FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Theological inconsistencies with Christianity (Page 7)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Theological inconsistencies with Christianity
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So now it's, "No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
I would say that such a person is neither rational nor clear-headed, although not because he can't prove it to me.

quote:
Yeah, because after all it's a good idea to define subjective terms.
Well, one obvious advantage is that it makes them testable. If your garments protect you in some specific way, you could quantify that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm...

*Forms plan to infiltrate the Mormon church, steal blessed garments, form study group using expendable theist targets. If the garments work we can sell them to the US army, if not we're out some theists. A win-win FOR SCIENCE!*

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt the special undergarments work for just any theist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
No worries, just another variable for the study design. By this point I could practically do another PhD in 'adding stuff to the systematics study'. My advisor's catchphrase is "in addition to".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I would ask that y'all be respectful and not discuss garments on this forum.

No, I can't make you. But I'm asking you to.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Is anyone claiming that, whatever they do, they work for just any theist?

You might try disproving things that someone actually claims. It might be more fun for you.

ETA: Sorry, posted before I read kat's. I'm done.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
So one of the target groups is Mormons in good standing. I don't understand the problem.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Team 2012
Member
Member # 12025

 - posted      Profile for Team 2012   Email Team 2012         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"No matter how rational, wise, and clear-headed someone is, if he believes something that he can't prove to me, he's nuts."
MOST people believe things they can't prove. (Let's leave the "to me" out of it for now). Can you prove evolution? How? Or do you just rely on books written by wiser people over the years? How about quantum theory? Or what some guy did in China last week?

Science class in school tells you that there are no two identical snowflakes. You realize that any given sample used to prove that would be so statistically insignificant that Carl Sagan would have to have invented new teensy numbers to express it?
They show you pictures of dinosaurs with pretty colors, which they have no way of knowing of proving.

Actually, your personal belief system is a rickety structure of heresay. Like everybody else's.

The difference is religion KNOWS it can't prove what it says. (Well, if they don't know that steer clear).

Anybody who thinks they've "got the facts" is a pratfall waiting to happen.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.

Why is it necessary to make up your minds on such esoteric questions right now? We'll almost certainly know in 20 or 40 years. Moore's Law will see to that, I feel sure. That's my thought, anyway.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Team 2012:
The difference is religion KNOWS it can't prove what it says. (Well, if they don't know that steer clear).

Evolution has predicted a number of things that have since been found to be true. Same with quantum theory. The fact that it was not me who proved them does not make it false, no? At some point you have to trust other people as you won't be able to literally test everything! But that's far from not being able to test anything about the "God theory".

So why, if we require proof from any theory, is it normal not to require proof from religion? And why do we go even further and accept this as a quality?! The fact that some religious people live a good life because they follow a particular religion means that the principles they take from that religion work. But those principles can come from a non-religious moral frame and still work. Or from a different religion. You haven't in any way proved that there is a God (which God?) any more than you have proved that there isn't a God because of this.

Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
Hrm. I'd say that these are actually the people who think they're the least likely to act like jerks. There's plenty of jerkiness among stinkin' neutrals, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
That's funny. The jerkiest thing I've ever seen at Hatrack was done by someone who probably considers themselves one of these noble agnostics. See if you can guess who that might be.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I'd like to point out that the group of people least likely to act like jerks is the "well, maybe there's a God, maybe not, let me get back to you on that, I don't really know at this point" types.
That's funny. The jerkiest thing I've ever seen at Hatrack was done by someone who probably considers themselves one of these noble agnostics. See if you can guess who that might be.
Look! How many times do I have to apologize for that!?!?!?!?!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Corwin:
So why, if we require proof from any theory, is it normal not to require proof from religion? And why do we go even further and accept this as a quality?!

Because religion is not a science. That some religious people think that religion is a replacement for science is a sad fact. You don't have to make the same mistake. They are wrong to do so. It is an understandable mistake; both are methods for understanding our universe and our experience within it. And it the early days of science there was more overlap than not. But science and religion have different goals and, rightly, different methods.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
both are methods for understanding our universe and our experience within it.

I guess that's where we agree to disagree. :shrug: As you say, religion is not there to explain what science can. But I go a bit further and I say that religion, as a method of understanding, is not able to explain anything. There's always a step - appeal to God - that has no reason to be there. Even if you take that step there's the problem that accepting a god or another as the "expert" can be used to prove an idea or its opposite.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
What is the use of an 'understanding' that has no testable consequences?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
For many areas of my life, I am looking for ways to think about it rather than concrete answers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Look! How many times do I have to apologize for that!?!?!?!?!
Until you mean it, damn it! [Big Grin]
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
For many areas of my life, I am looking for ways to think about it rather than concrete answers.

