The Gospel

[slingblade]

Feel the crushingly quaggy blow of my wit!

Okay, but you'll have to buy the plane ticket.

I'll chill the Tequila Rose.

 

[RandFan]

These are very close to Nick the Budgie's colors. The yellow appears in the wild, the blue does not. You can see a good Web site about budgie colors here.

That's all well and good but they don't seem have much meat on them. You probably have to fry up a dozen or so for a half decent meal.

 

[CapelDodger]

Xerxes sounds like a fun guy!

If you were in his entourage it was life of fun, if you had half your wits about you. Xerxes himself had the whole "not what his father was" burden to carry. You come into the world a mewling babe like the rest of us, and your father already has "The Great" after his name. In other circumstances you could have been the pride of your family by getting to college. In fact you'll only ever exist as a comparison to your father. Unless you're Alexander, that has to suck.

 

[delphi_ote]

If by "in this way", you mean by showing that a logically consistent integration of all accounts is possible...

Yes. Possible, but not logical. It's possible to explain away the miracle of the resurrection by saying Jesus wasn't really dead at all, and to explain away the Red Sea by saying they crossed a shallow part of the Reed Sea, or even explain away the previously mentioned contradictions in the sign above Jesus' head by positing that each author saw only a little bit of the sign.

But the authors made their meanings clear. Leave post hoc reasoning to apologists.

 

[ceo_esq]

Check the edit. I clarified.

It was a revelatory slip, though - "derailing a troll" rather than "derailing a troll's thread"? One could be forgiven for suspecting that you actually believe that arbitrary thread derails, into completely unrelated areas, operate to punish trolls. In fact, they simply waste everyone else's time who cares to peruse the thread. People who don't care to see a thread pursued any further can vote with their feet, which certainly has no less deterrent effect on trolls than do recipes and kittens, and has the added benefit of not wasting anyone else's time.

In the case of this thread it was started by a troll and has drifted around all over the place, not the best example, I would have thought, to use for thread drift complaints.

I couldn't agree more, but I think we're all sufficiently familiar with the phenomenon of "thread drift" to recognize that the budgie-and-kitten routine is not the same thing.

...or you'll quote the membership agreement at me again?

Does there have to be an "or", fowlsound, to get you to make a bona fide effort in that area? Did you have secret reservations about being civil and polite when you agreed to it, or did they arise later?

Yes. Possible, but not logical.

I don't see any logical problem with it, though I'm certainly open to correction on this point. Maybe we're not using logical in the same sense.

It's possible to explain away the miracle of the resurrection by saying Jesus wasn't really dead at all, and to explain away the Red Sea by saying they crossed a shallow part of the Reed Sea...

Those are possible explanations of whatever underlying event may have taken place, but they require formally contradicting the text (e.g., positing that Jesus didn't die when the text says that he did die), so they are obviously not the same sort of thing as what I was talking about. I hesitate to call them textual interpretations at all. At any rate, they do not arrange the information in the text into any kind of internally consistent pattern, or demonstrate that an apparent textual contradiction does not necessarily exist, the way I think can be done with the last words of Jesus. We are inclined to explain the Resurrection the way you just did because the text contradicts something we know about human mortality, not because it explicitly contradicts something else in the text.

But the authors made their meanings clear. Leave post hoc reasoning to apologists.

If you have some kind of ante hoc reasoning to bring to an almost 2,000-year-old text, that will be interesting. Isn't any exegesis (including your not unreasonable, but not especially compelling, assertion that the authors made their meanings clear) going to be post hoc?

 

[Ducky]

It was a revelatory slip, though - "derailing a troll" rather than "derailing a troll's thread"? One could be forgiven for suspecting that you actually believe that arbitrary thread derails, into completely unrelated areas, operate to punish trolls. In fact, they simply waste everyone else's time who cares to peruse the thread. People who don't care to see a thread pursued any further can vote with their feet, which certainly has no less deterrent effect on trolls than do recipes and kittens, and has the added benefit of not wasting anyone else's time.

Does there have to be an "or", fowlsound, to get you to make a bona fide effort in that area? Did you have secret reservations about being civil and polite when you agreed to it, or did they arise later?

1) No it was not revealing. Your reasoning to assume my motives is inductive and fallacious. You have no evidence I am out to "punish" anyone. If you do, please present it, or drop the whole accusation. You do not know my motives any more than Sylvia Browne does.

2) It is a longstanding tradition to post kittens and recipies in response to a troll's thread after that thread has jumped the shark. In fact, it is a point of amusement to many of us. This thread jumped the shark around page 10, and is nothing but a massive pile of wandering crap anyway. Why are you so intent on protecting the integrity of something that has none to begin with?

3) Your implication that I either need a threat in order to behave with civility, or that I do not, nor ever intended to be civil is a false dichotomy. You will find more often than not I am civil to others on this forum. You, however have twice decided to act as forum police for my civility, and the first time it was about a sarcastic joke, not an uncalled for insult. This time, I very much wasn't being civil toward you, however you also very much earned that by your passive aggressive pedantry.

In short, ceo-esq:

Once again, you can bite me.

If you want to report that to the mods, go ahead.

 

[kmortis]

I tire of kittens and budgies, so I give you.....

...candy.

 

[David Swidler]

How about brownies? Thick, rich, fudgy brownies.

