Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Mr. Shirakawasuko said:

Quote:

Even aidan, who thought[b] they[/b] could figure some of them out and that it was just a cultural barrier, missed a number of them.

(emphasis mine)

Does that mean you'd buy all of us a beer? Aidan (with an 'a') is only one person - that's me - my real name is Rebecca and I'm one integrated personality (no issue with multiples) so no reason to call me a 'they'.
Jaysus - all this intelligence and scientific knowledge and you still can't figure out subject/pronoun agreement.

But anyway - what part of the country are you in? I'm in NY - I'll be traveling down to NC at the end of the month and then around to see friends before I leave the country- so if you're anywhere on the way to somewhere I'm going anyway - I'd be delighted to take you up on your invitation. Of course, you'd also have to buy my daughter a root beer - she'll be with me - I could spring for that though.

I think you're right about the dynamic of being more sensitive and aware about differences when you're in a strange environment. But I don't think that explains the phenomena I'm trying to express.

I think there is a measureable difference in how Brits and Americans respond to and even report information. It's apparent when you read news in print - when you watch it on tv- when you listen to the radio, etc. and then make comparisons.
It's kind of too long and drawn out and off-topic to go into here - but if we ever met for a beer - I might try to explain it to you.

CI- Some of my favorite people are people who have learning disabilities too...no pretense...so refreshingly genuine.

When I was in England I did volunteer work with this agency that provided social opportunities for adults with learning disabilities and one young woman became one of my very best friends while I was there. Her name was Jenny - we'd go out to the library, stationary store, whatever and then for a cup of tea. One day we're sitting in this little tea room about the size of my dining room full of people and she says to me,
'Becky - never get arrested when you're having your monthly.' (Sorry to be indelicate - but hey this is a science forum and we're talking about biology and stuff right?).
Well all the people in earshot kind of lifted up their heads, looked over and then resumed minding their own business.
So I responded, quietly, hoping she'd take my cue and lower her voice - I said, 'I think I can manage that Jenny...have you been arrested?'
I put my finger to my lips to indicate she should whisper. She says, 'Many, many times....I have an issue with anger. I get in a lot of fights.'
Talk about fascinating..I'd end up hanging on her every word. What lessons in life she could give - and I'd guess her measureable IQ to be about 70- somewhere on the border between trainable and educable.
Anyway - I'm entirely in agreement with you about the role of intelligence in life - it's certainly not the be-all and end-all.

In fact sometimes I think it can serve to be somewhat of an evolutionary disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Shira:
I never said I don't believe in evolution of the species. I most certainly do...so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in terms of me being guilty of employing any type of fallacy in the reasoning in my posts.

0 Replies

aidan-

I'll explain this for you-

Quote:

Hey. You, too. Naturalistic fallacy. Lookit up

A phiosopher called G.E.Moore coined the term "naturalistic fallacy" over 100 years ago. He said that no matter how you define "good" the question of whether it "is" good is not resolvable. And besides mentioning things like pleasure, as Aquinas did, and happiness he also mentioned furthering evolution. He said that the word "good" resists analysis and that trying to define it is the "naturalistic fallacy".

It is a question of ethics and as such is out of place, off topic and irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

He was trying to be objective about "good".

There is another meaning. It is when what is natural is said to be "good" because it is natural and "bad" is what is unnatural.

But it can be argued that whatever happens is natural and is therefore "good" as some say war is because it furthers evolution.

But the next problem is that you get to where unnatural becomes a synonym for emptiness.

The naturalistic fallacy is in operation when it is claimed that my writing is "bad" on the first definition and such a claim is nonsensical on the second definition because me having written has happened and is thus "good".

As it is generally held that "indignation" is bad an accusation of indignation is another example of the naturalistic fallacy in operation in both its guises. It's a second remove version of "bad" is "indignation". Getting you knickers in a twist is definitely bad though unless you are using them as a temporary fan-belt on the hard shoulder to try to save on recovery vehicle charges. Then it's "good". But not for the recovery firm. It's bad for them. It's good for knicker shops too.

I hope that clears the matter up for you. It's common sense actually but you know what these weavers of the winds are like? They need to make the obvious look all complicated otherwise they might have to empty the dunny tins which is all most of them are fit for. Making the obvious complicated is "good" and emptying the dunnies is "bad". That's why the pay differential exists between the two occupations because it's quite plain that the "good" should get bigger rewards than the "bad" and, as it happens, it is natural and thus "good". Right and proper even.

