Tiassa accused Kittamaru of implying that members were "fucking morons" in another thread. I was just pointing out the irony.
Indeed. That was exactly what I was thinking. But I am not sure Tiassa wasn't simply being sarcastic/facetious, here, in this thread. If he was actually suggesting the readers aren't capable of following this, then yes, that is ironic, if not hypocritical. But I'll leave that for him to clarify if he is of a mind.
Blasphemy I am currently, actually almost constantly upgrading, the numerous gadgets - phones and tablets at the moment. Once I have superficially worked out good / bad points and value for money I pass them on This trip gave one person a 10 inch tablet and a $15 mobile phone I had only just bought. Other girl got a good smart phone plus a 6 inch tablet Brought back with me 2 $15 2 sim card phones which are also analog TVs. While Australia is now digital the facility can be used as mini video tablets Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That particular passage was sarcasm. Belittling Kittmaru was standard procedure for Tiassa for dealing with anyone and everyone, that and laborious language.
They are very good at what they do and I say what they do best is to kill other humans. It is modern times and the present unnecessary pleasantries that holds them back such that this skill grows less used and only manifests in cruelty and inequity but mostly professional sport the kill you have when not having a kill both for participant and spectator alike. And so there become more humans overlooking their ability to cull and not doing what they do best but then pretend they neglect their talent to be "civilized" . To push aside their prime ability does leave opportunity to call them useless. I can make not judgement other than folk see what they wish. Some will include, I hope, in their prayers, a request to their concept of the designer to send me my pigeon and I hold such hope because their very being as I understand is to be good to others. Some would if my text were on paper find a more practical use and having used rather than read flush all I have said down the toilet but thankfully without judging me or my words, the same words yet others again would see me chock upon as they cut off my head. The only part of import is did the audience enjoy the show and what emotions did I stir hate, fear, love wonder disgust, all of those I hope and all at once. I can not answer, perhaps will not, perhaps should not, I remain and present either as a very clever man or a very stupid one either assessment perhaps overlooks I am just a man. Alex
I know you are a nurse and should know what you are doing but if they try to swallow that ...I would go for the small pills..less risk. Alex
Should? Should?? What's should pale face??? Seriously it's dissolved in milk which is poured over the cornflakes Seriously designed to dissolve Humans need true eyes in back of their heads not just the mythical ones mums have which only seem pick up kids mis deeds Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Another thought bubble The family chicken bucket for families of four Why are chickens not constructed with four legs which would save the life of the chicken which has been sacrificed just for the legs? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was presuming he was attempting a certain rhetorical trick, and not intending to be taken literally. See, the thing is that he might be actually making up these questions thinking he's accurately mocking other people, or he might be attempting a rhetorical trick intended to draw out those who would take him seriously. Start with a fundamental question about humans: Are humans essentially good or evil? And, sure, say what we will about all the layers of rubbish people have piled up between the opposites over the years, but the bottom line is that I presumed he was attempting something useful. So what we have is a question to illustrate the point: Yes, why were humans not made in such a manner as to not be useless? And three lines about the rhetorical maneuver. Some people seem to complain about this one: I love the way these questions work, but you do recognize the rhetorical fault runs miles beyond the grasp of your audience? Can anyone name any occasion in the history of Sciforums in which this rhetorical sleight for drawing out obscurity actually worked? As near as anyone can tell, the audience just doesn't see it. Not only can you do this to them over and over again, and they never figure it out, if you explain it to them, they still don't get it. I think it's something to do with timing, and it seems impossible to create the dialectic effect in slow motion in a politically charged environment. But it's true, not only does it not seem to work, people seem incapable of recognizing it unless they happen to be trying it. Honestly, the alternative is reading this as a hate thread, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not his point.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Anyways, how is this related to this thread? Jan.
How is a description of the "theory of Intelligent Design" related to a thread called "Intelligent design"? Seriously?
