do not have to be telling people "either prove it or admit you are wrong", because you are definitely not prepared to prove anything except with bullying.

Grow up.

Have a nice day too.

I wouldn't say all facts are subjective. Some facts don't happen in the mind. — numberjohnny5

Name one please.

The reason I believe this is because I think facts are essentially events, and there exist events occurring inside and outside minds. — numberjohnny5

Is a tree in the middle of the forest an event? When does it become a fact?

What about the collective mind? saving face, hive mind, group think. Don't they count for something? — matt

Do they count for something? What part do you think they play?

I don't know if I could definitively say if truth was subjective or objective. Is it possible that truth is beyond subjectivity/objectivity. — matt

Could it be both at the same time? Could it be both at different times? Why do you think it might be objective.

I view truth as mental too. Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs". — numberjohnny5

You are right.
Both fact and truth are subjective, they both happen in the mind. I would really like to see someone point out a truth in the street. Truth and fact are descriptive of the events and objects of the external world. And the are both relative to point of view.
If I am in the north in winter and you in the south it will be summer. The sun Is way down south is what I would say but you would say no it is on top of us. If the sun was over the equator both statements, the sun is in the north and the sun is in the south are true at the same time.

We judge, measure, compare the objects in our minds, even if we take measurements with a ruler, the results are processed in the mind.

Bigger/smaller/faster/slower/etc. are comparative measurements of phenomena, right? Where in the world does the act of measuring occur? — numberjohnny5

Exactly, the fact that you can measure 1km using a measuring device make no difference to the fact that both the km and the 1 only exist in the mind. As Plato said mathematics is what we use to describe the universe.

It was in the jeans~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Did they fit so well you lost your mind looking at its rear end?

Yes some people are better than others. They think outside themselves and appreciate the experience of others. — matt

Is this an innate quality of humans or is it something they learn.
If it is innate then in some way it must be genetic and passed on from parents, this does not happen. Many good parents have bad kids and bad parents good kids. And the physical part of it is so bad that beautiful parents in excellent health have had kids that are ugly as sin and as sickly as it is possible to be and continue living
If it is learned, then they are better because society made them better. This is also not true because two people that grow up living next door to each other, go to the same school, have the same friends, have parents that are interchangeable and can still turn out completely different.

The betters also apperciate everything revelatory as if it were significant. Hope can only lie in some kind of faith of truth and beauty. — matt

I have 2 students that suffer from mental short comings, I have never seen anyone else get so happy when they have accomplished their tasks successfully. Does that make them better than the others?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5997656/moped-gang-oxford-street-machete-watches-of-switzerland-robbery/

Who needs guns to scare the shit out of people and maybe kill a few off at the same time?

Damn — Bitter Crank

Suck it up and get used to it. :smirk:

doesn't mean that the obvious next step is sending out the poison gas vans to despatch everybody who fails to be "better". — Bitter Crank

In the movie Logan's Run the people were elevated or something at 30, basically killed off, because they were considered to have used up their useful years and there was a limit to the amount of resources that could be dedicated to each person.
In the movie "Children of Men", the government offered a chance to the old, sick and invalid folks to leave to better climates and then drowned them.

Would it not be a wonderful world where they tell you at 65 that that you have chance to "move up" instead of sitting around the house all day with nothing to do. And then they kill you because society has no use for you.
Look at the situation in a lot of countries around the world where thousands of people are living non productively until they are a hundred or more. How long do you think it will be before some idiotic politician comes up with these ideas?

ain't nottin atall rong wid it.

Just that I am not so bloody lucky. :cry:

Give me a pencil. :naughty: — Bitter Crank

It asked WHERE, not how. :sad:

I would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, than less so, because higher levels of these features enable one to engage the human and physical world more successfully. — Bitter Crank

The fact that I would prefer does not make it so, that is a dream. You might wish for it but you are what you are.
Imagine yourself on a scale from one to a thousand, taking into account your talents, fitness, emotions intelligence, ESP and all of the other things that make you you. If each part of you has a score, in some areas you might be high while in others low. Where would you be on the scale?
Now tell me, who gets to draw the line where people become better than others? Yes the ones with higher score would seem logically to be better than those with lower scores.
But for instance, a guy with a very low score might have an immune system that has prevented him from ever being sick.
Another with a very low score has a photographic memory and can play a piano concert after hearing it only once.
A guy with a very high score spends his time spending his rich wife's money in fancy restaurants, gyms and fine cloths

IF one would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, apparently one thinks it would be better. — Bitter Crank

Some preferences are not better. Some people prefer to drink than smoke. Which is better.
Some people are quite happy that their educational level does not allow them to get a better job because they don't want responsibilities and might lose the benefits and subsidies the government gives them. They don't think it would be better.

