The Enemies of Reason

nacho libre

Tim Robbins wrote:

Interesting. What's your own opinion?

There are an infinite number of things in which there is no reason to believe. Given that, can you imagine the insanity of a world in which all of those things are believed, by default, until they were proven not to be true? Can you imagine the insanity of a world in which it is acceptable for any of those irrational beliefs to be held and acted upon? in such a world a man could claim the belief that he has been sent by God to rape children to obtain God's favor and prevent the destruction of the universe. No one could take action against him until his beliefs were disproven, and given their nature, disproving such beliefs is impossible. The world that we actually live in is not far removed from that. People are free to believe what they will, but are not permitted to act on those beliefs without being labeled as insane unless those beliefs (and their resulting actions) are justified. unless those beliefs fall into a subset tagged as "religions," in which case any belief, no matter how irrational, can be held without the believer being labled as insane; to a degree can even be acted upon without interference, even to such an extent that those actions cause suffering and death among other people.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

The system favours those who work the hardest to gain a place in medicine.

Naive, one eyed and cursory. I can't believe someone of your intelligence can have such a simple view. Some schools are far better than others and achieve better results, because they have better teachers.
Now if can't accept that, you have your head in the sand. For what is the point of private schools if all schools are equal.

On the other hand, if you accept that fact you must include it in your analysis. The results you receive in your leaving are not only going to be a function of how hard you work, they will will also be a result of how smart you are and how good the teachers in your school are.

However what should be the case for medicine is, you entry place should be a function of how hard you work, how smart you are and how good your empathy / social skills are.

In an ideal world, school, better teachers, richer family should not come into it. But right now, the end up having more influence than empathy and social skills.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote:

Naive, one eyed and cursory. I can't believe someone of your intelligence can have such a simple view. Some schools are far better than others and achieve better results, because they have better teachers.
Now if can't accept that, you have your head in the sand. For what is the point of private schools if all schools are equal.

Less of a student to teacher ratio doesn't necessarily mean better teachers

On the other hand, if you accept that fact you must include it in your analysis. The results you receive in your leaving are not only going to be a function of how hard you work, they will will also be a result of how smart you are and how good the teachers in your school are.

However what should be the case for medicine is, you entry place should be a function of how hard you work, how smart you are and how good your empathy / social skills are.

In an ideal world, school, better teachers, richer family should not come into it. But right now, the end up having more influence than empathy and social skills.

What are you on about? You go on about how richer schools/families are the bane of education and affect smartness etc and then you suddenly switch the focus to empathy
you're a bit all over the place

Tim Robbins

nacho libre wrote:

People are free to believe what they will, but are not permitted to act on those beliefs without being labeled as insane unless those beliefs (and their resulting actions) are justified. unless those beliefs fall into a subset tagged as "religions," in which case any belief, no matter how irrational, can be held without the believer being labled as insane; to a degree can even be acted upon without interference, even to such an extent that those actions cause suffering and death among other people.

Just some points:
1.
We all act on irrational beliefs at some stage. People follow premiership teams and jump up and down if they win and are in a bad mood if they loose. Quite irrational.

2.
Have a read of this book (if you haven't already):
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
It's not bad.
We all have some beliefs that we cannot proof.

Dades

Tim, I'm becoming weary of your condescending tone so I think I'll take my leave from posting unnecessarily in this thread.

Good day to you, sir.

Tim Robbins

bluewolf wrote:

Less of a student to teacher ratio doesn't necessarily mean better teachers

Of course it doesn't but it means better teaching.

What are you on about? You go on about how richer schools/families are the bane of education and affect smartness etc and then you suddenly switch the focus to empathy
you're a bit all over the place

No. I say richer schools / families increase the probability of getting a better leaving.

In summary here is the flow of my argument:
1.
I begin by saying there is a empathy problem with mainstream medicine.
2.
I say there is too much emphasis put on leaving cert results and there is not enough emphasis on empathy and social skills within mainstream medicine.
3.
I point out that people who go to a good school are more likely to get a better leaving cert and be able to do medicine but this doesn't mean they have more empathy and social skills.
4.
Because most private schools are better schools, people who attend one are more likely to get a better leaving cert and be able to do medicine but this doesn't mean they have more empathy and social skills.
5.
To make matters worse, because the number of places in medicine is kept low, so Doctors can earn more money, this means there not enough supply to meet demand for those who wish to do it and points go up even higher.
6.
Step 5 is like positive feedback and the problem gets even worse. The points are extremly high and even more emphasis is put on getting a super high leaving something which is night impossible unless you go to a good school, no matter how hard you work.

