Who is getting an Xbox 360 today?

looks at this guy...

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-XBOX-360-PR...ryZ62054QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

80_3.JPG


i think thats F-ed up. guys got more xboxes then most stores get...and hes selling them for like double+ what they are worth...kinda lame dont you think?

whatever though...people will buy them...supply and demand...
 
Daaaaammmnnnn. Yea I'd say that's a little overkill! I'm just gonna bring a buddy so I can get 2, not 24 lol
 
He started the bidding at a penny. What he brings in will be what someone's willing to pay, so this is straight up.

Ah, free enterprise.
 
Thats like the best way to make a profit.

well....not getting 24 of the same systems.

buy 1 system...sell one on ebay for double or triple the price..

I might do that for PS3 on ebay when it comes out...buy one....sell it immedietly...make extra cash..go buy another and keep this system...then with the extra money save up for like a G35 or something.
 
Man for all you know those could be empty boxes, let me tell you a real story:

Back in Uni in london my friend rings me on my mobile (cell phone as you Americans call it) and tells me that this guy is offering a Sony Vaio Laptop (top of the range) for a serioulsy cheap offer (£300) its worth like well over £1500, so I tell him straight up *DONT BUY IT, AS A FRIEND I'M TELLLING YOU, DONT BUY IT, WALK AWAY NOW*

then I hang up, the reason I advised him not to buy it was because the day before another student at our Uni was scammed BIG time out of £300 (the same people no doubt about it). This is how the con-artists work , they show you the working laptop and when you hand over the money switch it for a an empty PIZZA BOX !! by the time you open it they are long gone, and they are masters at it, best to just walk away and keep your money safe.

SOo, all those nice Xbox360's could just be empty OR "the 'ol 'fell off the back of a lorry type xbox's"

Mind you these days Lorrys and vans are Satelite tracked, still criminals always find ways to break rules :(

Anhar
 
But ask your self how did he manage to get them before they hit the shop selfs?

Your probably right maybe he is legit, But I'd just prefer to buy one from the shops. That way if someone tries to ass-wag (does that word even exist?) me I can at least go back to the store with a metal baseball bat and crack open his skull (in Theory anyway, nah I'm more Martin L King "Non Violence, Non Violence" then Malcom X "Any means Necessary" )


Anhar
 
“I Challenge you to prove your own existence; If you have already worked it out then you will know that our existence is based on belief” – Anhar Hussain Miah 30/11/05 "


I think, therefore, I am.

(No, not a random quote.)
 
Around here, the X-Box is LITERALLY "To Die For"

Slimeballs will follow a person home from Best Buy and pull an armed robbery.

We have had way too many armed robberies and home invasions where the X Box was the target.

There are some really SICK people out there. Those who value a pair of Chinese Tennis Shoes or a Malaysian Box of CMOS Chips more than human life.
 
David Jimerson said:
“I Challenge you to prove your own existence; If you have already worked it out then you will know that our existence is based on belief” – Anhar Hussain Miah 30/11/05 "


I think, therefore, I am.

(No, not a random quote.)
Click to expand...


Unfortunately incorrect, because the statement assumes the existance of a mind in the first instance, i.e. in order to think implies that a mind exists. Again a flawed assumption. Nice but no cigar :)

Anhar
 
In order for there to be a thought, there must be a mind -- unless you want to equivocate on the definition of "thought," in which case, any communication is meaningless, because it's lost a common frame of reference.

Besides, you say "existence is based on belief," so what does the believing?

I've had this conversation many, many times. Freshman philosophy stuff.
 
I never disagreed that thought does not mean that a mind exists the problem is the PROOF of existence of the mind itself.

Ask yourself what the mind is made up of? As you know the mind is made up of matter herein lies the problem since matter is scientifically impossible to prove.

David I NEVER stated that the mind does not exist, just asked for its proof, and until your mind is composed of something other than matter (or external to it) you will never be able to prove it (THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT, not an opinion, not philosophy, just a fact).

The definition of belief is:

To claim to have for-knowledge of something without proof.

And within that definition, since our entire existence is within ours minds, if we are not able to prove its existence (SCIENTIFICALLY impossible) then we have to BELIEVE to be true.

I hope that has cleared it up for you.

Anhar
 
Do you want a physical proof, or do you want a metaphysical proof? Seems to me you're dilluting the line between them, and that's not logically kosher.

The fact that I have a thought proves there is a mind. Could it be a deluded thought? Sure. But it's still a thought. And there's no thought without a mind.

