Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Why?
Posted by: _Hank Jan 15 2004, 08:23 AM
Why do people continue to dispute the Bible? Archaeology has never found anything that has disproved the Bible. The bible has been around for centuries, I really enjoy that fact that you take verses out of context to spin for your own way of thinking. I encourage you to read the Bible and read the whole book, before you can have a dispute with it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you have all read the Bible cover to cover, and gone to the archaeology dig sites. I doubt it. You are all just using a verse here and a word there to say what you want it to say. I am here for peace and understanding. I love debating, but please don't be rude or ignorant. State whatever is your point don't get rude or call me silly names, like everyone else. Be adults.
Posted by: GodzillaBless Jan 15 2004, 08:26 AM
Be adults? OK. YOU SUCK!!! FUCK YOU!!!!!! GO POLISH YOUR KNOB YOU FAGGOT COCKSUCKER!!!!!
iS THAT ADULT ENOUGH FOR YOU
Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 08:38 AM
QUOTE (_Hank @ Jan 15 2004, 08:23 AM)
Why do people continue to dispute the Bible? Archaeology has never found anything that has disproved the Bible.
Well, maybe not archeology. But explain Leviticus 11:22-23 for starters...
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 08:42 AM
Hmm...that's a toughie. What has archaeology found to disprove pieces of the Bible?
Well:
1) There is absolutely no evidence of the enslavement in Egypt, or of the Exodus (at least on the scale described). Furthermore, the route that the Hebrews supposedly took to avoid the Egyptian outposts was right through the thick of the egyptian outposts. There is no evidence of a large nomadic city moving around the Sinai desert for 40 years.
2) The flood is geologically disprovable and was disproven over 100 years ago. Palentology (a branch of archaeology) bears this out.
3) Tyre was not razed by the Babylonians. It stands to this day.
4) The temple at Jerusalem was not destroyed as predicted. It was destroyed in a fire rather than raised. It was predicted that "not one stone will be left on another." The Wailing Wall, part of the temple, stands on the temple mount to this day.
5) Nazereth was a necropolis in the first century. It did not become a city until after the siege of Jerusalem.
6) The succession of Babylonain kings from the first part of Daniel is inaccurate.
7) Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed by a volcano or an asteroid. Their ruins are perfectly normal ruins of cities that burned to the ground in a siege.
8) The "ten commandments" were part of the Code of Hammurabi hundreds of years before Moses was supposed to have received them as divine revelation. The tablets we have surviving (in the British Museum, IIRC) portray Hamurabi as receiving the code on stone tablets on a mountain top from the very hand of El (God).
Those are the quick ones off the top of my head. Anyone care to add more?
Arcaeology/Palentology DOES contradict the Bible on most major doctrinal points. It proves Jesus to be a false prophet (by the standards set forth in Deuteronomy), it makes the Garden of Eden into a metaphor (which it can't be if original sin is a valid doctrine), it proves the flood false, it proves the Gospels historically unreliable. Without these three things: Jesus being truly God, Eden being historically real, the gospels being reliable, and the flood being evident, Christian Orthodoxy falls apart doctrinally. Liberal Christianity of the sort espoused by Spong, Watts, and Tillich can survive, but that bears so little resemblence to orthodoxy that it really doesn't deserve the name Christianity as much as it does "Christian Buddhism" or "Christ-oriented transcendental Diesm."
-Lokmer
Posted by: SyrioForel Jan 15 2004, 08:59 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 15 2004, 08:42 AM)
2) The flood is geologically disprovable and was disproven over 100 years ago. Palentology (a branch of archaeology) bears this out.
If I may expand on this slightly, the Flood was actually disproven by Christian Geologists (the same ones that came up with the geological column), decades before Darwin wrote his theory. The evidence was so strong that the geologists believed in successive creations followed by catastropic destructions (to account for all the fossils and the vast amount of time necessary to build up the layers.
