How many do you need?

[MDV]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

[Afghan Dave]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.

The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.

You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.

[Bradock PI]

Ok just for MDV will these do - 25 of them would surely look cool fully loaded around your house. A discrete method to store your guitars and I am sure very partner friendly.

[MDV]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.

The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.

You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.

The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.

Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.

[MDV]

Ok just for MDV will these do - 25 of them would surely look cool fully loaded around your house. A discrete method to store your guitars and I am sure very partner friendly.

A little inconvienient, but you get an A for effort!

[Jonny]

It is one hour past midnight, and after hopelessly analysing the last two pages of the conversation between Dave and MDV, has resulted in an expected, if not obvious (or possibly those two words mean the same thing?), conclusion of the condition of my brain and surrounding pressure in my skull..

In other words, my head is completely $%&#ed.

I'm going to bed.

[MDV]

Likewise mate.

Up at 6:30 :(

[Afghan Dave]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.

The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.

You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.

The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.

Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.

Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.

If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.

If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence,  passion or enthusiasm  as in "hot topic" undermines your original  position.

[Afghan Dave]

Likewise mate.

Up at 6:30 :(

Night, Night mate.

 PDT_003

[WITH FULL DISTORTION]

HOLY cr@p
i have 2 guitars
but i think i would need 10

1 dean cadillac
1 -  fender japan stratocaster
1 - fender custom shop with all mahogany body and neck thru mahogany with pau ferro fretboard
1 - same version of the above, with floyd rose.
AHH shite
i wont mention them all.
just add a gibson les paul custom
adn a gibson flying V
maybe a seven string with my own mods

[MDV]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.

The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.

You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.

The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.

Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.

Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.

If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.

If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence,  passion or enthusiasm  as in "hot topic" undermines your original  position.

Woefully untrue, since for the same logic to be applicable to myself I would have to have no awarness of my own state of mind.

I have made no statements on the temperature of the bare knuckle forum host servers, which would be the closest thing to the thermodynamic temperature of the thread one could find, and you have merely substituted a lack of experiementally derived certainty for my stance as a falsification for it,  presenting no reasonable grounds for objection, merely declaring by feat that my position is incorrect.

You would do well to exercise some critical analysis of your own analysis, sir.

[Roobubba]

Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS.  PDT_038  PDT_019

EPIC FAIL.

Oh, and a priori should be two words, not one.

In answer to the original topic question (whoa, Roo trying to drag a topic back on track??!), 1 guitar to play all the time, 1 as a backup for gigs, and I also have a bass in a cupboard somewhere (20 quid off a mate when I was 17, and it's awful!), and an acoustic downstairs to pick up and strum as frequently as possible!

But when it comes to electrics, the answer is 1. The second is only there if something goes horribly wrong at a gig ;)

Roo

[Afghan Dave]

And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)

You mean supposition.

I mean imposition.

Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.

The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.

You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.

The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.

Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.

Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.

If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.

If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence,  passion or enthusiasm  as in "hot topic" undermines your original  position.

Woefully untrue, since for the same logic to be applicable to myself I would have to have no awarness of my own state of mind.

I have made no statements on the temperature of the bare knuckle forum host servers, which would be the closest thing to the thermodynamic temperature of the thread one could find, and you have merely substituted a lack of experiementally derived certainty for my stance as a falsification for it,  presenting no reasonable grounds for objection, merely declaring by feat that my position is incorrect.

You would do well to exercise some critical analysis of your own analysis, sir.

Your lack of rigour is once again apparent. I had hoped my clear reference to "conditional attributes" would have guided your thoughts toward the topic.

Your rhetorical gambit of continually referencing what you "haven't" said in an attempt to obfuscate will not serve you well on this occasion.


Such are the tools of sophistry not philosophy.

(Thanks Roo for correcting MDV's on his misuse of a priori  PDT_004 PDT_028)

[Philly Q]

Oooh, 'ark at them and their epistemologicals.  :|

[Bradock PI]

For the sake of eveyones sanity I refer Dave and MDV here (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/)