Sauron

But have whales ever been swallowed by wales?

Even during gales?

deadman_932

Not HUGO, no...but I guess you may have read a bit of E.E. "Doc" Smith? My favorite phrases of his are "Sweet spirits of Niter!" and "Holy Klono's iridium intestines and carballoy claws!" both used as exclamations somewhere in the Lensman stuff. Oy, vey.
What's almost as bad is: weighing wailing whales in Wales way well. Whoa

Chili

Sorry, just trying to give he poor guy a way out.

Roger Pearse

May I ask why you, a total stranger, scream abuse at me?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

You may certainly request administrator action if you think that I am in some way violating forum etiquette.

But perhaps you might find it useful to reread what I wrote in response to the OP. The issue that I raised seems to me much more interesting than simply reiterating slogans.

This forum normally has room for scholarly enquiry, you see, and that was the point of my post.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sauron

Probably because of the way you acted.

But come now, don't act coy and ignorant; Smully's already answered your insincerely-posed question; you merely chose to ignore it. I'll insert the answer to your question, repeated for your benefit:


What I wish to say to Roger is: Cal has a point, and her manners are far better than your own. The science that you so casually dismiss is well within your ability to understand, if you simply apply a little effort. Until you do so, you will continue to make yourself a laughingstock by making bold statements that are at odds with well established knowledge.

Sauron

Etiquette? No.
But the topic is already in progress. If you don't like it, fine.
But instead you whine and snipe when people don't want to follow you down your little rat hole.
Eric's only explaining why your expectations are unrealistic.

*sigh*
Everyone's already read your pedantic meandering, Roger. It's not a question of failure to read your post. It's merely that your post is 100% irrelevant to the OP.

"Seemed to you much more interesting." That appears to be the root of your problem.

You wanted to talk about something else, even though the topic of the thread was already established. And when you didn't get your way, you decided to try and steer the conversation in that direction anyhow.

Hint: if anyone else had agreed and thought your topic was more interesting, they would have followed you down your rat-hole. Since that clearly didn't happen, that means the rest of the participants were more interested in staying focused on the original topic that started the thread. You didn't get any takers for your de-railment. Accept it and move on.

Sheesh. No wonder you're so confused about the flow of the debate.

No thanks. We aren't talking about whether the texts are corrupt. Nobody cares at this point. We're talking about whether there is any physical evidence to support afdave's literalist viewpoint.

The evidence says otherwise.

1. The thread already had a topic.
2. You didn't like the topic, so you tried to change it.
3. When nobody followed you, you decided to ask irrelevant questions and try to place imaginary burdens of evidence on people's backs.

Toto

OK, guys, cool it with the personal jabs and the discussion of moderation issues.

If there's no more to be said about 1,000 year old men, we can just close this thread, and I notice no one has been on topic for a while.

Toto

mung bean

You have a very strange definition of "screaming abuse".
I didn't think Smullyan was doing anything of the sort.

Edit: Good idea Toto. This thread's farked.

Pappy Jack

:wave: Think I was at #348!