Re: a comment on Baghdad Election by Mona Lisa	2-Feb-05/6:02 AM
Do you think Iraqis should boycott the election?
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	2-Feb-05/5:23 AM
No problem. Though aren't you a little concerned that your only defence against my attacks on womankind consisted entirely in a defence of the intricacies of embroidery? While I have no problem in equating WOMANHOOD with EMBROIDERYHOOD, I'd have thought you'd be more discerning.
Re: a comment on Satan's Pillar: The Wisdom of Heresy. by SupremeDreamer	2-Feb-05/4:56 AM
Well even if it did happen, it would hardly be a telling indictment against the cool rationalism of the atheist's mind. It would merely reinforce the old cliche that religion is a byproduct of fear. It isn't a byproduct of fear, by the way. It's a byproduct of the FACT that a man was born, with a beard, who after being crucified in nothing but a pair of sandals, came back to life and was thence able to turn invisible and walk through walls.
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	1-Feb-05/9:54 AM
THE THREE PRINCIPLES OF EMBROIDERY 1. An embroidery will continue to grow at constant rate unless another embroidery collides with it, or the loom weaves itself into a frenzy. 2. A family of embroideries is called a hovis. 3. Weave with the weft, you'll soon be bereft. Weave with the warp, and you'll ne'er parp. LOOM MAINTENANCE 1. Don't be tempted to fit your loom with a turbo. 2. Remeber to replace your loom's oxygen tanks after each embroidering. 3. Regularly inspect your loom's tyres for fruit salads. (Loom Maintenance in a High-Risk Hobo Sanctuary) 4. Hoboes cling to filthy looms like barnacles, burrowing deep into their majestic oil trumpets and feasting on woollen deposits. If you find your loom has become encrusted with these urchins, prize them off with a palette knife or coat hanger. In future, a Fisherman's Friend dangling uselessly from the loom's spinnerets should discourage them. 5. If the Hobo Density exceeds 100 Beards, and their interlocking limbs have formed a Level 3 Hobo Matrix, CALL A SPECIALIST AT ONCE. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE HOBOES BY HAND!
Re: a comment on Psalm of Wonder by Dovina	1-Feb-05/7:36 AM
Do you believe in God, but reject Him for not being caring enough?
Re: a comment on Satan's Pillar: The Wisdom of Heresy. by SupremeDreamer	31-Jan-05/6:14 PM
"Maybe that'll give you more variety when feeling the urge to say 'your stupid' in an intentionally 'baffling' way so as to allow your victim to offer emphasis to your sentiments." What a parpingly excellent sentence!
Re: a comment on Baghdad Election by Mona Lisa	31-Jan-05/3:52 PM
You've made the mistake of thinking that successive sentences uttered by Dovina will converge on some proposition. In fact they diverge wildly away from all propositions simultaneously.
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	31-Jan-05/3:37 PM
Oh yes how first-year philosophy student of you. Does choice really exist? Will my balls really "pop off" if I don't do my maths homework? If you had half the sense of a walnut in your tiny prawn's sack of a head, you'd have argued along the lines that the more strength one has, the more likely that a muscular spasm will break something, and the more temptation there is to do naughty things with that strength. Of course if you had said those arguments, you would have found some way to buncombe-up everything anyhow, so don't feel too bad. :(
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	31-Jan-05/3:30 PM
You've been so badly beaked that you've actually retracted into your own balls.
Re: a comment on Baghdad Election by Mona Lisa	31-Jan-05/11:58 AM
What do you mean?
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	31-Jan-05/11:41 AM
I daresay your dangerous forays into poetry are every bit as mangled as those first few timid weavlings. A woman incapable of wrapping her head round the Three Principles of Embroidery cannot even begin to appreciate the Five Pillars of Poetry. Perhaps that's why none of your poemes even rhyme :(
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	31-Jan-05/10:23 AM
I think what Dovina is trying to tell us is that women have to be stupider than men to survive in the slow-paced world of embroidery and cleaning. Can you imagine what the world would come to if such menial tasks fell to the men? Men, who are used to living life on the edge, used to making split second decisions under enormous pressure, used to pushing the human body to its physical limits, and beyond? By God sir, we'd all be killed! I'll never forget the day my grandfather offered to help Mrs Bloomsbury with her embroidery, and lost a leg through boredom.