Then if you don't mind, stop calling what you have 'understanding', since it is nothing of the kind. But even with this more limited goal, I would suggest you consider that there are productive and unproductive ways of thinking. In 2000 years Christianity has produced some philosophy about purely hypothetical beings. In 300, science has produced - well, fill in whatever accomplishment makes you happiest. And I do not exempt the moral sphere. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sick, and burying the dead, science has done better than religion everywhere. Isn't it about time you started thinking in a way that demonstrably helps people?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
And again, Kom, you assume that I have to pick one or the other. Understood properly, they are complementary not contradictory.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Wrong. Unless your 'understanding' has led to there being more than 24 hours in your day, every minute you spend 'thinking' (using the term loosely) in religious ways is wasted, and indeed actively harmful, since it's very hard to dislodge the bad habits that come with sloppy mind-activity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, Science is a tool in a rational person's toolbox, but only a highly irrational person would use only scientific thinking in life. A rational person uses many different methods of reasoning, including faith, because different methods answer different types of questions better than others. When people feed the hungry, it is often because science tells them how to produce food and religion/morality motivates them to want to produce food for others, not to mention how other types of knowledge come into play, such as knowledge of farmers passed on dogmaticly from one generation to the next, skills gained purely from experience, etc. These are complementary.

Your own behavior is evidence of the same thing. You spent this thread, and other threads, making mostly claims that are unsupported by and beyond the bounds of science. Some are assertions not based on any material evidence whatsoever, such as definitions of terms or moral declarations about what is productive or what is a waste of time. It is very apparent that you have a very strong faith in a set of atheist assumptions which shape your opinions. And to be clear, by "faith" here I mean these are ideas which you cannot prove but accept as virtually certain in your mind. Certainly, you'd don't restrict yourself to scientific thinking.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
different methods answer different types of questions better than others
I cannot think of a single thing that a religious epistemology provably answers better than, well, almost any other epistemology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
That's because you put the word "provably" in there.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
If it's not provable, how do you know it's any better of an answer than anything else?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
For me, it is about the questions as much as the answers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know it's better, but it is better. You don't have to be able to prove something in order to be correct about it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I don't know it's better, but it is better. You don't have to be able to prove something in order to be correct about it.

But you are very likely to be wrong about it if you can't.

It's just human nature. People make mistakes.

If you don't know based on reason and evidence that you are right, you probably aren't. This is triply true if it's something that you can't prove, but really want to be true.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
For me, it is about the questions as much as the answers.

But then you insist on giving an answer! Which indeed demonstrates the problem with this attitude: Humans don't actually act that way. If you can just post about a moral dilemma on Hatrack, then sure, you'll be all "Oh I don't know, who can tell what is right?" But if you had to actually do something, you would give a dang answer, already.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
A concrete answer or a subjective answer?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't know it's better, but it is better.
Demonstrate its better-ness. [Wink]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"I don't know it's better, but it is better."

Its worse.

Ok. Now we have two positions. Demonstrate that yours is correct.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
A concrete answer or a subjective answer?

I am not sure what you are asking.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what answers you are looking for.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not, I'm saying that if faced with an actual moral dilemma - say, a choice between rescuing a baby from a burning building, or admiring some flowers - then you would not sit about being more interested in the question. You would either rescue the baby or sniff the roses. Which I suppose is concrete, so perhaps that answers your question. But I wasn't asking one, I was making a claim of fact.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought I raised an interesting point about Moore's Law. Any takers on that one? [Smile]
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ok. Now we have two positions. Demonstrate that yours is correct.
Demonstrate that yours is.

That's y'alls thing, right? [Smile]

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Not quite. He countered an unprovable assertion with another unprovable one specificly to show how little value either one of those assertions actually has.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
I thought I raised an interesting point about Moore's Law. Any takers on that one? [Smile]

I don't buy it. You can increase calculation power million-fold, you still won't be able to prove things that are defined so as to be unprovable. And we've seen that logical proof has nothing to do with people's acceptance of religions/God. Why should more of the same make a difference?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshki
Member
Member # 11986

 - posted      Profile for Oshki   Email Oshki         Edit/Delete Post 
I have read the thread. There are plenty of scientists that are also religious. The two, scientific inquiry and religion, is not a paradox for everyone. The scientist that believes that everything, that has been created, is the handiwork of God is not by necessity conflicted. If a religious scientist arrives at a scientific proof it just as scientifically valid as one arrived at by an atheist. Everything is relative, so that the religious scientist would praise God for his handiwork and the atheist may find that the new scientific proof validates his own subjective truth that God does not exist.

