Yet you stated it as an a priori assumption in order to "prove" your contention. Which is nothing to do with the "perceptibility" of the object itself. Two things: I neither need nor particularly desire you to know my motives (they are largely irrelevant) and you appear to have already decided it's a lost cause... Ho hum. Nope. But being in a dictionary might be an indicator, don't you think? Good. You're learning. Is "while it lasts" not "conditioned by an interval"? Strange... I have. And going from the above it appears you're not sure what your point is. Good. So you were incorrect. Ah, so what I listed was true. But it also wasn't. Got you. In other words you're using your own definition of "true", and excluding anything and everything that won't confirm your narrow pre-requisites. As opposed to you, who have done little but make unsupported statements, double-back, contradict yourself and resort to ad homs when you can't show that I'm wrong. Well done. I concede the point. Complaining that I'm pointing out your errors/ inconsistencies (rather than showing that you're actually correct) doesn't work very well in supporting your contentions. Another assumption. What you are saying is incoherent, inconsistent and a personal opinion which you have singularly failed to support. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. I have. I've also asked for you to support your argument. So far with no luck.... If you CAN do this why have you resorted to whining, diversion and ad homs in place of doing so? And there you go again with assumptions. I think you'll find that if Glaucon (the moderator) steps in you'll have a tougher time than you're having at the moment. He's much better than I at spotting errors. And less possibly tolerant of personal attacks. Errors again. This is not "between you and me" it's about whether your premise/ conjecture/ whatever is valid or not. Last word doesn't decide validity. Pity? Oh my. Still, there's something (very vaguely) appealing about arrogance. No, I take that back. There isn't. Well I have to admit, you finally convinced me. "No it does not" (in all capitals, yet) is probably the most lucid, persuasive and rational argument you have so far put forward. And to back it up with "I will leave it as an EXERCISE for your little brain to figure out WHY" is most definitely in keeping with your earlier promise that you "will give almost every argument so far as proof to support me". Hallelujah! I've seen the light. (You do understand that was all sarcasm, right? Good) No, it wasn't beyond me. You're working from an a priori assumption that you refuse to let go of. You have failed to show that this is the case and also appear to be utterly incapable of recognising that failure. I agree. But what you fail to see is that it's pointless because your "logic" doesn't stand up and you are not up to the task of realising that. Don't feel sorry for yourself. Really. Just learn how think, instead, it'll give better results.