But the John Smith's Extra Smooth in the pub last night was "absolutely fabulous" as was Carole's low cut top and I daresay Mr Moore would have agreed because we all know what a bunch of randy piss-artists philosophers are from A through Z.

0 Replies

Thank you Spendius - for my laugh of the day...

Carole's low cut top huh - what color was it? This is a test....

or not really a test - but just a way to show how the two genders of the same species might differ...

My hypothesis is that you did not notice the color- is that correct?
Whereas if I'd been there, this morning, I'd have been able to tell you the color of the blouse- what type of sleeves-(right down to what the style of sleeve would be called), etc. you get the picture.

It reminds me of my Christmas time at the pub. I was sitting with my friend who lived in the village (he didn't have room for me to stay at his place) so he knew all these people.

And we were people watching - which is what we always do and he points out this sort of movie star handsome guy and says, 'I'm sure that's the one you'd go for- that's the one ALL the women would go for...'

And I said, 'Well, I'm not GOING for ANYONE- but if you're asking me who appears to be the most interesting or attractive male personality in this room right now - aside from you of course (we always mess around with each other like that)- I said, 'I'd pick THAT guy.' And he responded - 'Wow- interesting...' The guy was pretty nondescript - except that he was tall. But to me- I just thought his bearing and expression were interesting. Turns out, as my friend told me - he was whom he considered to be the most intelligent person (aside from himself- my friend - who IS really intelligent) in the room.

Then I picked out who I thought he'd be most interested in - and I was right. She was the most extravagantly turned out woman in the room - my friend said, 'She looks like a French tart - and she gets it just right...' Laughing

See , so you can have these interesting evolutionary discussions in the pub.

0 Replies

And now they are courting.

That can be a good thing and then again it can be a bad thing. But Becksie is to be chaperoned so it will be a long dragged out negotiation I should think.

I might add to my previous post by saying that an argumentum ad hominem is "bad" and thus accusations of using it is an aspect of the naturalistic fallacy in both forms. But it can be "good" as well.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

And now they are courting.

That can be a good thing and then again it can be a bad thing. But Becksie is to be chaperoned so it will be a long dragged out negotiation I should think.

I might add to my previous post by saying that an argumentum ad hominem is "bad" and thus accusations of using it is an aspect of the naturalistic fallacy in both forms. But it can be "good" as well.

No, they're not courting - turns out she was the wife of the movie star handsome guy...I didn't know that though when I pointed her out - she wasn't sitting with him - she was talking to someone on the other side of the room.

I'm to be chaperoned - or I am the chaperone? Actually - neither. I couldn't stand to chaperone anyone and I don't need a chaperone.

But I do appreciate you explaining these terms for me. It's all so much clearer now.

0 Replies

aidan wrote-

Quote:

My hypothesis is that you did not notice the color- is that correct?

In fact you are incorrect. It was, I presume still is, wherever it is now, chucked on the floor Emin-style I should think, black. Not scientific black but black colloquially. She has worn it every Sat night since I told her how much it suits her, contrasting, as it does, with her flawless snow white epidermis so powerfully and symbolising the dark regions of her inscrutable whatever it is that none of us can make head or tail of. It is low at the front, and very low when she has a forwards lean which she often does, and at the back it consists of a triangular network of laces with variable spaces engineered in such a way that the inverted apex points to, and slightly hides, the first indications, the northern extemity geographically, of the cleft between her buttocks. I would have said lovely buttocks but I might get accused of deploying the naturalistic fallacy because lovely and good are more or less the same in this case although there are others in the pub whose buttocks are not lovely and I wouldn't be seen saying they were bad. They look good for sitting on park benches with. Bring your own cushions.

Anyway- it has a psychosmatic effect on me and Vic and Mike which she is well aware of and sometimes amuses herself with. She inherited £50 grand a few weeks back. I'm not gone on her like Vic is though. I'm an ascetic these days. A disinterested observer. A ****ologist. Vic offered her an all expenses paid fortnight in Tenerife with no hanky-panky and she turned him down. I suggested he try the Ritz in Paris but he bottled out on that.

In the old days I picked them out price consciously. The extravagantly dressed lady is a daunting prospect in my experience.

Carole would get strung up in Iran and probably N Korea as well.

