Periods Meeting Quotes

@Frank Apisa,

I hope you are not hinting rather heavily that I am on any extreme in the arguments I take part in. I'll listen to both sides.

You seem to be assuming that my having seen nothing worthwhile from one side is the same as me being on the other side which I can see there's something worthwhile in. Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as a snowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

If we all became agnostics we would spend our time asking who or what this God was that none of us believed in. You have to have a God to not believe in Him. (I'm using capitals in case this is being read in Heaven,)

Our fairly recent ancestors probably didn't know they didn't believe in God.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I hope you are not hinting rather heavily that I am on any extreme in the arguments I take part in. I'll listen to both sides.

Are you suggesting here that it would be illogical to propose that you ever get extreme in any discussions or arguments, Spendius—that in fact, you are the essence of moderation and restrained temperament?

If you are, I disagree with you. You do sometimes gravitate to one extreme or another.

Quote:

You seem to be assuming that my having seen nothing worthwhile from one side is the same as me being on the other side which I can see there's something worthwhile in.

If that seems to be what I am saying, I can only suggest a re-reading of what I actually wrote. In any case, I assure you I was not “assuming” any such thing…and that I dislike when I see someone making that kind of assumption. I am not of the school of, “Either you are with me or you are against me” if that is what you are suggesting.

Quote:

Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as asnowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

I do not have the faintest idea of what you were trying to communicate with this sentence, Spendius. If you want to reword it, I will consider it.

Quote:

If we all became agnostics we would spend our time asking who or what this God was that none of us believed in. You have to have a God to not believe in Him. (I'm using capitals in case this is being read in Heaven,)

Ummm…this also is rather complicated…and I am not sure of what you are saying, but my guess is that I disagree with it anyway. If you want, spell it out a bit and I will comment further.

Quote:

Our fairly recent ancestors probably didn't know they didn't believe in God.

If you say so.

I have no idea if they probably did or probably did not. My guess is that they were superstitious and afraid of the unknown…and probably made guesses about the unknown.

Bottom line, Spendius…I think you mostly remain moderate in discussions (not always by any means)…and the remark in my last post was meant to be a humorous tweak, not an indictment of any sort.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I took it as a humorous tweak which is why I continued in the same vein.

Quote:

I do not have the faintest idea of what you were trying to communicate with this sentence, Spendius. If you want to reword it, I will consider it.

Perhaps you haven't heard Frank but that rhetorical escape clause is as old as the written record. Educated people, when they hear one or other of the handful of variations go " snarf, snarf--know what I mean squire!! " tapping the side of their nose gently with their first finger whilst raising one eyebrow.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Perhaps you haven't heard Frank but that rhetorical escape clause is as old as the written record. Educated people, when they hear one or other of the handful of variations go " snarf, snarf--know what I mean squire!! " tapping the side of their nose gently with their first finger whilst raising one eyebrow.

Okay.

TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS THREAD:

Here is the sentence Spendius wrote that I am having trouble understanding:

Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as asnowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

If anyone is able to offer a translation of that sentence into English...I would appreciate it, because Spendius is being very reasonable and courteous right now and I would like very much to respond to whatever that sentence means.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

My guess is that they were superstitious and afraid of the unknown

Are you suggesting that on Darwin's Tree of Life there was nothing before a species that was superstitious and afraid of the unknown?

I think you will find, according to scientists, that the bulk of your DNA is exactly the same as creatures which were not in the least superstitious. Whether they were not afraid of the unknown I don't really know.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I think you will find, according to scientists, that the bulk of your DNA is exactly the same as creatures which were not in the least superstitious. Whether they were not afraid of the unknown I don't really know.

My guess is that neither you nor any scientists know whether they were superstitious or not. You can guess...the scientists can guess...just as I guessed.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Cagey, Frank.

Why don't you have a problem with singular 'you' using a plural verb?

1 Reply

Quote:

Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as asnowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

I think what he's saying is that you simply attacking the side in which he sees something worthwhile is an effort to disguise (or cover up - hence the word 'snowstorm') the fact that you're not offering an alternative and will never persuade him.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Cagey, Frank.

Why don't you have a problem with singular 'you' using a plural verb?

What makes you think I should?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

I think what he's saying is that you simply attacking the side in which he sees something worthwhile is an effort to disguise (or cover up - hence the word 'snowstorm') the fact that you're not offering an alternative and will never persuade him.

