Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	5-Apr-05/11:12 AM
Is that what you will say when you are old and in your humiliating death throws, incontinent, and being attended by a rubber-gloved nurse, swabbing a portion of your anatomy as you cry out in pain? Can’t you see that prayer is supposed to be inconsistent. If it were entirely logical, it would be void of meaning. Now tell me I just said an illogical thing, because I did.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	5-Apr-05/7:07 AM
No to both you and zodiac. Jesus prayed like Sliver is praying, except that Sliver is praying to St. Joseph. They both said something like, “please give what I think is right, nevertheless, not my will but yours be done.” Praying is partly the recognition that God understands the situation much better than the person praying. It’s like a child asking a good parent for something. Sometimes the parent is influenced by the child’s request, sometimes not.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	5-Apr-05/6:57 AM
You could not have more clearly not gotten it.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	5-Apr-05/6:54 AM
You've already said that, and I have already agreed to it. What you ignore is that it takes a rule to constrain a Confuser to the terms under which he must answer. Originally, he could answer any way he wanted as long as it was a lie. You have now made a rule restricting his liberty in answering.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/7:51 PM
His a Confuser. That makes him a deceiver. He will consider the question, and then answer it deceptively. How many times must we go over this? It will take a new rule to make it any different.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:25 PM
I wish you'd get your comments right before hitting Submit. That's the second time today I've had to retype a comment because you deleted yours while I was typing. You have introduced another rule! Will it never end. Now he must not lie in his mental description, nor can he change his mental description. Why can't he have many mental descriptions, switch among them at any time for the purpose of confusion. And why should he hold the true description in his mind while you ask for its spelling? Surely a liar can lie about that. Is he no longer a Confuser?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:19 PM
You have introduced another rule! Will it never end. Now he must not lie in his mental description, nor can he change his mental description. Why can't he have many mental descriptions, switch among them at any time for the purpose of confusion. Is he no longer a Confuser?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/5:09 PM
I never said they don't have to answer the questions. Their ability to not answer would make the game silly, which I'm not sure it isn't anyway. But you said the Liar-Confuser cannot change his lie as he sees it being discovered. That is a new rule!
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:54 PM
Oh, I see, you have added more rules to the game. If I refute what you say, is there some rule to prove me wrong, or will you wait for my answer before you tell me the next rule?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:33 PM
It fails because, being a confuser, he will not stick with his first answer, but will keep changing it as the letters unfold.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:29 PM
Closed-minded people reject propositions for reasons other than the propositions' content, such as the race, sex, etc of the person presenting the proposition. I have said it all along in several ways.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/4:23 PM
How would you extract the correct answer to the question "Why did you do . . .?" from a Liar-Confuser? You did say it is possible. Or was the the other one of you. Oh well, fight about it among yourselves.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/1:44 PM
Oh, you didn't tell me all the rules of your game.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/1:40 PM
"Rather than" means "not because of" and even if it didn't, I have stated the same thing in other ways during this discussion, giving you ample ways to know what I mean. When you argue a minor point of phrasing, instead of the argument's substance, it shows me you accept the arguement.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/12:42 PM
You have said before that you are two. And I have said “Collaborate if you will in producing your character. The project might even attract me if he were not so obnoxious. It’s a fine fantasy you have, but for god’s sake, read the others’ posts. It’s like talking to an Alzheimer’s victim who may or may not remember our last conversation.” It’s rather boring having to repeat myself just because you two can’t collaborate. Have you had a tiff? As disgusted as I am with the mess you’ve made of this conversation, I’ll answer your most recent question by saying that I’d listen even to your race of Liars, silly as they seem. And another thing: Your race of Liars really cannot communicate in any practical way. Here’s why. In the example we have used, you finally discover that the Liar had snails for breakfast rather eggs as he said. Your next question, if you are normal, will be “Why?” since eating snails for breakfast seems irregular to you. I doubt you will ever find the reason, but should you discover that he had snails because they were the only things in his fridge, lunchtime will have passed and your reason, if you are normal, for asking – because you might invite your friend to lunch – will have become mute. At that point you would say something like, “Excellent choice,” by which the Liar would assume you mean, “Eating snails is like eating a colossal mound of elephant shit,” which is what you have turned this conversation into.
Re: The Invitation by Billy Fights	4-Apr-05/8:43 AM
If only she'd read it, she's swoon.
Re: Poem on a face by INTRANSIT	4-Apr-05/8:30 AM
A nice mix of physical and verbal ugliness. It seems the last line might keep some of that.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/8:21 AM
Colsed minded people refuse to consider content that conflicts with what they already believe. That's another way of saying what I said. I did not miss it. Can you think of a question someday that does not follow the unanserable pattern of "You've never understood anything properly in your entire life, have you?"? Then after the person grudgingly complies and gives some kind of an answer, you say they did not properly answer your question.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/8:15 AM
Answered above.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	4-Apr-05/8:12 AM
I already agreed that it would. Why don't you read my answers before asking the same question again? I said the process would become too cumbersome for daily conversation. When someone says, "I had eggs for breakfast," it would take you an hour or more to discover that the liar really had snails. And why are your four examples of questions only the the negation type after we already agreed that those type of questions are no problem?