She has that fantastic combination of stupidity (male version) and aloofness and insouciance which drives some intellectuals into performing contortions.

0 Replies

Mr. Shirakawasuko wrote-

Quote:

I haven't seen you defend your use of that word yet, either. I think you know that it's despicable.

What word do you mean?

And what is PCP? Not spit roasting is it?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

aidan-

I'll explain this for you-

Quote:
Hey. You, too. Naturalistic fallacy. Lookit up

A phiosopher called G.E.Moore coined the term "naturalistic fallacy" over 100 years ago. He said that no matter how you define "good" the question of whether it "is" good is not resolvable. And besides mentioning things like pleasure, as Aquinas did, and happiness he also mentioned furthering evolution. He said that the word "good" resists analysis and that trying to define it is the "naturalistic fallacy".

It is a question of ethics and as such is out of place, off topic and irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

So why have you been attempting to talk about the moral and ethical implications of teaching Evolution (or rather, not teaching your version of Intelligent Design)?

Quote:

I hope that clears the matter up for you. It's common sense actually but you know what these weavers of the winds are like?

This is rich coming from you, a man who consistently buries the points he's trying to make under as many anecdotes and irrelevant natterings as possible, for example, Post 3257120, which is little more than a veiled insult.

And what about joke making is relevant to the discussion at hand?

0 Replies

Wow! I'm impressed. But only partially, you didn't tell the whole story from the get-go. The way you told it, I thought she was wearing the blouse for the first time last night- but obviously she's adopted it as a 'uniform' of sorts for her nights at the pub.

She's worn it ever since you told her it suits her? You know what that means don't you?
It means that there's a possiblity that if YOU'D been the one to offer her the all expense paid trip to Tenerife - she'd have bitten.
Or maybe she only turned Vic down because of his caveat of no sex - maybe SHE wanted sex - ever think of that?

Spendius - I'll help you out with the PCP thing. Here's a link:http://www.drugs.com/pcp.html

I'd stay away from it if I were you. Nasty side effects.
You don't need it anyway - stay high on life - and stuff like Carole's lovely butt cleft... Laughing

(that was so diplomatic of you to refrain from being derogatory about the other butts in the pub - I like that - good for sitting on park benches - bring a cushion...)

0 Replies

Mr. Shirakawasuko wrote

Quote:

Congratulations on understanding what you yourself write. If you didn't do at least that much you would indeed be bordering on lunacy. That doesn't mean anyone else can figure it out, of course.

And it doesn't mean that no one can figure it out either.

Quote:

I'm not going to any lengths to avoid anything. You quite simply suck at writing and I'm sorry that it apparently hurts your feelings. Try this, for once: try to write clearly and straightforwardly for the next 10 posts. If you have a point to make, refuse the urge to editorialize like your heroes.

Sucking at writing is "bad" (NF in operation). Having hurt feelings is bad (NF in operation). And I don't editorialise.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
ID is composed of religion and science. Anti-ID is composed of just science. I do not see how it would not be totalitarian. And thousands of responses by AIDsers have inchoate totalitarianism character lacking only power to be the Big Fist.

This is a big pile of fail, to put it kindly. ID is full of people who lie to pretend that they are practicing only science, not pseudoscientific support for religious ideals. Apparently you haven't paid attention to them.

A big pile of fail is bad (NF in operation).

Argumentum ad hominem also in operation. The "argument to the man" having changed the subject I mean and is going to some lengths to avoid the point made.

0 Replies

Wolf, You should have realized by now that spendi's ability to qualify anything is based on his personal perception in a world that judges evolution as an unqualified waste of time while dancing philosophical about past authors and how that translates into his foundation of life.

For some unknown reason, his fear to acknowledge evolution has confused his reality of our temporary lives on this planet. He'd rather quote the many famous authors of yesteryear rather than live a full and productive life today; his daily trek to the pub and a2k is his life.

His life is a cloister.

0 Replies

I just don't like the dishonesty he employs, that's all. His tactics reek of dishonesty, but then again, it's debatable whether you can call it dishonest if the dishonest person doesn't know that (s)he's being dishonest or not.

Perhaps we should just start a new thread and let Spendius talk about what he wants here.

Frankly, we shouldn't need to do this or kowtow to him, but if the moderators won't do anything about it, then what other choice do we have?

