|
 |
On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm ;)
>>>
>>>Egads. :-)
>>
>> And they say we're weird :)
>
>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>
I resemble that remark :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:39:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm ;)
>>>>
>>>>Egads. :-)
>>>
>>> And they say we're weird :)
>>
>>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>>
>>
> I resemble that remark :)
So do I. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 17 Dec 2008 14:24:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:39:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2008 13:05:33 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:34:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Dec 2008 11:27:25 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Comes from reading the OED too frequently. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7654511.stm ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Egads. :-)
>>>>
>>>> And they say we're weird :)
>>>
>>>Yeah, there's always someone weirder out there.
>>>
>>>
>> I resemble that remark :)
>
>So do I. :-)
>
>Jim
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
St. wrote:
> They've been ganging up on you Saul, but you gave some of them a black
> eye. That's the spirit! ;)
>
> ~Steve~
Thanks Steve, actually I have enjoyed this ganging since it has bean
full or rational thinking and heart felt too, you all in this news group
are not only smart but also are in contact with your feelings, I found
that a pleasant place to discus even argue anything and thank you all
for the friendship and tolerance, I appreciate it.
Thoughts don't feel and feelings don't think, so we must find a
equilibrium point between compassion and responsibility I think;
responsible compassion.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:494460ff@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
> > news:49430a1f$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> >
> >>> as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
> >>> origins or beliefs
> >
> >> Yeah like u ddn't do it first.
> >
> > Difference is, I never mentioned "God" to suggest a belief in a deity on
my
> > part. Little detail, but if "v" are going to be pedantic, let's get
those
> > right.
>
> What has my belief in God anything to do with piracy, I cleared that
> already, I believe in Him but I do wrong things to survive, read the
> posts above and what about the pedantic? dude, u were saying u were
> ready to take my word on why not pirating software would lead me to
> suffering in my country and once I explained why, instead of actually
> accept my word as u wrote u would u do exactly the opposite and I'm
> pedant? hahaha.
>
> >> This proves u and and U is what matters,
> >> Fine by me.
> >
> > Ah, something we can agree on.
>
> Again, I explained I have no choice and I'm right not coz I say so, but
> coz my situation says so, but u again missed the point and come to make
> redundant assumptions, so u take the fast and easy cynic highway to
> criticize me, but I'm sure coz u r "legal" guy u will not cease to say u
> r not the closed mineded but me, the infamous pirate, is laughable to
> see how ppl that were once trying to understand u turns cynic and closed
> mineded once u justify ur point and they can't beat the logic, so
> keeping on writing to u is simply pointless, now I'm starting to notice
> ur frustration and intolerant attitude calling me pedant when wasn't me
> who broke his word about getting ready to take my word for it, dude the
> more u write the more typically intolerant ur behave/attitude it is, so
> be it; peace out.
The lighthearted remark was just to provide an easy exit for you. "U" (*)
are the one who's getting all worked up over this. Initially, I simply
commented on a humorous juxtaposition of righteausness and apologetics. Yes,
we are all creatures of conflicts, but that doesn't mean we cannot point the
paradoxes out as they surface. It's interesting, too, while not uncommon,
that you don't see the moral dilemma that emerges from combining a belief in
higher moral powers and piracy. If your belief in God doesn't have to do
anything with piracy, what does it have anything to do with any other
earthly matters, from one's sex life to daily rituals? Why should a belief
in god have to do anything with anything at all? It's not as vacuous a
question as it might first seem. You take certain things for granted, and
you have compartmentalized your thinking to cope with matters and avoid
conflicts. We all do. That's a side of humans that's interesting to me, as I
am sure to some others.
(*) I find your style of prose not quite appropriate. Excessive
abbreviations will irritate others who may wish to follow the thread. The
message you are sending here is that you do not care about all the other
readers here, so long as you save a few keystrokes and, more importantly,
expressly disrespect the person you are responding to. Unfortunately, it's
also a slippery slope. You might consciously or unconsciously believe that
using "u" instead of "you" will be disparaging towards me, but what also
happens, on an unconscious level, is that carefree grammar, punctuation,
capitalization inevitably leads content to suffer. I've yet to read a
coherent article, on the internet or elsewhere, that doesn't adhere to basic
structural rules. Take this as constructive criticism from another
non-native speaker of English.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