Damn, I would have bet that nobody could actually decipher that sentence, but it appears you may have, Aidan.

I’ll re-write the sentence as you seem to be interpreting it…and you can tell me if I have captured the flavor of your interpretation.

His version: Attacking the side I see something worthwhile in as asnowstorm to disguise not offering an alternative is never going to persuade me.

What I think you think he is saying:

Frank, you are never going to persuade me of anything if all you do is to attack the side I happen to favor. That is just a snowstorm. Offer an alternative instead and you might make some headway.

Is that what you are saying Spendius was trying to say?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

My guess is that neither you nor any scientists know whether they were superstitious or not. You can guess...the scientists can guess...just as I guessed.

There is no evidence of any superstition before about 30,000 years ago. There's a mountain of evidence since.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5040436)
Quote:
My guess is that neither you nor any scientists know whether they were superstitious or not. You can guess...the scientists can guess...just as I guessed.

There is no evidence of any superstition before about 30,000 years ago. There's a mountain of evidence since.

There is no evidence of galaxies outside our own before the early 20th century. There is a mountain of evidence since.

That does not mean there were no galaxies outside our own earlier...and your comment does not mean there was no superstition.

We do not know if there was or if there wasn't.

Right?

2 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

I think what he's saying is that you simply attacking the side in which he sees something worthwhile is an effort to disguise (or cover up - hence the word 'snowstorm') the fact that you're not offering an alternative and will never persuade him.

That was easy wasn't it aidan? I think Frank was using an assertion of my incomprehensibility to cover being unable to answer the point.

Although your interpretation does not say that I will not be persuaded because of no alternative being offered. Which is what I meant.

I could be persuaded if an attractive alternative was on the table. It is because there isn't one that I am not persauded and not because I am fixed in my view.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We do not know if there was or if there wasn't.

Right?

Lost civilisations you mean I suppose. Atlantis. Continents swallowed up in remelts to return as lava.

I'll admit not taking that into account.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is no evidence of galaxies outside our own before the early 20th century. There is a mountain of evidence since.

That's a ridiculous argument Frank. Superstitions are a different order of being than galaxies. They are human constructions.

1 Reply

@spendius,

My guess is that neither you or any scientists now alive knows if there were any superstitious civilizations in prehistoric years. And since damn near every civilization during recorded history shows signs of superstitions, it is not unreasonable to suppose there might have been superstitious civilizations earlier than recorded history.

That is an alternative perspective to what you offered. It is not a snow storm or a blizzard. And it is a logical perspective.

Try dealing with that, Spendius.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

That's a ridiculous argument Frank. Superstitions are a different order of being than galaxies. They are human constructions.

One...it is not a ridiculous argument, Spendius...it simply is an argument you did not offer...and often you call arguments you have not offered "ridiculous." Doing that actually is rather ridiculous, don't you think?

Shot my best round of the year this morning, Spendius. A 78...and a very nice 78. Hope you are happy for me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Jack Nicklaus once posted a 78 in his prime. He said that he didn't think such a score possible. And that was on a golf course and in conditions which I don't imagine you have much experience of. Try Royal Lytham and St. Anne's in a westerly gale.

To conflate galaxies and superstitions under one head to make an argument is utterly ridiculous without one iota of mitigation.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Jack Nicklaus once posted a 78 in his prime. He said that he didn't think such a score possible. And that was on a golf course and in conditions which I don't imagine you have much experience of. Try Royal Lytham and St. Anne's in a westerly gale.

78 must have been a very, very disappointing score for Jack. It was beautiful beyond words for me today.

I gotta tell ya, when you shoot a round below 80, you feel like you've gone 15 rounds with Mike Tyson. I was exhausted at the end, but filled with elation. Cannot wait for tomorrow mornings round to see if the game stays the same. I did shoot an 83 yesterday...so obviously I have got my game in good shape at the moment.

Quote:

To conflate galaxies and superstitions under one head to make an argument is utterly ridiculous without one iota of mitigation.

I don't think so. To be bothered by the notion that someone managed to "conflate" galaxies and superstition to make an argument is ridiculous.

Think about it. You will finally see the light.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't need to think about it Frank. And the ridiculousness does not bother me in the slightest. I thought it amusing. It took anachronism into the realm of astrophysics.

1 Reply

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know