When two poorly informed people argue, God kills a kitten

me: flan

Nicholas: Gut

er

Ros

me: jerk

Nicholas: You don't have to respond to that

me: i hate you

Nicholas: My typing speed occasionally exceeds my precognisance

My most sincere regrets, sir

Anyways, how's it going?

Besides the usual anger. :o

me: nick

i dont think you know what precognisance means

if you posessed precognisance you would have made millions in the stock market

just saying

i do not believe in what is commonly referred to as precognisance

i consider it more of a practical paranoia

a "fear" that something will happen

certainly mixed in equal portion to the possibility that it will not

however when it does happen, it is satisfying to say to oneself "ah, i knew that would happen!"

when in fact you knew no such thing

Nicholas: I disagree and in fact believe that the term applies

me: you are wrong

Nicholas: the term precognisance by definition reffers to knowing the outcome of some situation or another

me: wrong

and you know who disagrees with you?

mr webster

what you are missing is that it refers to knowing based on a sense of extra sensory perception

i.e. "i know something bad will happen to me today"

Nicholas: no

me: without any fundamental evidence

Nicholas: 1. knowledge of a future event or situation, esp. through extrasensory means.

me: extrasensory

Nicholas: it's not required

me: did you miss what i just said?

Nicholas: mr webster disagrees with you

me: the definition is wrong, if its not extrasensory it becomes just "cognizance"

so sry

fail

you has fail

taking things at face value ftl

Nicholas: furthermore I suggest you look up the word cognisance

and the prefix 'pre'

me: yes, i know

it means "knowing before knowing"

am i wrong?

Nicholas: I am cognisant of your displeasure because you already expressed it

me: tell me, am i wrong?

Nicholas: you are wrong.

or you wouldn't be arguing

It would have been easily predictable that you would have gotten angry

whether through extrasensory perception or not

just because the most common use of a word would not apply, doesn't mean that an alternate usage - which matches the very composition and definition of the word - is incorrect

me: let me explain

if you call me an asshole, you know before you say it that i will be upset

that is no pre-cognizance, you know this is true in every situation and you know its true based on past experience

you are on dictinary.com?

or webster.com?

Nicholas: I have been referred to as such

yes.

Referred, even.

me: one second, the term i want to use doesnt have the correct definition on dictionary.com

Nicholas: prediction?

anticipation?

me: priori

Nicholas: aha

me: essentially having knowledge imparted unto you by the ether (generally, god)

bah

webster doesnt have it either!

ridiculous

whatever, a synonym is epiphany

and you know what that means

Nicholas: I know what priori means as well

me: precongizance implies that you have knowledge without deducing

un-empirical knowledge

Nicholas: well, if it makes you feel better, I didn't bother to deduce in that instance

me: no, you knew based on past experience

Nicholas: untrue

I've never called you the last three letters of your first name

me: you knew exactly what you were doing you sly dog

you wont fool me

Nicholas: this whole argument is based on my statement that I didn't

me: from your point of view

hence pre-cognizance

whereas i disagree that you miraculously knew what my reaction would be, you knew what i would be upset

Nicholas: call it a 'Gut' feeling.

me: i will destroy you