Recent Comments

1. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “he is still drawn as alive on the rare occasions when we see him by himself. Also Hobbes is shown as looking at us and speaking directly to us when he is alone and does not have Calvin to speak to.”

   Since YOU said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, that is evidence of NOTHING.

   “You and Watterson AGREE that the living Hobbes is perceptible only by Calvin.”

   “Exactly.”

   Not only are you admitting that you lied when you claimed that only “most” other characters see Hobbes as a doll, you are admitting that the LIVING Hobbes does NOT fit the definition of something objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

   YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   You conceded that “This strip could be seen as Calvin imagining Hobbes”. You also said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. “Not real” is imaginary by DEFINITION. Therefore, when you say you’re not arguing that Hobbes is real, you’re not arguing against him being imaginary. That’s an admission that he’s imaginary.

   You quote Watterson saying the nature of Hobbes is subjective. The definition of subjective is:

   Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   So both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s), ie imaginary. You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

   Your attempts at evasions are truly pathetic.

2. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “you are so hostile to me.”

   Claiming I am “hostile” to you is yet another red herring to divert from the fact that the strip shows Hobbes to be imaginary. It won’t work.

   You conceded that “This strip could be seen as Calvin imagining Hobbes”. You also said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. “Not real” is imaginary by DEFINITION. Therefore, when you say you’re not arguing that Hobbes is real, you’re not arguing against him being imaginary. That’s an admission that he’s imaginary.

   You quote Watterson saying the nature of Hobbes is subjective. The definition of subjective is:

   Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   So both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s), ie imaginary. You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

   YOU quote Watterson saying “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees him another way”. So the LIVING Hobbes does NOT fit the definition of something objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

   You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   You really need to stop trying to run and hide from the logic of your own words.

3. about 12 hours ago on Geech

   Both. Meeks said he falls asleep “every” time he sees him.

4. about 12 hours ago on FoxTrot Classics

   I’ve considered switching to Ubuntu/Linux, but I use too many programs (most of which are home theater related) that only come in Windows versions. I honestly have little to complain about with Win 10.

5. about 13 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “but has also stated that the strip ‘goes out of its way to avoid resolving the issue’ of Hobbes’s reality.”

   All you’re succeeding in doing is destroying all of your previous claims that the strip shows that Hobbes has objective reality, according to the very “authority” you claim can never be disputed regarding the strip. And your own “authority” was forced to admit that Hobbes has no objective reality by saying that he had blurred what Hobbes is when he was confronted with the washing machine strips, the logic of which you’re unable to refute.

   You quote Watterson saying the nature of Hobbes is subjective. The definition of subjective is:

   Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   So both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s), ie imaginary. You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

   YOU quote Watterson saying “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees him another way”. So the LIVING Hobbes does NOT fit the definition of something objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

   You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   It’s obvious that you’re quite desperate at this point to run and hide from what you yourself have said.

6. about 13 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “You yourself have quoted Watterson as saying that the reality of Hobbes is of no interest to him”

   Actually, I only quote you saying he says that. Whatever he says about what doesn’t “interest” him is irrelevant. You’re desperately resorting to a red herring to divert from the fact that the strip shows Hobbes to be imaginary. Your tactic won’t work.

   “we seem to be largely in agreement over the deliberate ambiguity of whether Hobbes is a product of Calvin’s imagination or not.”

   You are LYING again. I never agreed to any such thing. I have stated in no uncertain terms that Hobbes is a product of Calvin’s imagination. It is YOU who claimed that Hobbes “MUST” have objective reality, but you were forced to contradict that claim when you said “This strip could be seen as Calvin imagining Hobbes”. You also said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. “Not real” is imaginary by DEFINITION. Therefore, when you say you’re not arguing that Hobbes is real, you’re not arguing against him being imaginary. That’s an admission that he’s imaginary.

   “Watterson has stated that he does NOT see Hobbes as ‘a product of Calvin’s imagination’”

   What Watterson said he didn’t “see” was based on a FALSE assumption. Here’s the quote AGAIN:

   WATTERSON: nobody else sees him, sees Hobbes, in the way that Calvin does…. I really have absolutely no knowledge about imaginary friends. It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would (you lied and claimed he said could) have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.

   But since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and he obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson’s “suspicion” and what he didn’t “see” had NO basis.

7. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Perhaps we are just disagreeing on the meaning of the word subjective.”

   Spare me your feigned ignorance of the meaning of words. The definition of subjective is:

   Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   Watterson saying “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees Hobbes another way” PRECISELY fits that definition. It CONTRADICTS your claim that only “most” characters see Hobbes as a doll. It ALSO contradicts the meaning of objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

   You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   “Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality”

   You quote Watterson saying the nature of the LIVING Hobbes is subjective. Therefore, both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s), ie imaginary. You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

8. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I am more confused by your comments than ever…. I sometimes wonder what we keep disagreeing about.”

   You’re being disingenuous. Your tactics won’t work. You admit that Watterson made NO definitive statement about Hobbes being real. You said “This strip could be seen as Calvin imagining Hobbes”, which contradicts your claim that Hobbes “MUST” have objective reality. You also said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. “Not real” is imaginary by DEFINITION. Therefore, when you say you’re not arguing that Hobbes is real, you’re not arguing against him being imaginary. That’s an admission that he’s imaginary.

   “Watterson stated that he did not see Hobbes as ‘a product of Calvin’s imagination’…. and that he claimed to have no interest in whether or not Hobbes is real.”

   Watterson statements about what he “didn’t see” and his “suspicion” contradict his claim to have “no interest” in the reality of Hobbes. Here’s the quote AGAIN:

   WATTERSON: nobody else sees him, sees Hobbes, in the way that Calvin does…. I really have absolutely no knowledge about imaginary friends. It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would (you lied and claimed he said could) have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up

   But since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and he obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson’s “suspicion” and what he didn’t “see” had NO basis. That means your “confirmation” ALSO has NO basis.

   “Hobbes is shown as alive and talking to us when he is alone and that he seems to do things which Calvin does not know about and says things to Calvin which WE understand but Calvin doesn’t.”

   “Seems” is your admission that such instances are evidence of nothing, which is further confirmed by you saying “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”.

9. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Seeing a mirror of yourself, Calvin.

10. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    You quote Watterson saying the nature of Hobbes is subjective. The definition of subjective is:

    Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

    So both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s), ie imaginary. You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

    YOU quote Watterson saying “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees him another way”. So the LIVING Hobbes does NOT fit the definition of something objectively real:

    of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

    You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore,you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.