7.
We end up with a system where you need to get 570 points to do medicine, you make a load of moeny but you need no social skills or empathy. How ridiculous is that?

8.
Many people are so unhappy with the lack of empathy of GPs etc. they end up going to quack alternative Doctor who is able to provide empathy which in some cases can have medicinal value.

9.
Of course this not the only reason why people go to alternative medicine, but it is one that is often over looked because some people don't want to changed things.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Tim, I'm becoming weary of your condescending tone so I think I'll take my leave from posting unnecessarily in this thread.

Good day to you, sir.

Well that's disappointing. I have no intention of coming across that way.
All schools are equal but some schools are more equal than others.
I guess.

Scofflaw

Hmm. Perhaps we can put the argument like this:

1. People turn to non-conventional medicine because they reject, not the science of modern medicine, but the attitudes of its practitioners.
-> I'm not aware of any hard data that has a bearing on this, but it is suggestive that the main 'reason' for legal suits against the medical profession is not mis-diagnosis or mis-treatment, but a perception of arrogance or lack of communication (Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Fall 2000) - apparently only 1 in 6 malpractice cases relate to actual "mis-diagnosis or mis-treatment". Considering the high levels of malpractice suits, the perception of arrogance or bad attitudes is obviously quite strong - and anecdotally, I would consider that to be true.

2. Part of the reason for the poor attitudes of doctors is that they are not selected for their empathy or communication skills, but for their scholastic aptitude.
-> In Ireland, at least, there is no process in place that even attempts to measure or determine the 'emotional aptitude' of potential doctors for dealing with patients. The sole determinant is scholastic aptitude, as measured initially by the Leaving Cert.

3. If this is the case, then those who use alternative medicines are not "enemies of reason" at all, but instead people who place a high value on the emotional skills of medical practitioners.
-> Supporting evidence would be that most people who use alternative medicine will opt immediately for a conventional cure when the matter is sufficiently serious. That suggests to me that they are willing to tolerate the poor emotional skills of conventional doctors if given sufficient reason to do so.

Now we might choose to argue that an implication of step (2) is that better schools will provide you with a better chance of getting into medicine. One could further argue that in general, the better schools are private schools, and that therefore private school pupils have a better statistical chance of getting into medicine if they wish to do so. Further, one could argue that those who are able to afford private schools are generally middle-class or above, and that therefore the higher classes have a proportionately better chance of entering medicine than the lower classes. In turn, this would make medicine in Ireland a middle and upper-class profession.

I would say that the above is quite reasonable, myself. Where one can come unstuck is in arguing:

a. that it the middle-and-upper-class character of the medical profession in Ireland is the cause of a lack of empathy in medical professionals, because that's an entirely separate argument

b. that pupils from private schools are less deserving of their success in getting points, because that ignores the rather important point that better schools frequently achieve better results by dint of making the pupils work harder, in which efforts they are encouraged by the parents of the pupil

c. that the ability to pay school fees of €4K a year is solely related to pre-existing class. €4K is a widescreen plasma TV and a foreign holiday, and to a large extent it is the willingness to spend that €4K on education instead that defines the middle classes, not the ability.

d. that it is wrong for people to go into medicine on the basis that it is a well-paid and socially prestigious profession - people are entitled to choose their career for any reason they like. Aside from anything else, this has no bearing on the problem, since sales can be even better paid, and salespeople, by and large, do not lack for people skills - which suggests that people who are "in it for the money" are not any more likely to lack 'people skills'.

e. that a blanket lowering of the scholastic requirements for medicine would result in an overall improvement in the medical profession. For a start, this would not increase the number of medical school places. Second, it would not increase the likelihood of candidates having people skills, since all we've done is changed the setting on something we can agree has no bearing on people skills.