You can't straddle the fence between the metaphysical and the scientific; you're shifting the logical sphere of the argument. You are cheating the definition of "mind" to include physical form (a brain, perhaps), and I never said my mind had a physical form, only that my thoughts prove my mind exists. Nor does your challenge state I have to prove anything physical. It speaks of beliefs, not physics.

But you want it both ways. If I say "I think, therefore, I am," you say "prove you have a brain." In which case, if the answer is "if I crack open my skull, you'll see it," you'll say "how do you know it's not a delusion?" Well, if you deny me the tools of science, you automatically curtail any possible scientific "proof." Your challenge is akin to "I want you to win this 1000-meter footrace, but before you do, I'm taking away your legs -- oh, and your arms, too." Or, perhaps more aptly, challenging someone to solve a mathematical equation without using numbers.

So, if you're challenging someone to prove his physical existence, I suggest you re-word.

If you want the metaphysical: I think, therefore I am. "I" am the summation of my thoughts; I am my mind. I have thoughts, so I exist.

If you want the science: scientific knowledge and proof is purely observational. I observe myself. I observe others observing me. Therefore, I am.

Can I be sure that my observations aren't deluded? No. But it doesn't matter, because like I said, it's mixing spheres.

I reject that definition of belief, by the way. I believe I'm typing at my keyboard right now, and I can prove it, too (witness the line of characters). You can't tailor the definition to the preferred conclusion.

In any case, like I said, this is all freshman philosophy Very Serious Discussion fodder. It can (and usually does) go on all night, wondering if the Matrix has us, wondering if there are higher planes of existence, and all we have to do is think about deeply enough to "see it," and we'll ascend to them somehow, once we've learned "The Truth." Been there, done that. But, that's really all it is: as an old prof of mine called it, a "dormitory bull session."

And that's all it is because as a practical matter, it's vacuous and entirely beside the point. The IRS is convinced I exist, and well, that's actually enough right there to motivate me in daily life.

So maybe, Anhar, you can rest easier in the knowledge that maybe, just maybe, we all, and everything around you, exist only as figments of your imagination, and given the unfair restrictions you place on the argument, no one can "prove" otherwise.

Heck, there are plenty of things, plenty of people, I WISH were figments of my imagination, and then I could do away with them with a single thought.
 
I love my X Box 360. We are to be married in a civil ceremony next week after the divorce from my current wife is complete...

mmmm....perfect dark zero.... condemned: criminal origins.... mmmm.....
 
:thumbsup: David RELAX man ! , heck I'm glad I can find someone to converse with me with on these matters (I find it interesting). :)

Now you got one thing right and that is my question is completely unfair (this was very naughty of me, deliberatley asking for proof when it can't be proved) So sorry for that.

-The fact that I have a thought proves there is a mind. Could it be a deluded thought? Sure. But it's still a thought. And there's no thought without a mind.

I agree with you David, A thought requires a mind, same as a dream requiring a dreamer , a simluation requiring a simulator.

-You can't straddle the fence between the metaphysical and the scientific; you're shifting the logical sphere of the argument. You are cheating the definition of "mind" to include physical form (a brain, perhaps), and I never said my mind had a physical form, only that my thoughts prove my mind exists. Nor does your challenge state I have to prove anything physical. It speaks of beliefs, not physics.

So you are opting to say that your mind is metaphysical, i.e your mind exist metaphyiscally (beyond matter), and lets say your mind is metaphysical , then if I ask for proof of your existance, ME being an Entity that exists in your mind only, DOES not mean that ME exists since ME was created in your mind, therefore by saying that I have a thought proves I have a mind proves my existance; ONLY proves it to yourself and not to me!.

I think the crux of the issue which I'm failing to explain to you is that your ENTIRE existace occurs in your mind(be it physical or non-physical), when you said "I think, therefor I am" is totally valid and I do not disagree with it, HOWEVER and read this carefully I said "I challenge you" meaning ME, an outside entity.

In short when you say "I think, therefor I am " only proves your own mind to your self, because this is not the same thing as saying "I think therefor, YOU are"



Your scientific answer is not correct, (re-read my other post), the reason is because your self-referencing.

So sum up:

if the questions was "prove your existance" you have already done that ( Well actually Descartes said it before you! :) )

BUT I said:
"I Chanllenge you" meaning ME an outside entity, even Descartes did not claim the existance of others. So the best you can do about the existance of others in relation (note: I did say "OUR" existance meaning me AND you) to yourself is believe[1] it to be true.

Ok David, I hope I haven't offended you or anyone else for that matter, I've got to get some sleep now. Take care man, we cool! :thumbsup:


P.S.
My definiation of "believe" is justified:

"To accepting something as true, or possibly true [see True Believer [SD] ] without firm evidence." source: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm [1]

Anhar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top