HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| davidrussell
davidrussell
[438442]
[]
"what"
# Statistics
Favourites: 25; Deviations: 13; Watchers: 19
Watching: 20; Pageviews: 13109; Comments Made: 1183; Friends: 20
# Comments
Comments: 350
Noi im not trying to trick you thats what everyone is getting and i cant get it to work hit me back if you can make a link to the forum i started
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sup smallfrie
you have to take the WWW out of the url.
It might be added by the link creation thingy though
testing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yaya new person in the disscusion, and it's Matt too!!! this should be good. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hi Kerr, reply so i can lol in awe of yours and Boos discussion/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can understand where you are coming from...but...perfection is flawed in itself...i mean how can we define perfection if we dont know it?! What i mean by that is does anyone really know what perfection is? It isnt something everyone knows...something that everyone can see! What may be pefection to you will be utter catastrophe to somone else! Therefore perfection is an opion and thus ALWAYS flawed!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
sup fairyboo
There's an old saying, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Then I came along and said, 'Perfection is in the eye of the beholder'. Then Einstein appeared and said 'Everything is Relative'.
Einstein got a Nobel Prize, so I'm not going to argue with him. Therefore, 'Perfection is relative'.
Now, I could go off on some ridiculous theory based on the zeroth law of Thermodynamics*, but I'm not going to, as it's quite silly and doesn't go with what I'm saying.
What I'm about to say requires you to pay attention and have an open mind. Mathyou can stop reading now. Also, I'm not sure if I've already said this. Sorry if I have.
First of all, disregard everything you think you know about time. It's irrelvant. Perfection lasts only a moment, but a moment is immeasurable in time; it's like a snapshot. We also have to assume that everything has a purpose**, even if that purpose is only to look pretty.
Perfection, in my opinon, is everything that fulfils it's purpose without flaw; and/or anything which breaks it's previous 'record' of perfection.
It's easier to explain my defintion with examples. It'd be easier for you to understand if I applied it to examples with which you are familiar, but as I know very little about you I'll have to go with more generic examples.
Consider a snowflake. It's created in the sky and falls to the ground, at which point it either dies or joins the collective of snow. Either way, it is no longer a snowflake. But, if you could freeze time at any point at which it is falling, then at that moment it is completely fulfilling it's purpose, without any flaw. It's at it's perfect moment.
I had another ace example, but after the last one I played Halo for a bit and completely forgot it. I also completely lost my flow, but I've explained all my main points above; so we'll go from here.
ps are we still talking about butterflies, or is perfection the new thing?
pps you're my new discussion buddy. you've taken over from mathyou, who has recently turned too arrogant to have an enjoyable debate with.
* If 'everything = relative' and 'perfection = relative', then 'perfection = everything'
** This is not a matrix thing, I came up with this long before they did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dave quote action!
---
sup fairyboo
There's an old saying, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Then I came along and said, 'Perfection is in the eye of the beholder'. Then Einstein appeared and said 'Everything is Relative'.
Einstein got a Nobel Prize, so I'm not going to argue with him. Therefore, 'Perfection is relative'.
Now, I could go off on some ridiculous theory based on the zeroth law of Thermodynamics*, but I'm not going to, as it's quite silly and doesn't go with what I'm saying.
* If 'everything = relative' and 'perfection = relative', then 'perfection = everything'
---
Everything *is* relative.
We'll assume perfection is relative.
Your logic falls apart. Just because two things are relative does not make them the same.
Worms are made mostly of carbon.
Humans are made mostly of carbon.
Worms are not humans.
---
What I'm about to say requires you to pay attention and have an open mind. Mathyou can stop reading now. Also, I'm not sure if I've already said this. Sorry if I have.
---
Irony?
---
First of all, disregard everything you think you know about time. It's irrelvant. Perfection lasts only a moment, but a moment is immeasurable in time; it's like a snapshot. We also have to assume that everything has a purpose**, even if that purpose is only to look pretty.
---
Why are you assuming that? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no evidence to support it. Evidence sways in the direction that nothing has a purpose, it just is. If life, if people had a purpose, don't you think we'd know it? The lack of knowledge of our " purpose" belies the fact we probably don't have one.
