1
   

Help! Craven needs new words for his lengthy debates.

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:06 pm
<hic>
hehe
<snort>


bloviate - that is such a keeper!
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:31 pm
Afna. Define it as you will. Or try Syfqua. If you need any more random arrangements of letters, I'm glad to oblige.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:35 pm
Afna - isn't that Ben Affleck and his latest galpal?
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:38 pm
Re: Help! Craven needs new words for his lengthy debates.
cavfancier wrote:
........My first suggestion might be 'filiblustery', which could mean when ad hominem arguments catch wind and get bloated........


i must point out cav; that you mispelled 'filiblustery'; it should be 'philiblustery' indicating an imbedded love of philling the air with 'bluster'!
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:41 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Wouldn't that be "corrinect"?


or how about 'corronerect' - too much Viagra! Shocked

and gives new meaning to 'bloviate' Laughing
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:46 pm
jespah wrote:
Afna. Define it as you will. Or try Syfqua. If you need any more random arrangements of letters, I'm glad to oblige.


'afna' would, of course be a variation on the term 'manyana' for something to be postponed till after one's siesta.

and 'syfqua' would refer to someones propensity for downing huge amounts of water in short order.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
Anyone who uses eleemosynary correctly neither needs our help, nor is likely to profit from it.


oh yes, 'eleemosynary'; that's where the marine orphanages are maintained is it not? (can't vouch for the ethics of the 'caregivers' though!)
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:57 pm
and........ getting back to Craven's needs; how about 'creeven'.

that's what you have just been when rebounding from a response from our 'invigilate' leader. (or should i have said 'indivigheleat' leader?)
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 07:31 pm
How about "bumpkis." Say it with an old geezery jewish accent.
0 Replies
 
K e v i n
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 08:03 pm
How about confoundit?

or Consarnit?

or are these words more geared toward use by someone else, someone more, hicklike...

with a picthfork.....
0 Replies
 
K e v i n
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 08:03 pm
huh, hicklike, theres another one
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 08:25 pm
Slotterhodge and slubberdegullion are two essential words for any debate. Carefully inserted at the appropriate time they can be quite disarming.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 08:27 pm
Nice to see this thread pluggeling along nicelylike.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:00 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Portal Star wrote:
I think Craven could make use of the word:

Because.

For example,

I disagree because....

I think you are in correct because....

I feel this way about you/your arguments because....


History:

Portal makes a false claim with no substantiation.

I call BS on it.

Now Portal wants me to prove a negative.

Portal, you need the "because". You made a claim you need to substantiate it. This is called burden of proof.


being incorrect is different than being unsubstantiated.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:08 pm
Indeed, and if you get back over there you will see why I feel that a big part about being allowed to consider a theory correct is in the ability to substantiate it. And not to demand substantiation of its negative.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:21 pm
I think the word "dwarfy" is a good one for Craven to use, to mean circular logic. If any of you have seen the "agnostics: Do you believe in god" thread, you know exactly what I'm talking about here.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 11:27 am
ehBeth and BoGoWo, thanks for the definitions.

Drafoon
Beesh
Zlotva

I hope these help.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 12:46 pm
I'm fond of 'capistranic', which refers to an argument that continually and inexpicably returns to the same point.
0 Replies
 
K e v i n
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 12:50 pm
What about qwerty?
Its simple to type, and it can mean whatever you want it to.
0 Replies
 
kirsten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2004 01:44 pm
Plumbuminotion -an idea that sinks like a lead weight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Help! Craven needs new words for his lengthy debates.
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:45:57
▲ ▼