0 Replies

Post: 3257979 - Points worth considering.

Quote:

Have you read the Wedge document?

No. I heard it was a load of crap.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
If the "energy/inorganic whatnot" didn't POOF life into existence how did life get started?

Most research and theory today postulates a catalyzed system that led to sustainable, self-replicating molecules. I won't go into the details right now for three reasons: 1) it's off-topic, 2) it's very complicated and I don't understand all of it either, although I do get the basic chemical ideas, and 3) it would feed into the notion that it is somehow my onus to show the lack of necessity for some kind of designer, when that is clearly not the case. The evidence points to life on earth starting at a point in the distant past and we have frankly come a long way to understanding some possible pathways (although finding anything definitive may be impossible). That's it and that's close to the entirety of my opinion on the matter.

It is very sensible for you to refrain from going into the details. Waffle is the way forward on that subject as you so correctly preceive.

Quote:

Note that I don't say that the RNA world hypothesis is necessarily true or has huge amounts of evidence for it being the case, but that it's an interesting exploration of the plausibility of abiogenesis in general.

I'm all for interesting explorations of plausibilities but not for using them as an excuse to shove Darwin into classrooms (watered down versions I mean) where the community doesn't want it.

Quote:

There's nothing about nuclear reactions (like fission/fusion) that seems to require organic molecules, nor would that imply anything like a perpetual motion machine,

Nuclear reactions are dependent in many ways on energy from organic sources. They are not yet self sustaining in the economic sense. If they became so they would be perpetual motion machines. What I mean is that the nuclear reactions would need to provide all the energy required to build, maintain and clear them up when finished with. Until they can do that they are dependent on organic or hydro/wind. Mainly organic. They might even be said to be just a way of focussing the other energy inputs. When they can do without them you have perpetual motion I think. Don't you? Not infinite though. But as near as makes no difference.
.

Quote:

Perhaps you could show me the mathematical models contained in the Bible.

The comparison Jesus made between this world and a lightning flash. A serious blasphemy at the time. They were frightened of the infinite and the infinitessimal. For religious reasons of their own. It's why they never got into "our" mathematics. I've discussed it before but AIDsers turned away in disgust. It is quite a complex piece of speculation on my part I'll admit. And I think original. Spengler simply says that it was an instinct of Nicolas Cusanus that led him to the elements of the differential calculus from the unendingness of God but I think the Bishop had been studying the Luke gospel which is something in the world that happened and which AIDsers are trying to discredit on the grounds that Jesus couldn't walk on water.

[/quote]Uh... are you really using your pub as a pinnacle of Christianity?[/quote]

No. A microcosmic example. A hypermarket would do just as well. Or a Test Match. Or a ring top beer can.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
There's nothing stupider to me than a Muslim who has managed to get here staying a Muslim and what's even stupider is making a big deal out of it.

Ah, so you're a religious bigot. Got it. I've noticed that this kind of bigotry usually goes hand-in-hand with personal insecurities.

Not at all. If I went to live in a Muslim country for its benefits I would become a Muslim at the airport. I'm not an anal retentive because I don't fart in churches during wedding and funeral ceremonies. When in Rome. That's in the Bible I think. It's only good manners.

Quote:

Here's a more simple response: light is a natural phenomena from physical interactions which possesses both wave-like and particle-like qualities (like most other particles). It "comes from" those physical interactions. I suppose you want an answer similar to theistic answers, but I'm sorry you're not going to get one: those types of answers are both nonanswers and usually unwarranted. I don't possess that kind of arrogance.

That's waffle. George might explain why.

0 Replies

aidan wrote-

Quote:

She's worn it ever since you told her it suits her? You know what that means don't you?
It means that there's a possiblity that if YOU'D been the one to offer her the all expense paid trip to Tenerife - she'd have bitten.

Nice word "bitten". It's why it wasn't me.

Quote:

Or maybe she only turned Vic down because of his caveat of no sex - maybe SHE wanted sex - ever think of that?

No. You haven't seen Vic.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

You should have realized by now that spendi's ability to qualify anything is based on his personal perception in a world that judges evolution as an unqualified waste of time

You're dead wrong there old chap. I operate on evolutionary principles.

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

You even think price gouging is "wrong". i.e. "bad" (NF in operation). And price gouging is tummy tickling in the struggle for existence.

