you've just contradicted your previous statement

good going

how so?

then you say

I was pointing out the obvious to your statement,
there's no logic behind your statement bar
trying to make me look like a twat;
but instead you're coming up short by refuting
your previous notion that time > money
by admitting I was right in the first place.

you do know that the last remark was sarcasim?

Maybe there is no such thing as the world or anything. Maybe everything is an figment of your imagination and all of us are just little characters and places are just places thought up in your head and when you die everything will cease to exist.

i think it's funny that there seem to be people who really believe that

There was nothing to be sarcastic about,
that's the whole point. I could've taken
any one of your posts and made a sarcastic
remark as so:

Really I thought I was a timelord :rolleyes:


There was nothing to mock,
because the discussion
had no point bar philosophic jargon.

If the world is a figment of his imagination, where is he? Unless the laws of physics are a figment of his imagination to.

It could be a trick question.
There are many kinds of time.

It's obvious what he means by money, but what does he mean by time?

The ability to control time? A specified amount of time? To compare them you have to find a way to get an equal amount of time and money. How do you do that?