Is there a God? - Page 28

xilman · 2009-12-08, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by __HRB__

The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.

Sigh. I'm disappointed in you.

According to all the best travel guides, the 9th circle is already frozen over. I thought everyone knew that.

Paul

__HRB__ · 2009-12-08, 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

Sigh. I'm disappointed in you.

Nice to know that you're surprised when my attempts to sink even lower are successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xilman

According to all the best travel guides, the 9th circle is already frozen over. I thought everyone knew that.

I shall take off my belt and by thunder me trousers will fall down... you're right! It turns out that uneducated wop Dan T. doesn't even know how to use cliches properly. Supposedly gaming the system hadn't been invented yet, because the methods of punishment in the 8th and 9th circles clearly suggest that any player should always commit a good deal of fraud with his treason.

Question: It appears that the innermost of 7th is dominated by the LGBT community, which isn't exactly everybody's cup of tea, so is there any combination of sins suggested by your travel guide which guarantees a spot with a good view of the 2nd circle amateur porn?

Zeta-Flux · 2009-12-09, 00:43

cheesehead,

Do you require further clarification concerning my use of "off-topic"?

I'm happy to accept your definition of objective, and understand your reason for inclusion of the phrase.

cheesehead · 2009-12-09, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Do you require further clarification concerning my use of "off-topic"?

Yes.

Zeta-Flux · 2009-12-10, 03:22

If you are Tom and I am Steve in the story, what else is not clear to you? I'm unsure what else you want.

__HRB__ · 2009-12-10, 16:55

Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs

cheesehead · 2009-12-11, 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

If you are Tom and I am Steve in the story, what else is not clear to you? I'm unsure what else you want.

You wrote in post #264, "What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions." But that was vague. Were you referring to post #260 as "my previous post"? Were you referring to only your comments in post #260, or was there anything else (that I wrote, for instance) that you considered off-topic?

When you wrote, at the beginning of post #260, "I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic", what did you mean "this stuff" to refer to? My interpretation of "this" was that it was backward-referring, to something preceding post #260 (i.e., "this stuff" was what we were in the process of discussing). Were you, or were you not, referring to anything before post #260 as "off-topic"?

Zeta-Flux · 2009-12-11, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

You wrote in post #264, "What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions." But that was vague. Were you referring to post #260 as "my previous post"?

Yes.

Quote:

Were you referring to only your comments in post #260, or was there anything else (that I wrote, for instance) that you considered off-topic?

Only some of my own comments.

Quote:

When you wrote, at the beginning of post #260, "I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic", what did you mean "this stuff" to refer to?

Some of the topics in post #260, such as alternate dimensions.

Quote:

My interpretation of "this" was that it was backward-referring, to something preceding post #260 (i.e., "this stuff" was what we were in the process of discussing). Were you, or were you not, referring to anything before post #260 as "off-topic"?

I was not referring to anything before post #260.

Any other questions?

Zeta-Flux · 2009-12-17, 02:42

bump

__HRB__ · 2009-12-17, 03:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

bump

Look, cheesehead is not the kind of person you can reason with (really!), but here's what he'd say if he were davieddy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g

P.S. the soapbox is the place where everybody is an idiot - except me.

flouran · 2009-12-17, 03:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by __HRB__

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g

Awesome death metal!

2009-12-10, 16:55	#303
__HRB__ Dec 2008 Boycotting the Soapbox 1011010000₂ Posts	Aha! Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs

2009-12-09, 00:43	#300
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7·13·17 Posts	cheesehead, Do you require further clarification concerning my use of "off-topic"? I'm happy to accept your definition of objective, and understand your reason for inclusion of the phrase.

2009-12-10, 03:22	#302
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7×13×17 Posts	If you are Tom and I am Steve in the story, what else is not clear to you? I'm unsure what else you want.

2009-12-17, 02:42	#306
Zeta-Flux May 2003 60B₁₆ Posts	bump