What about the people that suffer Downs syndrome, do they not also think of themselves as talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated. Would, do they want to be better?

You and Sapientia seem to be in need of couple's therapy. — Bitter Crank

Actually we are not a couple, why would anyone want a partner with such a bad attitude.
Only he is ever right, or you agree with him or you get dismissed as being stupid.

But thanks for the thoughts anyway. :smile:

As I said once before, or maybe several times. It is people that kill, not guns. And if people do not have access to guns they will use something else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/london-murders-t-halted-york-141410483.html

According to Wikipedia, in The Social Organism, Herbert Spencer compares society to a living organism, and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes. — Sapientia

Wonderful bit of research there, well done.
Oh, sorry i had not noticed that you had referenced the idiot's guide to superior wisdom.

At least find a legitimate page to use as a reference. Wiki is about the same level in truth value as the Sun.

No, we're not, and your subsequent statement contradicts this, as worded. You're just not being clear with your meaning. — Sapientia

If you cannot read what it says there, that is your problem not mine.

You mean that we are equal in some respects, and in some respects we should be treated as equals in spite of our differences. — Sapientia

No, I mean quite simple that we are all equal, just different.

How do you justify your use of the word better?
A dead person uses less resources and causes less pollution that a live person, a rich person uses more resources and contaminates more than a poor person. Which is the better person? Logically it would be the dead one.

If I can say it clearly, as I've just demonstrated, then why couldn't - or why didn't - you? Is it because it would ruin your comment? You had it set up so nicely (or so it might seem), but then I come along and pick holes in it. — Sapientia

Piss of. See I am learning from you Socrates. When I don't feel like answering someone's post I will just insult their intelligence.

The question is: Are some people better than others? — Purple Pond

We all come into the world in basically the same way.
We all have the same basic needs to live.
We are all going to end up dead.

The day one of these changes I will say yes, some people are better than others. Human beings are all equal, no matter what they look like, what their health is, how intellectual or not they are.

But if we talk about the people as an individuals with sets of traits, as separate entities then I would have to answer that some are different from others.

But who is to say exactly what is better than something else.

Would it be better or worse for a kid to have a sick father or no father?
Would it be better for a couple who have tried for years to have children, to have a disabled son or no son at all?
Which would be the better football team, the ones that did not really have to exert themselves to win a world cup or a team of special needs children winning a match against another equal group?

Better can be a cruel word.

And in the end we all need to take a crap, and you cannot get much more equal than that.

"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?" — Sapientia

That is bloody stupid. And has nothing at all to do with what I said. Why don't you stop trying so hard to put people down and give an answer to a question that should be easy for you to do.

Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering. — Sapientia

Oh dear, and you did not think that I might be interested in having the link to it. Wait, I think I already know your answer, "google it yourself". But I already did that and I failed to find it. So please try to be nice and share.

No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible. — Sapientia

I brought my umbrella to work today, does that seem sensible to you. But then you are probably going to say that it would depend on why I did it. If was it raining then yes it would be sensible, if not then probably not sensible.
So to whom would it be sensible to if not everyone has all of the facts. Things making sense or not do depend on facts don't they?

:lol:

Really? — Sapientia

Sad when all you can do to hide your inadequacies is try to put people down. Someone asks you a serious question and you don't even try to be polite about not answering. But that is part of your style also, so I guess we will have to put up with it as long as you are here.

That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often". — Sapientia

I have no need for searching, you just told us that you have used that phrase, just not "often". So you do know that words have more than one meaning, therefore you should take the time to explain which meaning you are using so as to avoid the posibility of misunderstanding.

That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, as worded and with sincerity. — Sapientia

So you are critical of people asking those types of questions with that style of wording and you don't consider them worthy of your notice or reply. But you do expect others to pay attention to your admittedly rhetorical questions and give proper answers.

rhetorical questions A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. — Sapientia

begging the question
Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved
avoid a difficult point
invite a follow up question or point

Which of these definitions of begging the question are you using, for the sake clarity.

If you are using the first definition then it makes no difference because the post makes it clear that you think philosophy attracts pretense. you would not be influencing anyone with the question.

If you are using the second definition, what is the situation you are trying to avoid.