I would argue, then, two main conclusions:

1. that people who choose alternative medicine are not "enemies of reason", but people who place a high value on people skills

2. that the character of the medical profession could be improved by having individual points requirements based on the "interview and offer" system used in the UK.

There is a third conclusion, of course, which for the sake of politeness I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MoominPapa

Scofflaw wrote:

There is a third conclusion, of course, which for the sake of politeness I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Is the third conclusion that Tim is a communist?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I would say that the above is quite reasonable, myself. Where one can come unstuck is in arguing:

a. that it the middle-and-upper-class character of the medical profession in Ireland is the cause of a lack of empathy in medical professionals, because that's an entirely separate argument

But who is saying that?

b. that pupils from private schools are less deserving of their success in getting points, because that ignores the rather important point that better schools frequently achieve better results by dint of making the pupils work harder, in which efforts they are encouraged by the parents of the pupil

But who is saying that?

c. that the ability to pay school fees of €4K a year is solely related to pre-existing class. €4K is a widescreen plasma TV and a foreign holiday, and to a large extent it is the willingness to spend that €4K on education instead that defines the middle classes, not the ability.

But who is saying that?

d. that it is wrong for people to go into medicine on the basis that it is a well-paid and socially prestigious profession - people are entitled to choose their career for any reason they like. Aside from anything else, this has no bearing on the problem, since sales can be even better paid, and salespeople, by and large, do not lack for people skills - which suggests that people who are "in it for the money" are not any more likely to lack 'people skills'.

But who is saying that?

e. that a blanket lowering of the scholastic requirements for medicine would result in an overall improvement in the medical profession. For a start, this would not increase the number of medical school places. Second, it would not increase the likelihood of candidates having people skills, since all we've done is changed the setting on something we can agree has no bearing on people skills.

But who is saying that?

This is a perfect example where you and me run into endless arguments.
I don't know whether you are

a)inventing arguments and showing what is wrong with them
or
b)responding to arguments (that haven't been put) and showing what is wrong with them.

Sometimes I think it is b, and I accuse you of straw manning.
You then get annoyed and say I don't know what straw manning is, which then goes into another argument.
So are you actually doing some sort of thinking allowed aloud or are you trying to rebutt specific arguments?

I suggest you make clear what you are doing.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

But who is saying that?

But who is saying that?

But who is saying that?

But who is saying that?

But who is saying that?

This is a perfect example where you and me run into endless arguments.
I don't know whether you are

a)inventing arguments and showing what is wrong with them
or
b)responding to arguments (that haven't been put) and showing what is wrong with them.

Sometimes I think it is b, and I accuse you of straw manning.
You then get annoyed and say I don't know what straw manning is, which then goes into another argument.
So are you actually doing some sort of thinking allowed aloud or are you trying to rebutt specific arguments?

I suggest you make clear what you are doing.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm doing exactly what I said - putting the argument another way. I made a point of not saying that anyone has put forward the arguments I've stated, because I know that you won't accept that all of those arguments are ones you have made either explicitly or implicitly in the course of this discussion, and I didn't want to get into a row about that.

I will say that if you were to ask for a consensus on whether you made (or implied) those arguments, I think you will find that the consensus is that you did. If you feel you didn't, then either you don't know what you're arguing, or else we don't. Either way, that suggests your arguments are less than clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm doing exactly what I said - putting the argument another way. I made a point of not saying that anyone has put forward the arguments I've stated, because I know that you won't accept that all of those arguments are ones you have made either explicitly or implicitly in the course of this discussion, and I didn't want to get into a row about that.

I will say that if you were to ask for a consensus on whether you made (or implied) those arguments, I think you will find that the consensus is that you did. If you feel you didn't, then either you don't know what you're arguing, or else we don't. Either way, that suggests your arguments are less than clear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is ridiculous. You re-word what you think are my arguments because my arguments aren't clear enough. You think this is valid, I think you are straw manning. Why not just quote me and just say point out where you seek clarification or where something specifically doesn't make sense?
Instead of 2nd guessing, rewording, respinning?

We are back into an argument about how to argue. This reminds me of the endless argument we had over logic, axioms and premises where you ended up calling me an "ass", and several "J C" like references. I would suggest you try to agree a way of arguing when your style clashes.

