Cool.Im 100% immune to poison ivy too.I know because we were hiking through it(well a number of times) ands did not know till we checked it.I never got anything.

Evil, evil, evil.

Wisdom is your mental capacity. How much you currently know.

My canteen has a capacity of 2 quarts of water. I guess I don't need to fill it up before going hiking, because if its capacity is 2 quarts, then it must contain 2 quarts of water.

In case this is too subtle a point... capacity doesn't mean the same thing as "current level."

Anyways, I would say that "How much you currently know" is a measure of knowledge or information, which is not necessarily wisdom. Someone might've memorized every edition of the Guinness Book of World Records... would this person be wise? Some people "know" all kinds of things, which may or may not be true.

D&D has both wisdom and intelligence because it needs wizards and clerics (aka, the other wizards) to have a different primary stat... even the rulebooks are hazy on exactly what wisdom is supposed to measure. Clerics gain their powers by faith, wizards gain their power through knowledge, so I don't think that wisdom is intended to measure what you know.

In the end, I would say wisdom can only be defined the way other elusive things (e.g.: pornography or art) are defined: you know it when you see it.

It's a fairly universally held opinion that "wisdom" has little to do with how much you know...but more with how you apply what you know... It's also based heavily in things like "intuition" and other forms of intelligence that can't be measured...

So "knowledge" and "wisdom" are indeed different... "Knowledge" can be measured based on the sheer amount of information that one knows... But "wisdom" is exactly like she said...something that can't be measured scientifically...but must be judged first hand on a case by case basis...

Also, her point on the difference between "capacity" and "current knowledge" is true as well... "Capacity" literally refers to the upper limit that a container has... Unless you've completely filled your brain to the brim with knowledge, your current level of knowledge is not your "capacity"...

Her reply was not based on personal opinion based on her cultural background... It was based on fact... Both literal fact in the form of semantic definition comparisons, and on universally held beliefs that can basically be considered fact (since the vast majority holds the belief, it's as good as being a fact)

Hello, Dareb. I'm editing away your post. As you're well aware, flames don't belong here.

Have some faith in your own beliefs. What do you care if Lexy disagrees? Be cool, man. The only reason to get so upset at someone for politely stating their opinion is if you're afraid deep down it makes you wrong... and you should never be afraid of that. Her opinion can't make you wrong. Practice knowing that, and the anger that makes you want to respond with insults I have to delete will die away over time. This is good advice for all of us, by the way, not just Dareb.

By the way, I chose not to delete the post because there are a couple perfectly good responses after it. I apologize for editing away all your words, but if you manage to post them again in a less insulting way, I promise I'll let them stay.

Z

I believe the honorable gentlemen from the state of Pbag was merely stating a definition of the word fact, not implying that belief makes something true.

Anyways, since the "facts" we're talking about here are the definition of words (artificial concepts) and not the nature of anything extant in the physical universe, these "facts" cannot be disproven in the manner of theories like bodily humours or the four elements. Two hundred years from now, no scientist is going to "discover" that our primitive superstition about what the word "capacity" means was merely the product of flawed observation and an overly religious worldview.

Dareb wrote:

well, i didnt edit that age. but Ill email dantom to get to the bottom of this ;D

If you mean you wonder why I put in an [edit] bit, it's because I edited my own post when I discovered the one that said 21.

But right after you posted this, you did in fact edit your first post in this thread, and changed the age to 21. It originally said 26. And it was definitely your edit, because mod edits show up in red.

Now a typo I could see, or being close to one's birthday it would be possible to get the age off by a year, but the 6 key is nowhere near the 1, and 26 is a big jump from 21. So in the original post--which hadn't been edited at the time I first read it--you did in fact say 26, and deliberately.

The most logical explanation for these events is that you were lying about your age--at least about the 26, if not also about the 21. (I've never really accepted that you're 21, but I leaned a little toward the possibility until today. Much of what you say doesn't bear it out; it seems much more likely that you're in your late teens.) Having been caught in the lie (about the 26, not the 21), you've now changed the age back to 21 to be consistent with your earlier posts, and are apparently claiming some phantom edit that nobody saw changed the age to 26 on you. Uh huh.

Look, if you're 17, just say so. If you're 21, just say so. There's no need to lie about your age--even if you've been lying all along and would like to save face--and there's no call to go covering up when you get caught in such a lie. You ain't 26, you probably ain't 21, and ain't nobody edited that post before you did a few minutes ago.

Lummox JR

Dareb wrote:

i edited my age back to where it is supposed to be.

But I distincly remember posting a 21.

Like I said, you posted 26. There's no conceivable accident that would change it to a 26, and nobody else changed it to 26, so you typed the 6 on purpose. That's really all there is to it. I really don't see why you're bothering to go to such a ridiculous length to cover it up. Yes, you got caught in a lie, but there's no use getting caught in another one just to pretend the first never happened.

Lummox JR

I don't think he's denying that he edited it from 26 to 21, I think he's denying that he had anything to do with the 26 being there in the first place. Which is entirely plausible... the 6 and the 1 being so close on the keyboard, you know.

I dont use QWERTY and I Dont look at the keyboard.

so about entirely plausible? shove it :D