17 Sep 05
A godless darwinist is in giving confession . It's a slow day and almost no one has come in . Suddenly the doors burst open and a drunken homeless man rushes in , sees the confessional , and practically runs for it . The godless darwinist is pleased that the man appears to be so eager for confession , and enters his side of the booth . Nothing happens . The godless darwinist waits a minute or so , but all here hears is a slight rustling . Puzzled , he knocks on the wood , and says "hello?" . The drunk says , "No use asking me , bub , there's no toilet paper on this side either !"
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhen I'm not speaking from the chair, you are free to interpret anything I say as an implication with a false hypothetical, like
[b]A large part of the Catholic clergy don't molest children.
Are you implying they do?[/b]
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most Catholic clergy do [not] molest children.
17 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrYou are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.
Shouldn't there be an asterisk in there somewhere?
For example,
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children
where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat was a straightforward question, Scribs.
When I'm not speaking from the chair, you are free to interpret anything I say as an implication with a false hypothetical, like
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most Catholic clergy do [not] molest children.
17 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs a serious discussion possible with you, Dear Doctor ?
It sure was, and an easy one to answer.
Too bad you can't compel me to sit in the chair, isn't it?
I am still waiting for your undoubtedly interesting and undoubtedly extensive report dealing with your trip to the Galapagos. Now thát will be very entertaining, I'm sure.
17 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoe[in cathedra]
I am still waiting for your undoubtedly interesting report dealing with your trip to the Galapagos. Now thát will be very entertaining, I'm sure.
I have so far been too lazy to compile my findings into a presentation for this forum. I have not, however, forgotten or abandoned it. I assure you, it will be quite entertaining.
[ex cathedra]
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesConsidering that the Atheist Church covers up for the trangressing Darwins : how can it be said that most Darwins arent trangressers. And in that absence of details about the percentage of Darwins that do trangress isn't it a valid stance to treat all Darwins as trangressers: since the particular trangression has lifelong trauma on the victims?
You are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.
For example,
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children
where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.
17 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've heard that most *atheists* like to *feed* and *care* for children, and that the *secular hierarchy* tacitly supports these instances of *general benevolence*.
You are free to use any sort of asterisk notation you like in the conclusion of the implication.
For example,
If Dr. S were speaking ex cathedra, he would hold that most *godless Darwinists* molest children
where the string '*X*' denotes 'priests' for any X.