Recent Comments

1. about 20 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I do NOT agree that knowing that Calvin COULD be imagining the things that Hobbes does on his own makes looking out for strips of Hobbes on his own and remembering them meaningless.”

   Since you said “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”, looking out for such strips is indeed meaningless as supportive of anything.

   “As I say, WE are aware of some of the things that Hobbes does or says which Calvin APPEARS to be unaware of.”

   Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, that’s evidence of nothing. We KNOW Calvin pretends constantly.

   YOU said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. The unreal Hobbes you said you’re not arguing against MUST therefore be imaginary. He CANNOT be “something else”.

   “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees Hobbes a different way.”

   the meaning of objective is:

   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”. So you logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary. Thanks for your admission.

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically AGAIN admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your DOUBLE admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind and is imaginary.

2. about 23 hours ago on Geech

   No one wants to see you in a bathing suit, Nadine.

3. about 24 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically AGAIN admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your DOUBLE admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind and is imaginary.

4. about 24 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I started to look out for strips of Hobbes on his own”

   “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence.”

   The second quote from you makes the first quote from you meaningless, yet you keep pretending it doesn’t. YOU said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. The unreal Hobbes you said you’re not arguing against MUST therefore be imaginary. He CANNOT be “something else”.

   “Watterson’s own comments….confirm that he did NOT see Hobbes as “a product of Calvin’s imagination”.

   What Watterson said he didn’t “see” was based on an ASSUMPTION he made:

   ”It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would (you lied and claimed he said could) dream up.”

   Watterson DISPROVED his assumption by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. So Watterson’s “suspicion” and what he didn’t “see” had NO basis. In fact, he agreed with the statement that “children create imaginary friends to play out family dramas. So an argument can be just as much a part of an imaginary world as, you know, a sort of sentimental, gooey friendship can be.”

   “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees Hobbes a different way.”

   the meaning of objective is:

   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”. So you logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary. Thanks for your admission.

5. about 24 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   He’ll never learn.

6. about 24 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Ultimately Hobbes is whatever Bill Watterson, his creator, says he is.”

   Bill Watterson never definitively said what Hobbes is. He said:

   “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 have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.”

   “seem” and “suspect” are not definitive statements. Watterson disproved his “suspicion” and what “seemed” to him by showing Calvin ENJOYING the treehouse fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. So Watterson’s “suspicion” and what” seemed to him had NO basis. In fact, he agreed with the statement that “children create imaginary friends to play out family dramas. So an argument can be just as much a part of an imaginary world as, you know, a sort of sentimental, gooey friendship can be.”

   Watterson also said “I would hope that the friendship between Calvin and Hobbes is so complex that it would transcend a normal fantasy.” Note that he did not say it isn’t a fantasy, only expressing “hope” that it transcends a “normal” fantasy.

   In some of the strips, Hobbes is put in a top loading washing machine with an agitator, something that would be impossible if Hobbes were really the five foot solid animal that Calvin sees (since the machine is an inanimate object, it can’t be a matter of subjective perception). This contradiction can only be explained by Calvin imagining the size of Hobbes. Watterson knew it was a contradiction when he called it “one of the stranger blurrings of what Hobbes is”. Real things don’t have blurred reality.

7. 1 day ago on FoxTrot Classics

   two weeks.

8. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Hobbes is able to do things which other characters are aware of”

   You are lying. You cannot cite a single instance of a character outside of Calvin’s imagination that can sense, interact with, or be affected by Hobbes.

   “they see Hobbes as a stuffed doll and Hobbes seems to be unaware of this.”

   Calvin pretends that the living Hobbes he imagines is unaware that he’s imaginary. However, Calvin’s mind knows that others see the Hobbes doll. He imagined the newspaper that contained the photo of the Hobbes doll. You admitted that Calvin imagined the photo itself.

   the meaning of objective is:

   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 “Watterson and I DO agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin.”

   Therefore, the living Hobbes is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. So you logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary. Thanks for your admission AND for saying “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real” (The unreal Hobbes you said you’re not arguing against MUST therefore be imaginary. He CANNOT be “something else”).

9. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”

   Then stop citing them as support of your claim that Hobbes isn’t imagined by Calvin. YOU said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. The unreal Hobbes you said you’re not arguing against MUST therefore be imaginary. He CANNOT be “something else”.

   “Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees Hobbes a different way.”

   the meaning of objective is:

   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”. So you logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary. Thanks for your admission.

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

   Yes, you said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically AGAIN admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your DOUBLE admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind and is imaginary.

10. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “two strips showed Hobbes alive and able to look directly at us and speak directly to us when he was completely alone.”

    You said “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”, because you admitted that “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”.

    “I…. agree with Bill Watterson’s stated suspicion that Hobbes is ‘more real than any kid would make up’”.

    You lied and claimed he said could instead of would. You don’t have the cojones to cite the full quote, which showed that Watterson’s “suspicion“ and “belief” was based on his assumption that “It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.”

    Watterson DISPROVED his assumption by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. That leaves him and you with NOTHING.

    Watterson agreed that “children create imaginary friends to play out family dramas….an argument can be just as much a part of an imaginary world as….friendship can be”.

    the meaning of objective is:

    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 just said “Watterson and I DO 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”. So you logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary. Thanks for your admission AND for saying “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real” (The unreal Hobbes you said you’re not arguing against MUST therefore be imaginary. He CANNOT be “something else”).