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	30-Jan-05/10:19 AM
lol yes I really do now see the connection between strength and fate. Pfft. Don't you see that your 'Fate' argument is 'cancelled out' by an equally powerful argument (i.e not powerful at all) the other way: a weakling is unable to save a crushed otter, who, had it been saved, would have gone on to warn the villagers of an impending Tsunami, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course 'doing more' could have unpleasant consequences. Just as 'doing less' could have unpleasant consequences. While we cannot flawlessly predict the future, we do try to assess the moral consequences of a particular action, and make a decision - whether to do 'more', or 'less' - based on our particular value system. And such an assessment is not usually just a wild stab in the dark, unless the assessor is utterly thick, or there is simply no background information to help him. Either way, would he be any better off as a weakling? An individual armed with the capacity to perform tremendous feats of strength is in a better position, with regard to manipulating the world in the way he sees fit, than a weakling is. I'm not saying all feats of strength are morally desirable. I'm not saying all strong people make moral decisions I agree with. I'm saying strength is better than weakness, in the same sense that a Pentium 4 is better than a Pentium 2 :(
Re: Satan's Pillar: The Wisdom of Heresy. by SupremeDreamer	30-Jan-05/5:11 AM
you wally
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	30-Jan-05/3:20 AM
Does the strong man crush the delicate china teapot when he picks it up? No he does not. For he is not compelled to use his strength inappropriately. Some strong men do use their strength inappropriately, but that is not an innate characteristic of strength. And yet would the weakling be able to heave a fallen tree off the crushed legs of some dying children? Or even his own crushed legs? No, because he is weak. And is only capable of weakness, regardless of whether or not weakness is appropriate to the circumstances. Jesus wept.
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	30-Jan-05/3:13 AM
"I’ll bet I am more spatially aware than most men, and can run farther and faster than you can." I suppose you take pride in the fact that you can outrun and out-think a handicapped. Sure I may be incapable of attaining high speeds in my Wheeled-Chair, and I may have difficulty parking owing to my unbelievably appalling spatial co-ordination, but at least I haven't turned this debate into a 'personal' debate. When I said what I said about womans being worse than mens, I did so out of a pure intellectual curiosity. I bring no hidden agenda to this discussion; no shameful prejudices about women being jolly good at embroidery etc. I do not seek endwarven one particular sex beneath another. I seek only the truth. And to point out that not only are women generally weaker than men, but also that it is less convenient being a woman because you have to menstruate once a month. Men don't have to menstruate any times a month, unless they're gay :(
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	28-Jan-05/2:48 PM
It isn't better to do more per se. But it is better to at least have the option of doing more. A strong man is not compelled to use his strength inappropriately. But a weakling is compelled to be weak inappropriately. Strength is therefore better than weakness, as any avid stat-based RPGer will tell you.
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	28-Jan-05/12:36 PM
Being stronger is better, because a strong thing can do all the things a weak thing can do, plus a bit more. Ditto being smarter. That's why vegetarians will always be worse than normals, because normals are capable of eating VEGETABLES AND MEAT, vegetarians can only eat VEGETABLES :(
Re: a comment on In Answer To Your Question by Dovina	28-Jan-05/12:00 PM
FACT Men are physically stronger than women on average. FACT The only significant, measurable, non-wishy-washy, intellectual difference between the sexes is that on average, men have better spatial awareness than women. Since men are better than women in BOTH the Physical AND Mental realms, men must be better than women overall. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is :(
Re: Conjugate the verb by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w	22-Jan-05/5:04 AM
quendavisti. vide! quendo quendamus quendas quendatis quendat quendant quendavi quendavimus quendavisti quendavistis quendavit quendaverunt quendaveram quendaveramus quendaveras quendaveratis quendaverat quendaverant quendavero quendaverimus quendaveris quendaveritis quendaverit quendaverint