If you are using the third then you would want to ask the question because that is your stated purpose of the post.

And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies. — Sapientia

Is "pretty sure" the same as being sure. I do not think that they are quite the same, and if it was my OP I would try to be sure that people understood what I was asking and that I do expect answers to my rhetorical questions.

Most people do not respond to rhetorical questions

rhetorical question A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry. — Sapientia

Now why is that not a surprise? Actually I never imagined that you even try to answer the rest of it. It is not your style.

So OK, just answer one more question.

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

How did you ever manage to get pretence to mean self deception?

I started a thread on this same subject at the old place about 8 years ago. But I was honest enough to actually say what I thought.
It was called "A big, long winded rant on "The Pretentiousness of Philosophers". I think that the OP was about 1000 words. There was quite a bit of serious discussion contained in the thread. Unfortunately I am blocked from viewing it so I cannot make a copy.

I think that you see yourself as some sort of modern Socrates, Always trying to provoke people into thinking and reasoning. I cannot remember the source, I think it was from Plato, where Socrates described himself as a fly continually irritating a half dead horse or something like that. The horse was ancient Athens and he considered it his god given job to provoke the people into thought. He too was well known for never giving answers to the questions he posed. And he only got invited to one drink for his services to the state even though he thought that he deserved a free meal every day for life.

Someone, please tell a joke or something.

We cannot let the last word be a sad one.

:party:

Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else. — jamalrob

Sorry, it is just that I was having so much with with the cuddly little guy I forgot to be serious. Maybe it was the influence the thread had on me. :pray: Forgiveness please. :smile:

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. Just type it into google. You have to look harder to find your meaning. It's typically further down the list - if it's even there at all, which it isn't in some cases - and these lists are typically ordered in terms of most-to-least common usage - and recent editions of The Chambers Dictionary are no exception, as I have discovered. In your own definition of "pretence", "pretentiousness" is fifth down. And in your definition of "pretentious", there was only a single word which backs up your meaning, namely "phoney", amongst all of the other words, which back up my meaning. That should tell you something. — Sapientia

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly.
A word that means something still means the same no matter where it is in a dictionary. And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage?

It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up. — Sapientia

Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking.

But all of this is beside the point, since my meaning is what matters, not yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards. — Sapientia

And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? How is one supposed to know what you expect for an answer? As you so often say, words have many meanings, how does anyone know which meaning you are using? Or should we go by the top ten chart?

All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. You later claim that you would expect people to post questions that required some thinking, that would be of interest to you.

I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter? — Sapientia

"Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

"What is Google?" — Sapientia

Is a no no.

"What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?" — Sapientia

Is the correct way.

So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Should your question not be something like;

What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?

That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no.
But because as you say, words have many meanings, would it not also have been requires of you to give a reasonable insight to what exactly you are think so that people would know what to respond to? And so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the original question?

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

Funny how when I use a certain interpretation of a sentence you quickly say that I have it wrong. That you do not mean the word as pretentious, but when others interpret it the same way

If what you say is true, you have been as pretentious as the rest of us. — T Clark

Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or.... — Janus

you laugh it off

T Clark It's called disillusionment. — Sapientia

or ignore it.

My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. — Sapientia

That is a shame, it might have made for an interesting discussion.

If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I am asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question. — Sapientia

Nice side step there. But the fact still remains that you did not specify your focus. You just did a question dump.

I've elaborated on the meaning of my question — Sapientia

After the fact, I would have thought you did not approve of people doing things like that.

But it seems that on page 5 some people still don't know what you are talking about.

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? — Moliere

But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder? — Sapientia

Could it possibly be because I am not up to the level of your high and mighty attitude.

I have some interest in finding things out, but I lack interest in allowing you to set the agenda if that's the best you can come up with. More specificity, and I might bite. — Sapientia

How far down the rabbit hole are you? — Sapientia

I do try to shake some sense into those who seem to be lost and struggling to find their way back to reality. — Sapientia

Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please. — Sapientia

That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note. — Sapientia

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. — Sapientia

↪Bitter Crank No, no, you just need to look a little deeper. Try again in another ten years. — Sapientia

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. — Sapientia

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. — Sapientia

:wink:

Interesting fantasy. Have you spoken to your therapist about it? — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes, he told me to go to court and get a restriction order against you before you do something regrettable.
I'm gonna work on that tomorrow. So you had better stay away from now on.

No matter how many baths I take, you still stink, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Maybe it is the fact that you have your nose sticking in my ass crack so much that you are getting a bad impression of my bodily odors.

