|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:13 pm
elmon This is a new reasoning in favor of evolution, deviced by me: If we believe the Bible, the earth is approximately 4000 years old. We've found bones of all kinds of animals, most of which are extinct. If in 4000 years, that many animals became extinct, what's going to happen to the animals now? Since there can be no evolution in the Bible, no new animals can arise, therefore, all life is sure to die out quickly. OH MY GOD Elmon your hilarious xd Your like an outrageous southern baptist reverend trying to convert the masses with hellfire and brim stone. But ehem getting to the point I've heard that according to the Bible the earth is actually 6000 years old, but what I heard could have been wrong. Now as for what you said, different species of animals evolve all the time and on short notice too, it doesn't take a million years for them to evolve or rather should I say micro evolve/mutate to change, suffice it to say the animal will adapt, so however will die but if anything they'll probably die out because of mans carelessness than some harsh environmental change.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:19 pm
elmon ryokomayuka Galad Damodred Perhaps neither can be proven true, but evolution has multitudinous evidence supporting it, whereas the Bible has near to none, and what little evidence exists is of doubtful reliability. Same with Evolution. The spotted moth and Haeckel's embryo are both falsehoods that are passed off as truths. There are probably more. We have all kinds of genetic and geological evidence. There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, but practically none for the Bible. aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:01 am
Sir BlackHeart elmon ryokomayuka Galad Damodred Perhaps neither can be proven true, but evolution has multitudinous evidence supporting it, whereas the Bible has near to none, and what little evidence exists is of doubtful reliability. Same with Evolution. The spotted moth and Haeckel's embryo are both falsehoods that are passed off as truths. There are probably more. We have all kinds of genetic and geological evidence. There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, but practically none for the Bible. aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in. So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:50 am
Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart elmon ryokomayuka Galad Damodred Perhaps neither can be proven true, but evolution has multitudinous evidence supporting it, whereas the Bible has near to none, and what little evidence exists is of doubtful reliability. Same with Evolution. The spotted moth and Haeckel's embryo are both falsehoods that are passed off as truths. There are probably more. We have all kinds of genetic and geological evidence. There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, but practically none for the Bible. aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in. So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. Quote: umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it! Quote: Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:34 pm
Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart elmon ryokomayuka Galad Damodred Perhaps neither can be proven true, but evolution has multitudinous evidence supporting it, whereas the Bible has near to none, and what little evidence exists is of doubtful reliability. Same with Evolution. The spotted moth and Haeckel's embryo are both falsehoods that are passed off as truths. There are probably more. We have all kinds of genetic and geological evidence. There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, but practically none for the Bible. aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in. So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. Quote: umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it! Quote: Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart elmon ryokomayuka Galad Damodred Perhaps neither can be proven true, but evolution has multitudinous evidence supporting it, whereas the Bible has near to none, and what little evidence exists is of doubtful reliability. Same with Evolution. The spotted moth and Haeckel's embryo are both falsehoods that are passed off as truths. There are probably more. We have all kinds of genetic and geological evidence. There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, but practically none for the Bible. aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in. So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. Quote: umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it! Quote: Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir. Really, please tell me how? because I really don't see how. Also General Idea=most of the time right on the money, well most of the time, and please don't use some moot counter statement like well back in the days people thought the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that was a general idea or some crap like. Oh and I am really expecting you to tell me how "General idea =/= reliable" and how I'm contradicting myself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:59 pm
Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart aahh man your still at it again, funny. But yes actually there is proof of the Bible as far as historical and geological, like there really was a Paul a Jesus, Then there are Jews, and also the fact that the book has some detailed geographical verbal maps. If you mean to say the Bible is not proof of GOD or if Jesus was the Son of GOD thats were faith comes in. So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Quote: Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it! Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir. Really, please tell me how? because I really don't see how. Also General Idea=most of the time right on the money, well most of the time, and please don't use some moot counter statement like well back in the days people thought the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that was a general idea or some crap like. Oh and I am really expecting you to tell me how "General idea =/= reliable" and how I'm contradicting myself? 1. THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION. LEARN TEH ENGLISH GRAMMARS PLZ. 2. General ideas are by definition not right on the money. If they were, they would be exact ideas. You're not contradicting yourself so much as you are stating a paradox. I have a general idea where Austria's Vienna is, but I don't stand a chance of picking it up on an unlabeled map, or finding my way there from Zurich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:37 am
I can...