Meaning, purpose. These are human terms. The universe is not a human creation.
---
Perfection, in my opinon, is everything that fulfils it's purpose without flaw; and/or anything which breaks it's previous 'record' of perfection.
It's easier to explain my defintion with examples. It'd be easier for you to understand if I applied it to examples with which you are familiar, but as I know very little about you I'll have to go with more generic examples.
Consider a snowflake. It's created in the sky and falls to the ground, at which point it either dies or joins the collective of snow. Either way, it is no longer a snowflake. But, if you could freeze time at any point at which it is falling, then at that moment it is completely fulfilling it's purpose, without any flaw. It's at it's perfect moment.
I had another ace example, but after the last one I played Halo for a bit and completely forgot it. I also completely lost my flow, but I've explained all my main points above; so we'll go from here.
---
If perfection relies on purpose, I can never really agree with you.
---
ps are we still talking about butterflies, or is perfection the new thing?
pps you're my new discussion buddy. you've taken over from mathyou, who has recently turned too arrogant to have an enjoyable debate with.
---
I'm too arrogant? Is this more irony?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Everything *is* relative.
We'll assume perfection is relative.
Your logic falls apart. Just because two things are relative does not make them the same.
Worms are made mostly of carbon.
Humans are made mostly of carbon.
Worms are not humans.
But that doesn't mean that everything can't be perfect.
Also, I said we wouldn't be following that route
Irony?
No irony, just a conclusion from observation.
---
Why are you assuming that? It's ridiculous. There's absolutely no evidence to support it. Evidence sways in the direction that nothing has a purpose, it just is. If life, if people had a purpose, don't you think we'd know it? The lack of knowledge of our " purpose" belies the fact we probably don't have one.
Meaning, purpose. These are human terms. The universe is not a human creation.
If it was recognised as fact, then I wouldn't have asked you to assume it. Purpose fits well with perfection, hence it's inclusion.
Life seems to exist to create more life. Humans are alive, and so it seems reasonable to assume that we exist to create more life. Sounds like a purpose, in my opinion.
If perfection relies on purpose, I can never really agree with you.
If everything has a purpose, then what does it matter?
I'm too arrogant? Is this more irony?
Arrogance is part of who I am, so it's acceptable; whereas with you, it's just a show
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) I'm not arrogant. (It errs on the side of confidence)
2) If it was just for show, it'd be me showing it. Therefore, it's part of me. So it's acceptable.
3) You really fucked up that quoting buisness.
Life seems to exist to create more life. Humans are alive, and so it seems reasonable to assume that we exist to create more life. Sounds like a purpose, in my opinion.
That's what we can assume to be a purpose based on what has happened previously (ie. lots of people continuing to be alive).
But it doesn't explain why we continue on existing (as a race), which is what I'd consider to be a true purpose.
However, if we go by your shallower definition, then I am inclined to (once) agree with you.
Let's find something more interesting to argue about, we're flying dangerously close to metaphysics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
1) You're more arrogant than me. lol.
2) Using that logic, I'm not a gimmickwhore.
3) I only did one bit 'wrong' (ie, I forgot to add tags). That hardly qualifies as really fucking up.
4) Purposes do not need to have a reason. They just need to be, as that's all they need to be able to function.
5) There's nothing shallow about using simple logic if it works.
6) You're the one that made this all complicated. This started out as a nice discussion about butterflies not being immortal.
7)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) You're more arrogant than me. lol.
If you say so, Davidrussell.
2) Using that logic, I'm not a gimmickwhore.
You're a gimmickwhore. It's who you are.
3) I only did one bit 'wrong' (ie, I forgot to add tags). That hardly qualifies as really fucking up.
Yeah, but like, the way you did it in general, the use of bold. It was very disturbing.
4) Purposes do not need to have a reason. They just need to be, as that's all they need to be able to function.
But it serves no purpose, it's just recursively occuring. That's not a purpose, surely!
5) There's nothing shallow about using simple logic if it works.
It's not shallow, it's just a shallower explaination.