Christ said: “I come to bear witness to the truth.” Pontius Pilot replied: “What is truth am I a Jew?” Christians believe that Jesus is the Word of God through whom all things were made. Therefore only He knows, objectively, what truth is and so what He revealed is called revelation. Christ revealed Truth that cannot be arrived at through human reason or scientific inquiry. So, nothing has changed, some stand with Pilot some with Christ.

As for a conflict between the Old Testament and New I see none. The old, is truth written in stone and blood. The New is truth written in spirit. The transgressions that brought physical death in the Old Testament are the same transgressions that bring spiritual death in the New. I see balance between the two. Eve said no to God, Mary said yes and became the new Eve and Mother of all the Living. Adam and Eve in disobedience ate from a tree that brought spiritual separation and death to mankind. Christ in obedience to God the Father died on a tree whose fruit brought life to mankind and made it possible for all to become children of God. As to physical death that is just a change of state. Life and death was the main language that people understood in those days.

Everyone can talk about killing babies; we kill plenty of them in this society of ours and say it is good because it is law. I am old enough that back in the day, when there was no law against it, I put down pets. If I said that at one time I stomped on the head of a kitten you would be horrified because you can humanize a kitten but dehumanize a baby by labeling him/her a fetus which I am horrified that is killed. Scientific evidence would show that I have killed a cat and also show that humans are killed in abortion. Everything is relative; I can still feel the little skull crushing under my heel and see the bit off tongue wiggling in the dirt. (I regret that act) I wonder what the ex-mothers and abortion doctors feel, if anything. It can be argued that the only objective (concrete) truth is that a cat and a human were killed, the rest is subjective.

Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Testify!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, that's the second time you've done that in my memory. You're being an ass.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
man, if that's all it takes to be an ass around here, that must make me a raging sociopath on the hatrack scale
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not quite. He countered an unprovable assertion with another unprovable one specificly to show how little value either one of those assertions actually has.
That may be why made that statement specifically, but my response still stands.

"You shouldn't believe in religion because it's an unprovable assertion, and unprovable assertions aren't worthwhile."

Which is a pretty funny thing to say, which was my point.

--

quote:
man, if that's all it takes to be an ass around here, that must make me a raging sociopath on the hatrack scale
Well, sometimes you can be pretty assholier-than-thou, and you seem to enjoy it. So yeah:p
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tom, that's the second time you've done that in my memory. You're being an ass.
Well, I could have pointed out how brainless Oshki's entire post was, but instead I just pointed out how he was, essentially, preaching to the choir and the choir alone. Personally, I think that was far more charitable of me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
When the larger message is easily discernible in the one-word post, there really ain't much air between `em.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
FWIW, Tom's response was milder than mine would have been.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
"I don't buy it. You can increase calculation power million-fold, you still won't be able to prove things that are defined so as to be unprovable. And we've seen that logical proof has nothing to do with people's acceptance of religions/God. Why should more of the same make a difference?"

Eventually we'll almost certainly have a Grand Unified Theory. Physics experiments won't require anything other than a computer, and, if there's room in the math for "spooky action at a distance", then that's that, period. To put it another way, I think that, at some point, religion stops being something that people kill each other over. I think it probably even stops being something that people call each other names like "ass" over. I do believe in the "supernatural", but I think it's like any other area in life--some people have more natural ability with it than others. I think that increasing technology makes all inborn gifts less important. It used to be a matter of life and death as to whether or not you could outrun the hungry lions. Not so much, now, though, is it? Think about these 2 cases. Assume for the sake of argument that some people do have "psychic gifts":

1. It's the year 2008. Plenty of Uri Gellers, Sylvia Brownes, etc., are famous. Most are probably frauds, but a few may have some real ability in their area. They can become rich and famous as a result, making it so that, if they manage their money well, they'll never have to work another day in their lives. Their gift has made them more wealthy/secure than others. There are also plenty of gifted athletes who are tremendously wealthy because of their inborn gifts.

2. It's the year 2058. We can manipulate DNA so that any of us can have any particular gift. Nobody has any real advantage that is the result of inborn gifts any longer.


Most religions base their claims on SOME type of supernatural occurrence/ability/connection--the burning bush, raising Lazarus from the dead, turning water into wine, leaping to heaven from a rock (or other type of ascension), etc., etc. When either A. these things are all proven to be impossible, B. they are proven possible, but not controllable, or C. (most likely, in my view) they are possible for anyone with sufficient access to technology, then there can be nothing supernatural-based to hate someone over.

Or not. Heck, I don't know. What I do hope, though, is that I live long enough to see for myself.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
FWIW, Tom's response was milder than mine would have been.
Oh, I'm not suggesting approval of Oshki's post, which was pretty trivial IMO.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Demonstrate its better-ness.
I will try. But the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. There are people whose lives have demonstrated it far better than anything I ever do will, and yet were unable to convince skeptics.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  13  14  15   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2