I wish my life was a cloister.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It seems perfectly clear to me what it means. And your "no one" is the epitome of arrogant, self-reassuring complacency.

I'll repeat that you test out your ideas of being comprehensible. So far we've seen people agreeing with me explicitly or implicitly. The one person who thought it could be explained by cultural differences also has issues figuring out what you're trying to say.

Need I remind you that you are not writing a novel but are on a forum?

spendius wrote:

And it is what is happening in respect of those who claim to speak for science coming out of their secure compounds and preaching about political issues and using the credibility of science and partial arguments to push their own boat out either for cash or to draw attention to themselves. The fact that they do that may not prove that they have run out of scientific steam but it certainly suggests it.

Who is claiming to speak for science? This is an accusation I only see from people who are pushing an agenda, either against specific science popularizers they disagree with or against science in general. Of course, they never manage to back up that accusation and neither have you, relying yet again on unsupported assertion.

Then, after you manage to find someone implying that they speak for science (I doubt you'll find anything explicit), you'll have to show how their motivations are cash or personal recognition, which is another unsupported assertion, this time likely a highly insulting one.

spendius wrote:

Do you really think that the tobacco and alcohol problems are as simple as these people make them out to be. If you do you are no scientist. Both of them are incredibly complex problems when related to national interest. Even the argument about health costs that they use is patently false and that's simple to understand.

I don't know, you haven't specified a single one of "these people" and I would guess that your only resource for judging what scientists actually think comes from a general mishmash of decent science articles and popular newspaper-style ones (which often make big mistakes). Both are complex problems, although longitudinal studies show that lifelong smoking does indeed strongly correlate with increased mortality.

I don't follow the arguments about health costs in the UK, but in the U.S. a lot of the information you receive about that is from lobbying groups and generally not to be trusted. Note that these lobbying groups != scientists.

spendius wrote:

I'm not bad mouthing modern science at all. You can read Nature all year and not see a name that comes on TV spouting over-simplifications.

Sure. But I doubt they're out there trying to speak for science - it's usually the journalists who are at fault.

spendius wrote:

I'll badmouth the latter types but don't confuse that with badmouthing modern science. The vast bulk of modern scientists are getting on with their jobs and have my full support. In the political field you are supposed to get elected before you can start pushing people about. Science is disinterested. It can make abortion safe and efficient in practical terms there and then but when it starts on about what to do with the science it has taken off its scientific hat. Entirely. It is just another citizen then. The scientific cachet is thus abused and so is the public. That's badmouthing science for me.

There is a very simple way to put this: the nonscientific opinions of scientists are not science. At the same time there's a line which can be blurred, as scientists also tend to understand the specifics of these situations, and as such people seek them out for personal opinions to construct journalistic arguments from authority. I think people actually like that.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Does that mean you'd buy all of us a beer? Aidan (with an 'a') is only one person - that's me - my real name is Rebecca and I'm one integrated personality (no issue with multiples) so no reason to call me a 'they'.

"They" can be used as the "neutered" third person personal pronoun, as I forget whether you were male or female.

aidan wrote:

Jaysus - all this intelligence and scientific knowledge and you still can't figure out subject/pronoun agreement.

Uh.... see above.

I'm on the West Coast so it's probably unlikely that I'll be able to buy you a beer Sad

.

I'm sure there are differences in how Brits and Americans absorb and deal with information. I just somewhat doubt it's quite how you characterize it, or that you have missed some important differences Wink

.

aidan wrote:

I never said I don't believe in evolution of the species. I most certainly do...so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to in terms of me being guilty of employing any type of fallacy in the reasoning in my posts.

Hey, I thought I told you to look it up Wink

. People who agree with evolutionary principles, or perhaps more accurately think they do (it's a bit complicated) can often make the same mistake. They also often make the moralistic fallacy, which is related.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But the next problem is that you get to where unnatural becomes a synonym for emptiness.

The naturalistic fallacy is in operation when it is claimed that my writing is "bad" on the first definition and such a claim is nonsensical on the second definition because me having written has happened and is thus "good".

Nope. "Bad" in this context isn't moralistic, very obviously, so you've misapplied the label. It has to do with a more general idea of both stylistic and pragmatic clarity in the writing.

spendius wrote:

As it is generally held that "indignation" is bad an accusation of indignation is another example of the naturalistic fallacy in operation in both its guises.