I find your re-word, re-spin, 2nd guessing style non linear and akin to straw manning. It would make much sense to demand clarification in someone's argument than this habbit you have IMO.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

This is ridiculous. You re-word what you think are my arguments because my arguments aren't clear enough. You think this is valid, I think you are straw manning. Why not just quote me and just say point out where you seek clarification or where something specifically doesn't make sense?
Instead of 2nd guessing, rewording, respinning?

We are back into an argument about how to argue. This reminds me of the endless argument we had over logic, axioms and premises where you ended up calling me an "ass", and several "J C" like references. I would suggest you try to agree a way of arguing when your style clashes.

I find your re-word, re-spin, 2nd guessing style non linear and akin to straw manning. It would make much sense to demand clarification in someone's argument than this habbit you have IMO.

Our conclusions on how it is we find ourselves so frequently at loggerheads are also, I think, widely divergent. I note your opinion, but I wouldn't wish to ask what is manifestly impossible.

In general, I would point out that, since I agree with some of what you are saying, and disagree with the rest, I am entirely within my rights to repost the arguments in my own words, and place them in front of the discussion.

You appear to think, instead, that this is an argument, and that my object is to score points off you in some way. When I want to do that, I don't do it by misrepresenting your arguments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

In general, I would point out that, since I agree with some of what you are saying, and disagree with the rest, I am entirely within my rights to repost the arguments in my own words, and place them in front of the discussion.

When you reword someone else's argument and rebutt that, you are rebutting your own argument not someone elses. Why jump into a debate make your own arguments and rebutt your own arguments?

It simple doesn't make sense in logical discourse, to reword other people's argument, and then think the other person arguments becomes clearer. Since if you think the argument wasn't clear in the first place, how do you know if you had made the original argument clearer, when it's not even your argument in the first place.

You appear to think, instead, that this is an argument, and that my object is to score points off you in some way. When I want to do that, I don't do it by misrepresenting your arguments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is unclear what you are doing. You should clarify when you have decided to reword an argument and perhaps tell people why you are essentially going off on a tangent.
No offense, what you are doing is annoying. Imagine someone rewording all your arguments and started arguing with all of them. It's a kin to interrupting.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

When you reword someone else's argument and rebutt that, you are rebutting your own argument not someone elses.

When what you done is reword the argument without changing what is being argued, you are still refuting their argument.

This is frequently necessary where the other person is either unaware of what they're arguing, has conflated several arguments, has resorted to word tricks of various kinds, or is arguing by implication. These are not necessarily accusations of you, of course - PDN, for example, is a dab hand at arguing by implication, and the first step in arguing with him is often to disentangle what he is actually saying from what he appears to be saying.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Since if you think the argument wasn't clear in the first place, how do you know if you had made the original argument clearer, when it's not even your argument in the first place.

That's nearly a good point, but the argument is often clear, even if the way it is being phrased is not. If I didn't think I had a good idea of what the argument was, I wouldn't rephrase it - instead I would simply say I had no idea what you were talking about.

In some cases, of course, it may be that there are good arguments that come to the conclusions you have reached, and you are not using them.

As I said, though, I have no real interest in arguing about what you did or didn't say - aside from anything else, you don't appear to know yourself, while being quite convinced that you do. If the discussion has to continue down these lines, I see little hope of it remaining as polite as it has been so far.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

When what you done is reword the argument without changing what is being argued, you are still refuting their argument.

This is frequently necessary where the other person is either unaware of what they're arguing, has conflated several arguments, has resorted to word tricks of various kinds, or is arguing by implication.

The rational thing to do with be point these word tricks etc. out rather then re-word arguments because you have no logical reason to think you have clarified the argument that wasn't yours in the first place.

If I didn't think I had a good idea of what the argument was, I wouldn't rephrase it - instead I would simply say I had no idea what you were talking about.

It's irrelevant if you think you had a good idea of the argument. It's not yours and it's not up to you to take the liberty and phrase it the way you like.

You either:
1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Don't understand an argument.

If everybody re-worded other people's arguements how they saw fit, it would be impossible to have any sort of rational discourse.