I sense another drive-by poster has struck.
~D
Posted by: _hank Jan 15 2004, 10:34 AM
(2) The flood is geologically disprovable and was disproven over 100 years ago. Palentology (a branch of archaeology) bears this out.
Why the biblical Flood isn’t accepted
In light of such obvious evidence, why don’t modern geologists and scientists readily accept the validity of the Flood? One reason is that these relatively recent formations are dated by geologists as occurring (in most cases) millions of years before the biblical Flood. The theory of evolution has had such a strong influence on the thinking of the intelligentsia of this world that the truths of the Bible have largely been forgotten or dismissed.
Modern geologists have almost universally accepted what is called the “geologic column.” The geologic column supposedly reflects the history of life in periodic epochs or eras, each of very long duration, that geologists believe occurred on the earth. Thus, much of the earth’s strata are believed to have been extant millions of years ago and are dated by the column to that time.
But what most people don’t realize is that this “geologic column” doesn’t exist in most places on earth. A good example of this can be found in Arizona’s Grand Canyon. On the top of the Grand Canyon is a formation called the Kaibab Formation, which is dated as a Permian period formation (about 250 million years old). Not only that, but in the middle of the Grand Canyon strata is a gap of more than 100 million years in the column between the Temple Butte formation and Muav Limestone (see Stanley Beus and Michael Morales, editors, Grand Canyon Geology, 1990, p. 9).
The bottom line is that geologists’ dating of strata is not through objective, scientifically verifiable dating methods, but rather is heavily influenced by belief in the theory of evolution, which demands eons of time. Many instances exist where the dates obtained in a laboratory do not match the modern idea of how old certain formations are supposed to be according to a predetermined, theoretical geologic column (
(3)Tyre was not razed by the Babylonians. It stands to this day.
The Destruction of Tyre
How many cities are thrown into the sea? Not many. In fact virtually none. However, here is Ezekiel's (written approx 570 B.C.) prophecy concerning Tyre, in Lebanon:
"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.
They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.
Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishing nets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you.
He will direct the blows of his battering-rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.
His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more.
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishing nets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Ezekiel 26:3-14
Frightening stuff. But did all this come true?
Here's what happened to Tyre:
In 572 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon attacked Tyre with great force, partially damaging the city. But his army soon discovered a problem - most of the people had deserted and fled to the nearby Island fortress. This made Nebuchadnezzar give up on Tyre, despite the amount of effort he had put into sieging the mainland city. This is described later on in the book of Ezekiel. All this happened during the life of Ezekiel, so isn't really that amazing. The most amazing events concerning Tyre happened hundreds of year after Ezekiel had died. Halfway through his prophecy, the stress changes from 'he' (Nebuchadnezzar) to 'They', indicating somebody else attacking Tyre (after all, he had declared that 'many nations' would attack)
In 332 B.C. Alexander the Great attacked Tyre with even greater power than Nebuchadnezzar. He absolutely destroyed the Mainland city, and massacred it's inhabitants, but he was still so angry with the city, that he ordered his troops to do a very unusual thing - to throw the entire contents of the city into the sea to make a causeway to the Island fortress where most of the people had fled. They even scraped the the rubble off the city site to smooth over the causeway and make it stable! Then he completely destroyed the Island city. The modern city called 'Tyre' is based several miles away from the original spot and bears no relation to the ancient port. After being routinely trashed by Crusaders and Muslims in the middle ages, the site is virtually uninhabitable. A small fisherman's village now covers a small part of the site, and the Island fortress is no more. Over 2000 years after Ezekiel made his prophecy, a secular historian who surveyed the site declared:
"...[Tyre] never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock - a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. " [12]
Compare that with:
"I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishing nets" Ezekiel 26:14
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 11:16 AM
The Island of Tyre was never destroyed, and it was part of the City. Nebuchednezzer was prophecied to destroy the city, not Alexander. Ezekiel was wrong - and 200 years off.
