DrKrettin

Theoretically, a person moving at light speed would not experience the passage of time at all and could, in theory, live forever.

 

 

Does this make sense? That person would experience the passage of time exactly as if he were at rest. He would not necessarily be aware of or care about your observer travelling at the speed of light relative to him.

 

So if I understand what you are trying to say to me the dictionary does not tell you what words to use or how to use words but socially the culture the people in group dictate.

He was not trying to say that - he said that.

However, the role of a dictionary is not to be an arbiter of meaning and to provide "definitions" in the sense of "this is how you should use this word".

 

True, but it depends to some extent on the language in question. Take French for example, with their Académie français. This body has systematically dictated the use of words and stifled so many neologisms that French vocabulary is only about one fifth of English vocabulary, and perhaps the language is worse for it. (I think I remember their banning the use of le weekend - they hate any English influence.) English has never had any official body which determines grammar, spelling and meaning of words, and the meaning of a word ultimately depends on a consensus of how you should use it. Vast numbers of words have taken on meanings which derive from an incorrect use: to decimate meant to kill every tenth, now it means to destroy; to aggravate means to make worse, but now usually means to annoy, and so on. It is the same with evil - the Christian church hijacked the word to mean something specific, but is now used in a variety of different ways. Only recently I had a chicken vindaloo which somebody described as evil. It was, and I had forgotten to put the toilet paper in the fridge. But I can use the word in that context, knowing that the meaning is not the same as, say, when talking about Trump.

Although works like the Oxford English Dictionary has, or used to have, some authority, an English dictionary is ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

 

No such thing as archaic science. It was philosophy.

 

That of course depends on how you define science, philosophy and archaic. Aristotle was clearly involved in scientific investigation (and he certainly had a concept of force) although scientific method was not what it is today.

Obama was POTUS, but Trump is SCROTUS (So-Called Ruler Of The US)

What bothers me most is his clear dismissal of facts, the very opposite of a scientific view of things. For him, facts are what you want them to be. I see this as a form of insanity, but not everyone would agree.

 

It is the type of book which is best-selling, still stands and overcome all criticisms which also proves that it really speaks the truth.

What? Overcomes all criticism? You have no concept of rational argument, do you?

 

Brother/sister, we are all sinners from the start of our life in this world we live. It is a hereditary sin passed on generation to generation from our first parents.

How can this possibly make sense? I think the Christian explanation for the presence of evil with an omnipotent god is frankly quite pathetic.

 

 

If you close your eye and push in the corner you might 'see' some light.

I would strongly advise against this scientific experiment. My ophthalmologist says any physical deformation of the eyeball is to be avoided, and having just had a detached retina I would agree.

In the UK I think it has significance for pensions. If one dies, the other in a gay marriage is entitled to a widow(er)'s pension, but not if they weren't married. This might well be true for private and state pensions.

As a note, without having read the poem myself, "drop of blood on the seafoam" makes me think of the birth of Aphrodite, not Christian mythology.

Well, he was a classics scholar, and the imagery in the first nine verses seems to be taken from Greek mythology, which is hardly surprising. As I see it, he is saying this is not enough (Well but there was more than this...) so then launches into his non sequitur about Christianity.

 

I did not post my commentary in the Religion Forum.

 

 

From where I'm looking, this thread is in the religion section.

There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. .

Shouldn't that be "more than one (>1)" ?

That's the worst limerick I've ever tried to read.

 

 

Therefore, he chose the second. He frankly admits that the books containing the story of Christ belong to an ancient history that anyone may refuse to believe. Therefore, he turns to the present miracle of the church as the basis for accepting the authority of Scripture. He saw the very existence of the mighty and universal church as an overwhelming sign that the Scriptures are true and divine."

 

And which miracle is this? I see none whatsoever.

... don’t know feces from shinola iffen

 

twelve (12) .... ten (10) seconds

Yes, off-topic, but why do you invent English words, and why do you assume we can't read words like "twelve" and "ten"? Is English a foreign language for you?

 

Me thinks you need to broaden your knowledge base a wee bit before criticizing my use of English verbiage, to wit:

 

Methinks you should check up on the word "methinks" and also check on whether you really want to admit to "verbiage"

 

Suppose they thought you may learn something?

 

Who then has wasted, what?

I'm assuming that they know that you have tried Heavy Metal and found it seriously wanting, and that you are mature enough to know what you like and what you don't like. If they don't recognise that, it is seriously annoying.

What the hell could you learn from heavy metal, other than some people have absolutely no musical taste?

There are three (3) schools of thought concerning the origins of humans.

 

 

And there is only one (1) which anybody sensible would take seriously.

 

Another good Question: Why can things that are obviously intended to be nice taken as rude and annoying?

Suppose you have made it absolutely clear to somebody that your preference in music is Mozart, and on your birthday they give you a CD of Heavy Metal music. This (to me) would be extremely annoying because 1) they have wasted some money and 2) they are too stupid, or even worse, they don't really care about what matters to you.

Yes, you can. K + R is an elementary mate.

So that's not it.

Sorry, of course you can. I'm confusing it with K + B. (It's too early in the morning for me, or was.)

OK - so K - E1 so that R x R results in stalemate

I was thinking... should I go back to leaving my toothbrush in the bathroom where it can collect micro fecal pieces? Reason being is.. I've been doing it all my life, like most people, and maybe it keeps the immune system active. You know - small amounts of poo might actually be heathy in the way that they can help you build a resistance to the bacteria in them.

 

 

I'm glad somebody said that. I have read reports about the hazards of using a toothbrush in the bathroom, and everything is predicated on the assumption that bacteria are automatically harmful. I have always had my toothbrush in the bathroom, and I can't see why a tiny exposure to bacteria isn't actually quite healthy. The toilet itself reduces the contamination to a millionth of what it would be without one, so why the fuss?

On first inspection, I'd say black was in a winning position. But with that move, if K x N and R x R then it is a draw because you can't get mate with just a K and R.

 

My best friend tries to annoy me on a daily basis, why would I want to avoid him?

Male banter between close friends being an exception. Argumentative forums posts ... hmmm.

 

 

Hmmm... there seems to be a biblical message here.

No, I meant that if somebody sets out to annoy you deliberately, you know that they are not worth knowing, and can avoid them.