Well take a bloody bath before you come them. That should get rid of it.

Can’t stand the smell of sweaty peasants working for me, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Totally pretentious and all aren't we dear. Would you like to come over to the peasants place and have a cup of tea with biscuits, or sandwiches?

Please don’t. The odour is unbearable. — CuddlyHedgehog

So that is why you don't use a dictionary, you can't stand the smell of yourself after doing some work.

No and it’s quite obvious that neither did you. — CuddlyHedgehog

Oh but I did. In seventh grade it was part of a story we read. Let me do the sweaty work for you though.

Snake oil,
(medicine) any of various liquids sold as medicine (as by a travelling medicine show) but medically worthless
Communication (written or spoken) intended to deceive

I am sure you will understand now. Deary.

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

So pretend you have a whole one and compare the definitions in the dictionary.

Why don't you look it up in your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition)? — Sapientia

Let's try the new online one instead, although the definition is exactly the same.

pretence or (US) pretense noun 1 the act of pretending. 2 make-believe. 3 an act someone puts on deliberately to mislead. 4 a claim, especially an unjustified one • make no pretence to expert knowledge. 5 show, affectation or ostentation; pretentiousness. 6 (usually pretences) a misleading declaration of intention • won their support under false pretences. 7 show or semblance • abandoned all pretence of fair play.

When is a person who uses "pretence" as you suggest not going to be ostentatious and phony?

pretentious adj 1 pompous, self-important or foolishly grandiose. 2 phoney or affected. 3 showy; ostentatious. pretentiously adverb. pretentiousness noun.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious. — Sir2u

The second quote above seems to indicate that you do not understand what it means to be pretentious, and are misusing the word when you want to express the meaning, "someone who pretends" — Sapientia

According to the dictionary pretense is the act of pretending, and pretentious. And a pretentious person is obviously a phony or a person pretending to be something he is not.

So if you insist that you are right show the definitions that you are using and how they differ from the ones I use. Or you could concede that you are wrong.

So anyway, go look that up in your Funk and Wagnall.

Very cute! Original? Or source? — Janus

It just popped into my head as I was getting ready to leave so I wrote it down thinking that it might make sense to someone.
It is open to interpretation to one and all, even if it is not exactly philosophical content. Or is it?

Bloody charming. — CuddlyHedgehog

Did you look up the meaning of snake oil? :cool:

Most of us understood, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Congratulations, here is a :clap: :clap: :clap: or 2 for you. But I doubt that you have considered everything about what was said.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Was the first question, to which I eventually replied.

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. — Sir2u

The reply I received was

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". — Sapientia

What I do not understand was why he was saying that there was pretence about what his question was.

If there is something about philosophy that attracts pretence, then the question must be about the people pretending. The forum cannot pretend, neither can the words in the posts.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious.

There is nothing complicated about that.

How does his reply make sense?

People that have some philosophical knowledge might want to learn more and ask questions to do so, I would not call them pretentious.

People that have little knowledge but think they know a lot might find an opportunity here to show off, they would be the ones that are averse to answering straight forward questions and often don't ask their own questions for fear of look ridiculous. They would definitely be pretentious in my book.

Not people. You. — Sapientia

So you do not consider me to be in the category of people? Bloody charming.

I am confident that there are others with the ability to see what you do not. — Sapientia

Do a poll to find out if anyone understood what you meant.
The only thing I got from what you said is that you used the wrong word "pretence" when you should have used "self-deception".
And as I said, I did not see the point of it. Was it supposed to have been in some way explanatory of something?

Now there's a surprise. — Sapientia

I don't see how you could possibly be surprised that people don't understand what you mean.

Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion. — CuddlyHedgehog

Put some snake oil on it then.

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". Or perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

I don't see the point to this.
Pretentiousness, noun, The quality of being pretentious (behaving or speaking in such a manner as to create a false appearance of great importance or worth). Syn. ostentatiousness

Pretentious, adjective, Making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. Syn. ostentatious

It's curious that some responders have chosen to answer their own questions instead of my own. — Sapientia

Nothing strange about that, especially on a philosophy forum. It is like talking to yourself, you should always get the answers you want to hear.

Does anyone remember the thread at the old place that asked about the last post.

Not sure about the exact words but it went something like this I think.

If you have the last post on a thread, does it mean that you have said something so profound that none can refute you or that no one feels like answering anymore bloody stupid questions?