I've already clarified this, so please pay attention. Indignation is not an insult of any kind. You can apply it to someone as you praise them. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the naturalistic fallacy.

spendius wrote:

It's a second remove version of "bad" is "indignation".

Nope, already clarified this.

spendius wrote:

Getting you knickers in a twist is definitely bad though unless you are using them as a temporary fan-belt on the hard shoulder to try to save on recovery vehicle charges. Then it's "good". But not for the recovery firm. It's bad for them. It's good for knicker shops too.

Wait... apparently you thought it was enough to support the claim that it falls under both versions of the fallacy because you could equivocate "bad" with "indignant"? That deserves a LOL.

spendius wrote:

I hope that clears the matter up for you. It's common sense actually but you know what these weavers of the winds are like? They need to make the obvious look all complicated otherwise they might have to empty the dunny tins which is all most of them are fit for.

Nope, I've never tried to make this complicated. In fact, I've only pointed at a rather common fallacy that you were both at liberty to look up. It took you quite some time, too.

spendius wrote:

Making the obvious complicated is "good" and emptying the dunnies is "bad". That's why the pay differential exists between the two occupations because it's quite plain that the "good" should get bigger rewards than the "bad" and, as it happens, it is natural and thus "good". Right and proper even.

Random tangent. That'll be my new label for your ramblings, since apparently you think I dismiss them as just a way to brush off valid points.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What word do you mean?

"AIDsers"

spendius wrote:

And what is PCP? Not spit roasting is it?

PCP is an extremely hallucinagenic drug that leads to erratic behavior and general nonsensicalness.

------- another post

spendius wrote:

And it doesn't mean that no one can figure it out either.

Correct, that would be supported by other things. Which is why you have a nice implicit straw man on your hands, since the sentence you're replying to did not have that as its intention nor as its conclusion nor as it's argument.

spendius wrote:

Sucking at writing is "bad" (NF in operation). Having hurt feelings is bad (NF in operation). And I don't editorialise.

Meh, I was clearly referencing the second version you list of the naturalistic fallacy in any case. Sucking at writing means you suck at writing and nothing more, spendius. It means people don't understand what you're saying much of the time. I would characterize that as poor communication, so take from it what you will.

Of course you editorialize, LOL. Essentially every time you go off on one of your tangents or attempt to speak about what scientists think, etc, you editorialize.

spendius wrote:

A big pile of fail is bad (NF in operation).

Uh, no, not in a moralistic sense. You clearly have some issues with recognizing any kind of context and instead revert to the pretense of applying the label of the fallacy you just learned. The 'fail' refers to your argument being "bad" in the general sense I spoke of earlier in reference to your writing: it doesn't follow, doesn't make sense, isn't supported in the facts, etc.

And I go on to explain why, too, so you'd think you would catch that.

spendius wrote:

Argumentum ad hominem also in operation. The "argument to the man" having changed the subject I mean and is going to some lengths to avoid the point made.

Completely and obviously false. You apparently didn't read the quote you just listed, as I state explicitly why you are wrong and do not rely on any fallacious ad hominem.

0 Replies

Mr S wrote-

Quote:

I'll repeat that you test out your ideas of being comprehensible. So far we've seen people agreeing with me explicitly or implicitly. The one person who thought it could be explained by cultural differences also has issues figuring out what you're trying to say.

The first sentence of that is not only incomprehensible but downright astoundingly so. It's a fancy way of saying "you're talking out of your ass". Are you suggesting that were I to take up your suggestion and test my own comprehension I might discover that I don't know what I'm talking about. (Now say that sentence in the tone of a lady to whom you have made an inappropriate suggestion.) And if I found that my comprehension was up to speed you would simply say test it again.

If you think the number of people agreeing with your side has any effect on me you must not even be up to speed on the thread. Even c.i. noticed my immunity in that direction.

And if, as I presume, you mean aidan is the one who has issues figuring it out, she would scoff at such a daft idea, let me tell you that we have form back 3 years, it must be now, my- how time doth fly and lo the bird is on the wing, so I wouldn't worry about me and Becksie. We've had our ups and downs.

We once tried to write a romantic tale set in 18th Century France on a story thread and she couldn't figure out what I was getting at in that but she seemed to like the idea of being chased through the bushes by men of doubtful character. To cut a much longer story short with a cliche.

(Early bath--Sunday. Pub shuts early.)

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know