In some cases, of course, it may be that there are good arguments that come to the conclusions you have reached, and you are not using them.

Well you should state clearly you are trying to point that out.
For example:
" I agree with the conclusion but for a different reason...".

As I said, though, I have no real interest in arguing about what you did or didn't say - aside from anything else, you don't appear to know yourself, while being quite convinced that you do.

Well then give specific example please?

If the discussion has to continue down these lines, I see little hope of it remaining as polite as it has been so far.

I see little hope of having a rational debate if you think you can re-word other people's arguments and argue them as if was their argument. It's a tad conceited - "I won't bother dealing with their actual post, I'll deal with my own version of it, for I have a much better ability at explaining their point then they do."

How do you seriously expect to have a rational discussion with someone if this is what you think you can do?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I see little hope of having a rational debate if you think you can re-word other people's arguments and argue them as if was their argument. It's a tad conceited - "I won't bother dealing with their actual post, I'll deal with my own version of it, for I have a much better ability at explaining their point then they do."

I don't deny that I'm extremely conceited. You might, however, want to look in the mirror while you're handing out these compliments.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How do you seriously expect to have a rational discussion with someone if this is what you think you can do?

To be brutally honest, Tim, I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. It's rare that interchanges with you are even pleasant. I'm aware, of course, that the feeling is mutual.

honestly,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

To be brutally honest, Tim, I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. It's rare that interchanges with you are even pleasant. I'm aware, of course, that the feeling is mutual.

honestly,
Scofflaw

Well then why do you bother trying?

Hivemind187

Hang on a sodding minute now!!

Yes, there is a problem with the way modern western medicine is being delivered these days. I should know having been on the reciveing end of it for most of my lilfe and from trying to get into the health care industry for donkeys years.

The great majority of doctors these days do lack basic social skills and the ability to treat a patient rather than a set of syptoms or a specific ailment. Many of them are cold, impersonal and have very little concern for the realities and everyday needs of the patient prescribing things like "more excercise" to someone who has neither the time nor the ability to make time (minor example).

The mean approach appears to most people (read: Guardian reading lay people) to be "throw amoxycillin at the patient and they will go away" relying on either the placebo effect or the placation of the patient by the appearance of treatment. After a few years of this (coupled with numberous cases of malpractice and misdiagnoses being reported) it is not hard to see people wanting something different and becomming suspicious of the pharmaceuticals or the methods of western medicine.

There is also a certain elitism to medicine and the perception of upper-crust culture is not entirely unfounded. This is hard to deny. So is the deliberately limited number of place on offer by the colleges.

However.

The reaction of the average joe (mainly the middle classes) to seek out nonsense like homeopathy (water healing) or aromathereapy (smell yourself well) in stead of proper medicine is daft. Objectively, anyone with an ounce of sense or even a leaving cert education in biology should be able to see that.

Without the doctors and the work that they do we would all be in serious trouble trying to fend off bubonic plague by culling cats and treating syphillis with leeches.

Moreover, after years of hard study etc most interns spend the first few years dealing with violent, drunken, drug addicted dregs that stumble into the A&E ward demanding to be patched up so as they can go out and damage themselves all over again. Such a thing has got to be disheartening. So has losing patients to disease etc this constant assault on the doctors (nurses too in many cases) psyche is going to take its toll and make them less inclined to connect with the patient.

So while it is best that the students studying medicine be bright and capable of retaining massive ammounts of information the leaving cert tends to favor the personality types who would not be considered sympathetic and approachable by a patient rather than those who would. This leads to the situation that Tim is complaining about, "socially unskilled doctors". The few students who are capable of seeing a person rather than a "patient" will often lose this empathy after being chewed up by the long hours, little thanks and regular defeats by the diseases they are trying to cure.

Crucifix

I think I've watched too many episodes of House to expect a good doctor to be anything less than a glorious bastard.

Zillah

Crucifix wrote:

I think I've watched too many episodes of House to expect a good doctor to be anything less than a glorious bastard.

Cameron: The patient isn't ready for surgery yet, he needs more time.
House: Oh, well then we'll just wait a few weeks and he should be much better...wait, what direction does time go again?

mossieh

Scofflaw wrote:

To be brutally honest, Tim, I don't think it's possible to have a rational debate with you. It's rare that interchanges with you are even pleasant. I'm aware, of course, that the feeling is mutual.

honestly,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then why do you bother trying?

