Getting the Last Word

you ain't seen a good spelling word until someone asks you to spell
PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICAVOLACOCONIOSIS.

As somebody or other once said, "And you can look that up in yer Funkin' Wagnall's."

Always makes me think of Jerry Lewis.

Not in a good way.

aaargh..I had to look it up...but it wasn't that I knew exactly w/o looking it up:

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Most people just say 'coniosis.' Means the same thing.

I'd rather say c'mere conure.

I presume that in real medical life this suppo word is divided up.

Hi Guys!

Whats the point of having a word that freaking long! Jeez.

Once more for tonight.....

Word.

(Am I as annoying as Bill& Dave & Hawkeye yet? )

Maybe that was Goldie Hawn;
or 1 of her friends.





David

I believe that, or something similar, was actually JoAnne Worley's line.

The two topics are "Intelligent Design: Science or Religion" and "Latest Challenges to Teaching Evolution".

Will you kindly explain to me ed why you think I have not addressed those topics. Telling me to "address the topic", twice, is intended to give the impression to those who don't know those threads that I have not been addressing the topic all this time and that is self-evidently not only absurd but false.

So why do you seek to give viewers here a false impression ed? Don't they deserve better than that?

I have maintained for 8 years that Intelligent Design is scientific and I have done nothing else on the other thread than challenge the teaching of evolution in schools and trying, in vain, to get my opponents to say what teaching evolution actually means, how to go about teaching it and who is to teach it under which authority. My opponents have refused to answer any of those questions and it is therefore them you should be telling to address the topic.

As it stands they want to teach evolution without defining it and with no plan how to do it. And they have no suggestions to make about how to replace the inhibitions on natural carnality that religion provides with anything else of their own devising. Perhaps they do have suggestions about that but daren't say what they are because they'll be laughed to scorn if they do. Which leaves them unleashing natural carnality unfettered or biding their time until they come to power.

But that you seek to give viewers here a false impression about my contribution to those threads is a sign of the techniques they will employ if they do come to power. Which would be an unmitigated disaster.

Your challenges, as you know, are not in the realm of the thread aim. When the thread originator posts concerning efforts by fundamentalists to block evolution from the schools, or to override that subject by replacing it with their personal brand of religion, you issue your challenges, which are not really addressing the issue. Not to mention, your challenges are often too convoluted to be taken seriously on their own merit. You want to turn the topic of evolution upside down. The premise of the thread is that evolution is based on solid science and that fundamentalists want religion instead, in schools. Which is why your queries, regardless of their merit, are best suited for a thread started by you.

Anybody can challenge anything anybody posts on here or says in a debate or discussion. That's the general idea. Isn't it? If it isn't then all posts become spam. Adverts. Unanswered propaganda.

And they are not limited to challenging whatever is said in terms that are approved by those being challenged because if they were to be then what is approved will be selected for being easily disposed of and thus a sitting duck competition in which nobody can miss that being the nature of sitting ducks.

Your objection is based on you demanding I be a sitting duck.

I'm not even against teaching evolution in schools. I'm looking for justification from your side for doing it. If you can show that it would be a benefit to society, which it might well be, then I would be persuaded. It is a dramatic and dynamic reversal of our culture if we allow for the logic of the operation of such a policy. For example--Christians would be banned from teaching science and as science diffuses into other subjects they would be banned from teaching altogether and by further extensions of logic they would be banned from the USSC and the Presidency and all points downwards. An atheist party would come to power.

Of course-- if it is just an airy-fairy abstract notion accompianed by a sweeping gesture of the hand in a louche manner, then I don't suppose much will happen. But actually doing it, as promoting the idea must be intended to do, and developing it in a superpower's schools is no airy-fairy notion which just happens to coincide with a desire to remove Christian sexual inhibitions from a personal life.

I reject your strictures and I'm totally astonished that I'm the only one doing so. Even the NFL doesn't allow homefield advantage in every game. And it's homefield advantage you are after and I know it.

The thread aim is, or ought to be, entertaining the members. This is a medium of entertainment. And a good argument entertains people. Maybe they learn something from it, maybe they don't.

And it is not entertainment listening to a bunch of anti-IDers all patting each other on the back and agreeing about how awful religion is. Not for 8 years anyway. 8 minutes more like. At a stretch.

What's the point of commiserating with each other about what assholes the fundies are knocking at the door and making the dog bark? Especially when blissfully unaware of what assholes pet-dog owners are. Fancy having to bring the law in to get them to stop leaving dog **** all over the sidewalks as if they didn't know what a disgusting thing it is for anybody to do and had to be told legally. If that's not proof of what assholes pet dog owners are I don't know what is. They had to be legislated against such was the mess they made for the rest of us. With their digested dog food. (with marrowbone jelly, which shows the sorites effect on the love of animals.) In this case it's only ego deep. They liked leaving the mess. It was empowering.

So tell us your idea of what exactly the "realm of the thread aim" is.

UNchallenged.

Spendius: The thread aim is, or ought to be, entertaining the members.

I know how you could entertain some members and it doesn't involve trolling those threads.

I'm ambidextrous ed.

Quote: Me, once I've stated my case, and find that a specific poster is going to keep on disagreeing, no matter what I say, I gladly get the hell out of the conversation. No sense in beating my head against a brick wall

I will check in now and again, to see how the thread is going, though.

That sounds like a minor character in a Tom Sharpe novel.

I can see i'm gonna hafta wait a long time to get the last word in here.