I second Curtis, Off. I'm glad you're back and you ain't goin' postal!! Merry Christmas
--- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Glad you are back brother. Felis Navidad man. > > > --- In [email protected], > off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for that apology. I honestly did not know > that. > > I really thought you were using an attack. I have > never heard that > > term before. I took some philosophy courses, and I > even taught logic > > as part of geometry classes to high school kids > for a while, and I > > never came across anything like that. > > > > So thanks for the apology, shows a manliness that > some others lack > > here (Turq and Shemp still think I knew what it > meant. I didn't) it > > is an honest cultural difference. I honestly have > not heard it > > before, and I was AMAZED Rick would not ban > someone for > > that...Lol..my bad. > > I don't know if they use it in Britain, and if I > have heard it over > > here I must have just thought the guy is nuts and > being really rude. > > > > Lol...what a palavor, as we say in Sotland. > > > > No need to self-ban yourself, I will ask next time > I see something > > wierd ( it is not a nice term though. It is sexist > and derogatory to > > women, but then, this is America.) > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning > <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Off, > > > > > > I am sorry we had a communications gap. I did > not know that you did > > > not know that "Are You Still Beating Your Wife?" > is an common > > phrase > > > in America. > > > > > > It has nothing to do with wives or beating them. > It is an American > > > idiom. An Idiom being > > > "an expression, that is a term or phrase whose > meaning cannot be > > > deduced from the literal definitions and the > arrangement of its > > parts, > > > but refers instead to a figurative meaning that > is known only > > through > > > common use. Supposedly, in linguistics, idioms > are widely assumed to > > > be figures of speech" > > > > > > Read a few of the links on this google search. > > > http://www.google.com/search? > > q=Are+you+still+beating+your+wife&ie=utf-8&oe=utf- > > > 8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a > > > > > > "Are You Still Beating Your Wife?" is a logical > fallacy. More > > > specifically, it is a "trick question". One > cannot answer it without > > > implicitly admitting to something they did not > do. Thats why it has > > > become a standard retort when someone poses a > logical fallacy to > > them, > > > often in the form of a question or challenge. > The fallacy is the > > > built-in presumption that the addressee did > something that they did > > > not do. Denial of the accusation only > reinforces the false premise > > in > > > the original question. > > > > > > You challenged a number of us to a debate. And > scoffed that we would > > > not accept the challenge. In this context, > either accepting the > > > challenge or refusing it (could) implies that > the underlying premise > > > of your challenge was true. Since I in no way > believe "modern > > > scientific process is wrong, and that [my] > opinion is more important > > > than science.", its quite a slippery slope for > one to answer a > > > challenge with such false premises. > > > > > > A common way to respond to such logical fallacy > structures is the > > > question at hand: "Are You Still Beating Your > Wife?". It has nothing > > > to do with anyones wife, or beatings. My comment > certainly had > > nothing > > > to do with wife -- I had no idea that you had a > wife. And I have had > > > no idea of who you are. To me, Off is just a > name of a poster. > > > > > > I am sorry for the misunderstanding. If I was > aware that you did not > > > have any knowledge of this common American > idiom, I never would have > > > used it. There was no intent to insult your wife > or your relations > > > with her. Since that was your understanding of > my comment, I am > > sorry > > > for making the statement. > > > > > > new.morning > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > new.morning <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > off_world_beings > > <no_reply@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the challenge is for you > anti-science fundies to > > come > > > > > on > > > > > > > YouTube and debate me in a vlog. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes folks, I am willing to put my face > in a video defending > > > > > science. > > > > > > > However, the fundies here will find > pathetic excuses to not > > take > > > > > me > > > > > > > up on that. The reason is that they are > afraid to be seen > > going > > > > > > > around saying that the modern scientific > process is wrong, > > and > > > > > that > > > > > > > their opinion is more important than > science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well first, you need to clarify to the > world if you are still > > > > > beating > > > > > > your wife.>> > > > > > > > > > > Why are you saying such disgusting things? > > > > > Does anyone know this guys real name please. > > > > > > > > > > No really, does anyone know his real name? > > > > > > > > > > Rick I want this guy banned for a month for > saying that lie. I > > won't > > > > > accept anything less. I will take this to > the courts if this > > guy is > > > > > not banned for a month. I'm serious. > > > > > > > > > > What is his real name anyone? > > > > > > > > > > I am taking this to court Rick if he is not > banned for a month > > for > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Barlow > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