Get a room.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then why do you bother trying?

I would only not bother trying if I believed you to be fundamentally either highly unpleasant or very stupid - and I don't think either of those things. What I do think is that you're bad at debate - and that is something you can (and have) improved at.

There are people whose posts are simply never worth responding to, but you are not one of them. However, you suffer from a marked inclination to claim that other posters are attacking you personally, making things up, or being illogical, when none of these things is necessarily true. You are unpleasant to debate with largely because you are so quick to take offence, and partly because you strongly believe that you are far more logical than you appear to others. You are, as a result, as condescending to most people as I am to you - the difference is, I think, that I am doing it intentionally, and you are not.

Bear in mind, as you read this, that I don't, and can't, dislike you personally, because I don't know you. All I know of you is your posts, and if I have formed a negative impression of you, it is only from your posts and in your role as a boards poster - which in turn is what I am discussing here.

Finally, I think you have a lot to contribute, because you don't suffer from the rigid "hard materialist" mindset that characterises many atheists. Unfortunately, this probably means you irritate me all the more, because I am often in some degree of agreement with what you appear to be trying to say, as I am in this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I would only not bother trying if I believed you to be fundamentally either highly unpleasant or very stupid - and I don't think either of those things. What I do think is that you're bad at debate - and that is something you can (and have) improved at.

There are people whose posts are simply never worth responding to, but you are not one of them. However, you suffer from a marked inclination to claim that other posters are attacking you personally, making things up, or being illogical, when none of these things is necessarily true. You are unpleasant to debate with largely because you are so quick to take offence, and partly because you strongly believe that you are far more logical than you appear to others. You are, as a result, as condescending to most people as I am to you - the difference is, I think, that I am doing it intentionally, and you are not.

Bear in mind, as you read this, that I don't, and can't, dislike you personally, because I don't know you. All I know of you is your posts, and if I have formed a negative impression of you, it is only from your posts and in your role as a boards poster - which in turn is what I am discussing here.

Finally, I think you have a lot to contribute, because you don't suffer from the rigid "hard materialist" mindset that characterises many atheists. Unfortunately, this probably means you irritate me all the more, because I am often in some degree of agreement with what you appear to be trying to say, as I am in this thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I can only suggest if you see logical flows in my arguments point them out. Rewording arguments and arguing the reworded argument, is not logical and has no place in rational discourse.

From now on I'll refer to this technique you seem to be fond of using since it is similar to a straw man as a
S - coffl -aw man. i.e. A variant of s - tr - aw man.

F*ck this is freaky. If you look at those word patterns, your name fits perfectly except for the "coffl" which doesn't fit "tr" my initials.

Where's Brian? Where's PDN? Where's Meditation Mom, JimiTime, Fallan, Noel, Excelsior? Is this a sign?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I can only suggest if you see logical flows in my arguments point them out. Rewording arguments and arguing the reworded argument, is not logical and has no place in rational discourse.

From now on I'll refer to this technique you seem to be fond of using since it is similar to a straw man as a
S - coffl -aw man. i.e. A variant of s - tr - aw man.

F*ck this is freaky. If you look at those word patterns, your name fits perfectly except for the "coffl" which doesn't fit "tr" my initials.

Hmm. Well, evidently I was being highly over-optimistic. Pity.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Where's Brian? Where's PDN? Where's Meditation Mom, JimiTime, Fallan, Noel, Excelsior? Is this a sign?

Interesting. Why the Christian posters? Are you 'looking over Jordan'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Interesting. Why the Christian posters? Are you 'looking over Jordan'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was a joke silly.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

It was a joke silly.

Mm. Needs rewording.

cordially,
S-coffl-aw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Mm. Needs rewording.

cordially,
S-coffl-aw

Or a comma:
It was joke, silly.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Or a comma:
It was joke, silly.

No, I got that bit. Anyway, I think we may have actually killed this thread now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

No, I got that bit. Anyway, I think we may have actually killed this thread now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It could also have been reworded to:

It was a silly joke.