The flood geology stuff you're spewing is absolute rhino shit. The Flood Geologist position is to take a few isolated factoids that present no problem for the theory, take them out of context, and pretend that they are evidence for a great unconscious conspiracy by those who believe in evolution - since the flood has "overwhelming evidence" and "obviously happened."
It don't wash. No reputable geologist - including the VAST majority of Christian geologists, believes that the flood happened as described in the Bible. No reputable Palentologist, no reputable astronomer or astrophysicist, no middle-eastern archaeologist or Egyptologist (and I know many of all of the former who are deeply committed Christians), believes that a worldwide flood happened. Ever. Not even Dr. Hugh Ross, who runs a Christian ministry called "Reasons to Believe", buys it.
Period.
There are monuments and written records from Egypt, Sumeria, and China which go back past the time of the flood.
If you are insistent on continuing on this flood nonsense, I will engage on the condition that you first read the articles on flood geology at talkorigins.net. Then you will have a broader understanding of the topic than you obviously do now. Do it, then we'll tangle if you still disagree with me on this.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 11:17 AM
Sorry - double post.
-Lokmer
Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 15 2004, 11:25 AM
Hank:
First, don't be so quick to judge. I'm sure there are people whom are as you describe, but the people here I know and like -- I consider them to be friends because they tend to think things through, though I would agree with you I have come across some people here who are as you speak.
When you start off with the same argument directed at everyone, you are putting a burden on yourself to prove you are right, but you cannot possibly debate everyone here and come to the same conclusion. Not everyone is open to debate, but you could start somewhere better than "bring it on". You'll get ripped apart (or worse, ignored altogether) if you start that way.
Never declare victory before the battle is fought. Instead, fight quietly, fluidly and with the greatest kindness. I am no longer here to use you to justify my lack of belief, or project some solipsist worldview onto everyone. Initially, I became an atheist because I looked around and saw what jerks Christians were. If that isn't the worst reason to do anything(disbelieving to spite someone), I don't know what is. I could now look around and see what jerks Atheists are, using any appropriate blanket statement I could find, but in the end I would be leading a life of justification for my every decision, a life where I could simply turn myself against everyone, filled with spite for the enemy, seeking justice for my perception of being slighted, instead of the truth that awaits me. So now, I am neither. I am myself.
Anyone who claims to have truth is similarly declaring victory during the course of the battle. I think that the only truth you will find here is that you like some of the people and you dislike others - the same truth you could find anywhere else. You'll tie your mind into knots while attempting to deny it - you will simply be more reluctant to speak against those whom you like, yet justice will demand you keep in mind that they are the "enemy", and not deserving of respect or friendship when their kindness begins to turn you to acceptance of them as a person, even if their best arguments are unconvincing. That is the truth knocking on your door, and you so kindly ignore it. When you think this way you are your own worst enemy.
Forget for a minute what side I'm on, because I fight the opposite (but in some respect, the same) battle you do. When an atheist is virulent, arrogant and conceited towards you, I am angered with them as well, but I would close my mouth to ensure that I am not cast out of the group I have identifed with, and I would close my mouth also because I failed to divert from their course in the early days, and I would be seen as a hypocrite to deny them the same path I chose initially. You would behave similarly if I went into a Christian site and my kind requests were responded to with scorn. You would stick with your side because it's not worth defending the "enemy" even when he's A) right
honest C) seeking truth, instead of justice, because at some point you have determined that the whole of the group you have subscribed to is more important that yourself and what you believe.So please, if you must err in any direction, err in the direction that atheists here believe as they do because they made a personal decision, not to spite you.
If you have not found justice within your own walls, you will not seek truth outside of them...
Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 11:31 AM
QUOTE (_hank @ Jan 15 2004, 10:34 AM)
Why the biblical Flood isn’t accepted (snip rest of babble)
Let's see...
