"Knowing" the "Truth"

Subject: Re: "Knowing" the "Truth" Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:33 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

If I think you're a dick, then I will be a dick in return.

Which equals, if you think he's a dyldo, they you will be a dyldo2?!?

No, wait, 'doz can't be it... drunken

(where did eye put those batteries2...)

Subject: Re: "Knowing" the "Truth" Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:39 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Noooooooooooooo. Why God Why? *shakes fists at the sky" All I ever wanted in life was for Dyldo to think I'm cool. Sad

If you eventually wonder why that prayer doesn't get answered, you'll need to correct it:
"Why doG Why?"

[now send me your due tithe & luv offering via PayPal, care of woofpriest@mansbestfriend.arf]

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

For example, notice how CartesianTheist convieniently failed to make any response to my "What is Metaphysical" thread, even though it was clearly directed at him?

Why didn't he respond? Well... that was my most efficient thread. I had to argue will him for a long time, before figuring out how to cut to the heart of the issue (the chink in his armor so to speak). When I did... he was rather silent.

I love the hubris.

Let me tell you why he didn't respond. [And I think I might know better than you for some reason.]

If you had read my responses I had already, before you writing that thread, told you I was not going to talk to someone who keeps swearing and name-calling [since there's no place for that in formal debates and in fact if someone stoops to that kind of tactic then they have lost the debate].

I did not bother responding to that thread because if someone won't listen to what you're saying on one thread, why on earth would one think they will on another. Will a biologist keep talking about evolution to a young-earth creationist who does not listen and keeps interrupting and disregards evidence since the people who discovered the evidence are people with post-graduate degrees and such people are not to be trusted?

I am responding to you now because you seem to think it's okay to slander other people's views. You implying I can't stand up to you is absolutely laughable. I'm still here!

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

I must say this god shit has tired me out.

- NonE

Hey NonE,

My first thought was to apologize but now I'm not sure I ought to. There are subjects on LM that would "tire me out" too. What I do is just not click on them! No-one is forcing you to engage in these debates. I can assure you they are not being posted to annoy you or anyone else. They are there for debating purposes. So if they are tiring you please do feel free to avoid them.

Guest

Dylboz wrote:

That's the sort of thing a teenager, or a particularly immature 20-something would say.

Haha. But don't insult that age group by association!! I teach pre-pubescents who are more mature!!

Guest

eye2i2 wrote:

I like what someone led me to understand about dictionaries: they are simply but some author's recording of historical usage (mostly akin to a popularity contest). Dictionarians are but word historians. One can logically appeal to a dictionary only as one appeals to the (subjective) value of a term/terms in a contract; something that holds the potential of being mutually valuable. Word up!

I love how, in this paragraph, you make the point that words have objective meanings. I am in complete agreement with you. Well done.

Guest

eye2i2 wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

...subtle passive-agressiveness and disingenuousness (which isn't really a word I guess).
...
... was mischaracterizing (which apparently isn't a word)

I luv these!

Hey, they ARE words if you and I agree that they are. Just how did words (and as well, often contradictory meanings) get into dictionaries in the first place?!? And perhaps more importantly, how do they get in (eventually) --- mahn/dude? Diggit!

I like what someone led me to understand about dictionaries: they are simply but some author's recording of historical usage (mostly akin to a popularity contest). Dictionarians are but word historians. One can logically appeal to a dictionary only as one appeals to the (subjective) value of a term/terms in a contract; something that holds the potential of being mutually valuable. Word up!

No disagreement from me there. I was just making light of the fact that my browser's spell checker was objecting to those words. I do (in actuality) agree that language is an emergent phenomenon (based on consensus).

I will say this though:

There are methods of communication, and uses of language that are clearly more effective than others.

If I use the word "cat" to mean "dog", I won't get struck by lightning as a result. However, people will have no idea what I'm trying to say when I complain about my cat's constant barking. They will think I'm retarded.

» Hollywood Insiders: "Magick & The Matrix" -
» "Why Did You Make Me Black?" (Poem)
» "Link Penting"
» workshopon "EMG/NCV etc. studies"??
» The "BE" Attitudes?

"Knowing" the "Truth"

"Knowing" the "Truth"

Similar topics

Similar topics