|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:29 pm
LITERACY CLASSES, GOD DAMMIT.I was wondering just how far my responsibility as a save-the-ED-er extended in replying to topics like these. Note on page three I can no longer understand the posts (and I do do my best-- I'm not the type to pull the "I can't understand you" out of elitism). I am seriously considering stopping my replies if they don't shape things up because I can honest-to-God not understand a coherent point in their posts anymore.
I was really startled to see so much ape-type. I mean, people like that used to be in the minority, and then I turn around and it's me and like two other people against an entourage of... someone give me a word to describe that. I can't think of one. = /
Is there ANY pragmatic way we can do something about this? I really can't post anymore in the ED if it's going to constantly be indecipherable.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:15 am
Armas_Valdamir Yes but what's that got to do with anything ((JK lol)), ok sorry but I'm saying that many many people use science as a way to verify that there is not God though Science can go both ways. Also there are many people who are Christian Scientists but most of them are crazy, not saying much but alot are crazy, well they try and make connections were there aren't any and speculate alot to make others believe when they should just realize, hey it's God he can do anything and there need be no explanation, again I'm not saying science is bad I'm saying that the people warp it to there purpose and try to use it in ways it can't be used. SilverDratini attempted translation and Yes but what's that got to do with anything (joking there), ok sorry. I'm saying that many, many people use science as a way to verify that there is no God, though Science can go both ways. There are also many people who are Christian Scientists, but most of them are crazy, not saying much but a lot are crazy. Well, they try and make connections where there aren't any. They speculate a lot to make others believe, when they should just realize, "Hey, it's God, he can do anything, and there need be no explanation!" Again I'm not saying science is bad, I'm saying that the people warp it to their purposes and try to use it in ways it can't be used. I still don't get his point myself, though. I'm not sure there was one. Sounds like a load of equivocation to me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:52 am
Thanks for the translation. o_x I still don't get his point tho', haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:32 pm
I've come back to it, and I think I may have got it.
He's saying you shouldn't use science to disprove the existence of god(s). I think...
Someone needs to give him some notes about run-on sentences and why they should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:10 pm
SilverDratini I've come back to it, and I think I may have got it. He's saying you shouldn't use science to disprove the existence of god(s). I think... Someone needs to give him some notes about run-on sentences and why they should be avoided.
God, he had like a whole paragraph without a single comma or period or anything on one page. It was so hard to sort out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:00 pm
It's just sad. Horribly, horribly sad.
In true ED fashion, I will say why I think this: people who can't type should just go spam in the CB. t's not our problem. And people who really think they're doing a good job? We need to beat them suckers until they get that '.' is a useful tool. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