6) You're the one that made this all complicated. This started out as a nice discussion about butterflies not being immortal.
Fairywoman never said they were immortal, they were just symbols of it. But yeah, it's still pretty ridiculous.
7)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
urm excuse me whoever you are...this discussion that you have rudely butted into was a nice discussion as russ said...so exactly what is your point...its just turned into a slagging match...well from what ive read it has! Why dont you go back to your 'arrogant' little world if thats what you want to be and just leave us to have opions of our own! If people are having a discussion about something that was started way before your intruded then excuse me if im rude in saying this but in simple terms 'go away'! Im not going to be rude or insult you.
Have a nice day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Talk in a public forum, expect replies from the public.
I think you're being a bit dramatic, woman. I'm always nice to Dave, but he still insists on calling me arrogant or something 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sorry! I dont mean to be dramatic...but a well! Ill let you carry it on as u seem to know so much on ur half!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Matt Nice : Dave Nice is proportionate.
Or something.
Lolly roffle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Insert smiley face to make it less serious
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Perfection is a concept, not a reality.
It's a purely theoretical point.
It's not meant to and does not exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
urm...i think thats just your own opinion!
Perfection does and always will exsist!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just thought I'd pop in and say hello, so Hello.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello selkiepunk \o/
Long time no see
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*davidrussell
David Russell
* is an Abstract Artist
* is Male
* is a deviant since Jun 29, 2003, 12:06 AM
* is subscribed until Feb 9, 2004, 8:27 PM
* has 630 pageviews
* is located in United Kingdom
* last visited 25m 36s ago
I'm a trendwhore
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*davidrussell
David Russell
is an Abstract Artist
is Male
is a deviant since Jun 29, 2003, 12:06 AM
is subscribed until Feb 9, 2004, 8:27 PM
has 627 pageviews
is located in United Kingdom
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sup fairyboo
what are you talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol! just quoting your page!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comment mate! Truly appreciated!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey! I am your 600th pageview! WOO!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sup endosage
600 views \o/
thanks for stopping by
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sup Dave.
Hows things?
You been to the subscribers forum yet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sup dxd
I had a brief visit to the subscriber's forum, but it didn't really float my boat.
deviants > *
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah it can suck abit. Nobody ever posts in there. It gets so fucking boring.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What's your favorite Palahniuk book?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a toss-up between Fight Club and Survivor.
The storyline of Survivor is stronger than Fight Club, in my opinion; but I prefer the random bits of information in Fight Club than those in Survivor. Fight Club also has re-readability, which I don't believe Survivor has.
Lullaby and Choke are also two brilliant pieces of literature. I prefer Choke over Lullaby, as I wasn't too keen on the whole witchcraft theme of Lullaby.
I haven't read Invisible Monsters yet
Word on the street is that there is a new one soon, I'm already excited.
What's your fave?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Invisible Monsters is the rock.
It's about superficiality and stuff. Rock.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really liked Invisible Monsters, I highly recommend it. I have yet to read Survivor. Choke is my personal favorite. Fight Club is right up there, though. I'm with you on the whole witchcraft thing in Lullaby. Definitely didn't work for me, but it's still brilliant because it's by Palahniuk. Ooo, a new one? That makes me happy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fugitive's and Refugees: A Walk in Portland Oregon
Diary: A novel
There's two now. There's also a load of non-fiction pieces he's done too.
I feel some amazon purchases coming up \o/
[link] has more information.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, thanks, I'll check them out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sup selkiepunk
I just checked your dA page a couple of minutes ago, and now you're on mine!
Fantastic stuff coincidence ahoy!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's true, it's like we're playing tag but no one is "it." Sorry, that was random. How are you today?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Random is, as random does"
Or something.
I'm great, thanks!
How are you, friend?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel really good for the first time in about three weeks, thanks for asking! P.S.~ I am queen of the random.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yay, in that case...I'll add you too. Aw, feel the love!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
devwatch added. reading coming up soon \o/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Later on, I'm going to read some of your deviations. I'll start with the poetry then move on to the others.
But, before that, I'll add you to my friends list so I don't forget who you are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
much thanks for 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>