1. you didn't reply to my request (Lev 11:22-23). Translated into plain English this means "I know I'm wrong".
2. you repeat AHLs. As usual a fundie appears claiming to have perfect evidence for evolutionary theory being a lie, then repeats Ancient Holy Lies ™ debunked many years ago.
Do us all one of two possible favors, would you?
a. vanish without a trace
b. try again, with stuff that's not already listed as a known lie on a site like www.talkorigins.org.
Ultimately, you'll choose a. Otherwise you'd be the first fundie to actually research something.
Dismissed.
Posted by: Consummate Deist Jan 15 2004, 11:38 AM
I was going to post, then I noticed that Lokmer did such a great job of scrambling Hank's eggs that I didn't need to lift finger to keyboard - Good Show Lokmer, the board will be in good hands when (and if) I go to that British dig!
Posted by: nightbreeze Jan 15 2004, 11:40 AM
QUOTE (GodzillaBless @ Jan 15 2004, 08:26 AM)
Be adults? OK. YOU SUCK!!! FUCK YOU!!!!!! GO POLISH YOUR KNOB YOU FAGGOT COCKSUCKER!!!!!
iS THAT ADULT ENOUGH FOR YOU
YEAH!
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 11:46 AM
CD, you an archaeologist?
-Lokmer
Posted by: Consummate Deist Jan 15 2004, 11:50 AM
Have been in the past, am preparing to be again in the future...personally, I don't really like playing in the dirt, but you have to pay your dues. I love to go over the site reports, classify the finds, and do the pre-dig field surveys, but you have to prove yourself and I have been out of circulation so long, that I have to reprove myself...go figger!
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 12:10 PM
In that case, do you care to toss out a few more puzzlers for our incredulous guest here?
-Lokmer
Posted by: Redshift Jan 15 2004, 01:12 PM
Lokmer -good show! (like you photos too)
Jackson - To my mind, that's one of the best posts I've ever read on here.
Posted by: starstuff Jan 15 2004, 01:20 PM
QUOTE (_hank @ Jan 15 2004, 10:34 AM)
But what most people don’t realize is that this “geologic column” doesn’t exist in most places on earth. A good example of this can be found in Arizona’s Grand Canyon. On the top of the Grand Canyon is a formation called the Kaibab Formation, which is dated as a Permian period formation (about 250 million years old). Not only that, but in the middle of the Grand Canyon strata is a gap of more than 100 million years in the column between the Temple Butte formation and Muav Limestone (see Stanley Beus and Michael Morales, editors, Grand Canyon Geology, 1990, p. 9).
Oh, but it does exist. Everywhere. It's been jumbled by earthquakes, erosion, vocanic eruptions, the the plates of the earth's crust moving around . . .
Anyway, you may find some answers to your questions about evolution if you pick up _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Richard Dawkins. If you don't have the time or interest to read the whole book, at least take a look at the chapter called "Puncturing Punctuationism." He has a lot to say about gaps in the fossil record in that chapter, and I don't feel like typing it.
Posted by: chefranden Jan 15 2004, 01:23 PM
QUOTE (_Hank @ Jan 15 2004, 10:23 AM)
Why do people continue to dispute the Bible? Archaeology has never found anything that has disproved the Bible. The bible has been around for centuries, I really enjoy that fact that you take verses out of context to spin for your own way of thinking. I encourage you to read the Bible and read the whole book, before you can have a dispute with it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you have all read the Bible cover to cover, and gone to the archaeology dig sites. I doubt it. You are all just using a verse here and a word there to say what you want it to say. I am here for peace and understanding. I love debating, but please don't be rude or ignorant. State whatever is your point don't get rude or call me silly names, like everyone else. Be adults.
Well how about that? A fundie that might be wrong.
You are wrong. Why would you suppose that no one here knows scripture in context. Well, let's see. Most likely because your preacher told you that no one who reads the scripture would be an atheist. Or that atheists are burned when they touch a bible therefore can't read it. Maybe you just forgot to read the name of this website?