...I wonder what that says about the state of my social life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:47 pm
Mein Kulturkampf Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred So... because of claims that Ernst Haeckel's sketches were fabricated and something about a spotted moth (FYI, there are myriad species of moth commonly called "spotted" - provide a scientific name, please) you say that the multitudinous evidence in favour of evolution is similarly unreliable. By your logic, I could claim that because some Christians are obnoxious, intolerant, ignorant and unenlightened, they all are. umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Quote: Yes, there was a Paul, a Jesus, a Peter, a Simon, a Nathaniel and a Thomas. There were Disciples, there was a Saviour, there are Jews - we are not debating the validity of the Bible as a historical resource. Because it contains the accounts of real people and has some detailed verbal maps (which are unreliable, at best), such things do not constitute academic validity. And if faith were a source of knowledge, we'd still be thinking the earth was flat. There are numerous problems with trying to justify any belief, philosophy, or religion on faith. The most significant may be the fact that there is no good reason for only allowing a single religious group to use it. If one person can offer it as a defense of a religious tradition, why can't a second person use it to defend an entirely different and incompatible religious tradition? Why can't a third person use it to defend an incompatible, secular philosophy? Faith can be used to justify anything, so ultimately, faith justifies nothing. Ha ha, thank you, philosophy class, I knew there was a reason I took it! Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir. Really, please tell me how? because I really don't see how. Also General Idea=most of the time right on the money, well most of the time, and please don't use some moot counter statement like well back in the days people thought the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that was a general idea or some crap like. Oh and I am really expecting you to tell me how "General idea =/= reliable" and how I'm contradicting myself? 1. THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION. LEARN TEH ENGLISH GRAMMARS PLZ. Quote: I can't believe you just insulted my grammar and then turned around a speak in internet lingo gonk 2. General ideas are by definition not right on the money. If they were, they would be exact ideas. You're not contradicting yourself so much as you are stating a paradox. I have a general idea where Austria's Vienna is, but I don't stand a chance of picking it up on an unlabeled map, or finding my way there from Zurich. Quote: Incorrect! I am stating neither a paradox nor a contradiction the fact is, this person has over analyzed what I have said, assumed what it was not, and then placed words in my mouth which I have not said. And why are you also making assumption to what I say, again I say General Idea most(there I put it in bold for you) of the time is right on the money. Most of the time, not all the time. You fail at explanations you do 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:51 pm
Galad Damodred I can... ...I wonder what that says about the state of my social life? I don't know, but I have yet to receive my explanation neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:54 pm
Sir BlackHeart Mein Kulturkampf Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir. Really, please tell me how? because I really don't see how. Also General Idea=most of the time right on the money, well most of the time, and please don't use some moot counter statement like well back in the days people thought the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that was a general idea or some crap like. Oh and I am really expecting you to tell me how "General idea =/= reliable" and how I'm contradicting myself? 1. THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION. LEARN TEH ENGLISH GRAMMARS PLZ. Quote: I can't believe you just insulted my grammar and then turned around a speak in internet lingo gonk 2. General ideas are by definition not right on the money. If they were, they would be exact ideas. You're not contradicting yourself so much as you are stating a paradox. I have a general idea where Austria's Vienna is, but I don't stand a chance of picking it up on an unlabeled map, or finding my way there from Zurich. Quote: Incorrect! I am stating neither a paradox nor a contradiction the fact is, this person has over analyzed what I have said, assumed what it was not, and then placed words in my mouth which I have not said. And why are you also making assumption to what I say, again I say General Idea most(there I put it in bold for you) of the time is right on the money. Most of the time, not all the time. You fail at explanations you do 3nodding The general idea is never on the money. The general idea means you have a vague knowledge of its uncertain whereabouts. You contradict yourself then when someone points it out, you say they're overanalyzing and putting words in your mouth. And I believe he was being ironic. You know, it's a rather caustic form of humour? Or is it too subtle for you? We'd probably better avoid sarcasm, allegory, allusion and satire too, and just stick with puns and wordplay for your sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:28 am
Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart Mein Kulturkampf Sir BlackHeart Galad Damodred Sir BlackHeart umm I really don't see What this has to do with what I wrote above? Umm if what your trying to say is a rhetoric to my above statement you should problably consider what I was saying and what I problably meant instead of assuming what I meant or was trying to say....Let me try to understand what you're trying to say first of how I understand what your statement. From your statement, I gather that you are trying to tell me that faith is not a grounds of proof correct? If that is so then I must say that that is not what my statement was intended to do, I was just saying that it requires faith to believe Jesus is the Son and GOD is real and all that, I'm not trying to say faith is proof. As for Verbal Maps being unreliable at best, that is in correct unless your one of those people who need detailed explanations for everything. Verbal maps present a general Idea of where specific locations are. Also debate? I'm responding to the first post in this thread, I'm sorry I wasn't here for the 3-4 pages you guys where arguing in, but again I only saw the first post. General idea =/= reliable. General idea = not exact. stare You contradict yourself, sir. Really, please tell me how? because I really don't see how. Also General Idea=most of the time right on the money, well most of the time, and please don't use some moot counter statement like well back in the days people thought the world was flat and you could fall off the edge and that was a general idea or some crap like. Oh and I am really expecting you to tell me how "General idea =/= reliable" and how I'm contradicting myself? 1. THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION. LEARN TEH ENGLISH GRAMMARS PLZ. Quote: I can't believe you just insulted my grammar and then turned around a speak in internet lingo gonk 2. General ideas are by definition not right on the money. If they were, they would be exact ideas. You're not contradicting yourself so much as you are stating a paradox. I have a general idea where Austria's Vienna is, but I don't stand a chance of picking it up on an unlabeled map, or finding my way there from Zurich. Quote: Incorrect! I am stating neither a paradox nor a contradiction the fact is, this person has over analyzed what I have said, assumed what it was not, and then placed words in my mouth which I have not said. And why are you also making assumption to what I say, again I say General Idea most(there I put it in bold for you) of the time is right on the money. Most of the time, not all the time. You fail at explanations you do 3nodding The general idea is never on the money. The general idea means you have a vague knowledge of its uncertain whereabouts. You contradict yourself then when someone points it out, you say they're overanalyzing and putting words in your mouth. Quote: actually if you mean to say general Idea about a location then you would be correct in a sense not all the time or most of the time you would know where to find a location from general Idea, but as for itself a general Idea being correct then yes, most of the time it is, or at least now a days with the information and knowledge we posses. And I believe he was being ironic. You know, it's a rather caustic form of humour? Or is it too subtle for you? We'd probably better avoid sarcasm, allegory, allusion and satire too, and just stick with puns and wordplay for your sake. Quote: considering you guys seem to take yourselves so seriously or maybe just your words I could rightfully assume( hey look I made another assumption 3nodding ) that you you guys could be serious, however I knew he wasn't serious. I put, I think a rather hilarious emote at the end of my response to what he said, however for the sake of yourself I should probably just plainly add that I know he, she, they, and/or you are being sarcastic, Ironic, etc just for future, seeing as though you can't deduce from an emote that someone might be joking or aware of and returning jesting to a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:52 pm
*sits back in chair eating popcorn*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