1 cup butter or margarine
3/4 cup cocoa powder
1 3/4 cups sugar
3 eggs
1 tsp. vanilla extract
1 1/2 cups flour
1 tsp. salt


Preheat oven to 350F/180C. Grease or line a 13"x9" pan.
Melt shortening over moderate heat. Add cocoa and mix until blended. Add sugar and mix until blended. Remove from heat. Into a separate bowl, crack eggs and spoon in some goop from the pot, beating them together with a fork. Add the egg mixture and vanilla to the pot and mix. Add flour and salt and mix until all the flour disappears.

Pour into prepared pan and bake for 15 minutes.

Add nuts in the final mix if you're into that sort of thing. Serve with ice cream.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

But there's no formal inconsistency among the various accounts of the "last words" (that was discussed in this thread). So where does the logical contradiction come from? There must be better examples of Biblical contradictions than this.

Are you sure you want to bring up your weaseling on that other thread? Even in your[/I[ coherent narrative reconstruction you have so many contentions and assumptions that it comes off as forced.

Saying that you can square any contradiction in any text the way I've done is like saying that any two texts must be logically consistent with each other - surely not the case.

At least you admit that the bible is not logically consistent.

Ossai

 

[Roadtoad]

Maybe we could sample these delicacies at the next TAM.

 

[kmortis]

Lobster Thermador

4 servings
4 whole live Maine lobsters, about 1-1/2 Lb each
1/3 cup unsalted butter
3 tablespoons flour
1 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon freshly ground nutmeg
1/8 teaspoon paprika
1 cup half and half
3 tablespoons dry white wine
1/2 cup finely grated cheddar cheese
1 quartered lemon
4 sprigs parsley

Heat 3-4 gallons water to boil in a stockpot, over a high flame. Plunge lobsters
headfirst, into boiling water. Cover and simmer for 15 minutes. Remove from pot
and drain well. Remove claws and legs, leaving body intact. Remove flesh from
claws and legs, and set aside. Cut thin undershell from tail with shears and
gently remove flesh from tail shell. Cut flesh to large dice and combine with
flesh from claws. Wash shells well and drain. Heat butter in a saucepan. Whisk
in flour, salt and nutmeg. Heat and stir until bubbly. Whisk in half and half
and wine. Add lobster and stir to coat well. Remove from heat. Invert shells
onto a broiler pan and fill with lobster mixture. Top with grated cheddar
cheese. Place in broiler briefly to melt cheese and brown lightly. Remove to a
serving platter. Garnish with wedges and parsley. Serve hot! From:Salvador's
Kitchen

 

[Cleon]

Bunnies are WAY cuter than kitties.

 

[kmortis]

And wolves are cutter than either bunnies or kittens.

From

 

[ceo_esq]

1)Your reasoning to assume my motives is inductive and fallacious. You have no evidence I am out to "punish" anyone. If you do, please present it, or drop the whole accusation. You do not know my motives any more than Sylvia Browne does.

No need to be defensive. I made no "reasoning to assume your motives", nor any accusation that you are out to punish anyone. In fact, I didn't even connect you to the recipe-and-kitten set.

Why are you so intent on protecting the integrity of something that has none to begin with?

I already explained how forced derail attempts tend to be a gratuitous waste of other people's time. You may personally feel that way about the whole thread, of course. That's fine, but irrelevant.

You will find more often than not I am civil to others on this forum.

"Be civil and polite more often than not"?

You, however have twice decided to act as forum police for my civility...

Hardly. When did "police action" become synonymous with "earnest recommendation"?

This time, I very much wasn't being civil toward you, however you also very much earned that by your passive aggressive pedantry.

If we were shooting for "Be civil unless your interlocutor has, in your opinion, earned otherwise", there probably would be no need for a guideline to remind in the first place.

I have the impression that you direct terms like "idiot", "moron", and "jerk" at other people here significantly more often than the average poster does. Do you honestly not notice it, or care?

 

[ceo_esq]

Are you sure you want to bring up your weaseling on that other thread? Even in your coherent narrative reconstruction you have so many contentions and assumptions that it comes off as forced.

"Weaseling" - give me a break. I did exactly what I was challenged to do, nothing more or less. "Forced" is another issue entirely apart from "logically consistent", and that narrative is the product of about two minutes' reflection, so I'm sure better and more polished ones are possible. But anyway, there are plenty of assumptions to go around in any scriptural interpretation.

At least you admit that the bible is not logically consistent.

Was this an issue?

 

[kmortis]

Ahh, weasels...they're cute too...

 

[Cleon]

Da WEA-sel!


(I am so very, very, very sorry.)

 

[kmortis]

Cleon.
I need a real apology after that. Nothing in size 1 font. A real one.

 

[delphi_ote]

Those are possible explanations of whatever underlying event may have taken place, but they require formally contradicting the text (e.g., positing that Jesus didn't die when the text says that he did die) ...

Hey. Look at you being all intellectually dishonest and skipping the "sign above Jesus' head by positing that each author saw only a little bit of the sign" example.

Someone needs a new avatar

 

[delphi_ote]

If you have some kind of ante hoc reasoning to bring to an almost 2,000-year-old text, that will be interesting.

Sorry to ruin your erection, but I posted "post hoc" instead of "ad hoc." I'm sure you'll find another way to stimulate yourself being pedantic in your next post, though.