leejo

Discuss.

Obi

No.

__________________

loyalguard

*yawn*

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard

Rincewind

zzZZZzzzZZZzzZZZZzzz

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

Rincewind

It begins something like this:




( 1 2 3 4 5 ... 99 100 ... Last Page)




.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

loyalguard

*wakes up* Huh...what? Someone get a bucket of warm water and put Rincewind's hand in it!

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard

Rincewind

/me urinates freely in this thread.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

icky

You are all so wrong. I can't believe you don't see how wrong you are.

Boring arguments always start with a broad statement describing what you are talking about, but really offering no extra insight. They then follow with a series of statements which may or may not be connected to the issue at hand. Disconnected thoughts and tangents are great for making any form of text unbearably boring. The use of many paragraphs will ensure that nobody with any spirit left in their body will even make it to the end.

Arguments are, after all, nothing but people trying to support different sides of the same issue.

The issue has to be uniquely defined, or the argument really has no chance of going anywhere. The two sides are more like parallel planes, with no intersection. Because, as you know, parallel things don't intersect. Or at least they don't intersect in the geometry I learned in school. They might intersect if something messed around with the axes.

Words are sometimes not sufficient to express one's feelings.

I like to leverage the boredom I have created in order to amplify the effect and make people dread my next sentence. Every time I use the word leverage, I literally picture a lever and how it turns a small movement into a big one or a small force into a big one. Words and images have a fascinating connection in the human mind. I wonder if any kinds of images go through the mind of someone who is born blind.

Webster's defines boredom as the state of being weary and restless through lack of interest. I think that's one thing we can all agree on.

I could really go either way on the whole thing. Some days I flip, and other days I flop, but if you confront me, I am bound to agree with you.

Can't we just agree to agree?

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

loyalguard

tl;dr

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard

Trooper

i always find the boring arguments are when cing joins in!....

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

xTYBALTx

I can't believe someone so esteemed as yourself could present a parallel tangent (to the circle - the argument?) which is nearly absurd on its face. It's clear that boring arguments occur when the lines are diverging - not when they are parallel.

Additionally, anyone who's anyone knows that Merriam-Webster's definition of boredom went out of style back in the 20's - American Heritage is now the boredom industry standard. And you can't disagree with me since, well, since my sister's boyfriend is an etymologist of the worst sort.

Many people wonder what the worst sort of etymologist is, and I often share their wonderment to the fullest extent permitted by law. Sometimes that's all I do. You may call me boring (uninteresting and tiresome; dull), but then, Merriam-Webster-ites would, now, wouldn't they?

Additionally, I can not believe that you would use the first definition from Merriam-Webster's entry! Good God, don't you know that the first definition is always put there for the sake and benefit of those whom have no idea what the word is even supposed to mean, if we were to live in a perfect world? Only philosophy majors and baseball scholarship cases would be foolish enough to use the first definition. I once used the first entry for an english paper, and to say my professor was unimpressed would be saying less than the least to put it lightly on a feather!

I can't believe you haven't already agreed with me.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

loyalguard

To Icky and Tybalt-

Per se, your juvenile attempts to define the parameters of a de facto boring argument omitted one a priori item ab initio. The overuse of latin terms to fill a void in the substance of the argument.

Ad hoc, I will correct this prima facie eratum inter alia. The modus operandi of my argument will be to explore the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Id est, I will show in vacuo that ad nauseam arguments such as this are nothing more than a tabula rasa.

Pro forma, I will end this argument post haste since it is nothing more than a non sequitur.

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard

icky

I agree. I must have been tired when I posted that.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

Dick Blonov

Qui vir odiosus!

__________________
|TG-6th|Blonov