Well, I'll put up my bible study credentials against yours anyday. The proof that the bible is myth is in the sky over your everloving head every cloudless night. Go take a look after reading your floppy magic book tonight.
You start out being rude and ignorant, and you ask us not to be! Well, your mama wears combat boots! So there.
Posted by: Matthew Jan 15 2004, 01:57 PM
QUOTE
In light of such obvious evidence, why don’t modern geologists and scientists readily accept the validity of the Flood? One reason is that these relatively recent formations are dated by geologists as occurring (in most cases) millions of years before the biblical Flood. The theory of evolution has had such a strong influence on the thinking of the intelligentsia of this world that the truths of the Bible have largely been forgotten or dismissed.
Ah, Hank decides to raise up an old canard that acceptance of evolution a priori necessiates belief in an old earth and vast geological time. What Hank doesn't seem to realize is that old-earth views were worked out by Christian geologists well before Darwin published his views on evolution. In fact, Darwin was a Bible-believing Christian, and was influenced by Charles Lyell's work Principles of Geology. Many Christian geologists of the time had already come to accept an old-earth. It was old-earth geology which influenced Darwin's ideas, not the other way around.
Matthew
Posted by: ~Josalo~ Jan 15 2004, 02:01 PM
~Hank thank you once again for posting the most spammed message on the forums, damn youre original!
Posted by: Traffic Demon Jan 15 2004, 02:08 PM
Guess who's back... back again...
Traffic's back... back again...
Hank - But what most people don’t realize is that this 'geologic column' doesn’t exist in most places on earth."
Nor should we expect it to, as lack of appropriate depositional conditions and erosion both cause vast periods of time to pass unrecorded in the geologic column. That the column does not exist in all locations not only does not contradict the accepted view of geology, but is in fact wholly consistent with it. Finally, despite the fact that the entire column does not exist in alllocations, the entire column can be viewed at the locations named at this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
On the top of the Grand Canyon is a formation called the Kaibab Formation, which is dated as a Permian period formation (about 250 million years old).
And this is a problem because.... why? Again, geology does not mandate that all time periods be recorded in all locations; to imply that it does is to demonstrate a gross ignorance of even the most basic geology. At the same time, your ability to parrot the young Earth creationist part line is impressive.
Not only that, but in the middle of the Grand Canyon strata is a gap of more than 100 million years in the column between the Temple Butte formation and Muav Limestone
Again, why do you perceive this to be a problem?
"The bottom line is that geologists’ dating of strata is not through objective, scientifically verifiable dating methods
Except that it actually is. Radiometric dating, for example, is about as objective and scientificall verifiable as it gets. If you would discuss science, it would be a good idea to educate yourself as to how science is actually practiced.
but rather is heavily influenced by belief in the theory of evolution, which demands eons of time.
Problem for this claim is that geologists recognized that the Earth is ancient long before Darwin and Wallace ever published. Thank you, come again.
Many instances exist where the dates obtained in a laboratory do not match the modern idea of how old certain formations are supposed to be according to a predetermined, theoretical geologic column
Would you care to present any examples of where appropriately applied dating techniques have arrived at an inappropriate age for a specimen? I've been asking that one of the young Earth creationists for I don't know how long, and have yet to see even one such example.
Yours in Science,
Big Daddy Traf
Posted by: Loren Jan 15 2004, 03:05 PM
QUOTE (Consummate Deist @ Jan 15 2004, 11:50 AM)
Have been in the past, am preparing to be again in the future...personally, I don't really like playing in the dirt, but you have to pay your dues. I love to go over the site reports, classify the finds, and do the pre-dig field surveys, but you have to prove yourself and I have been out of circulation so long, that I have to reprove myself...go figger!
Wow! Way far out! I'm impressed. Hope you have a ball even if you don't really enjoy the digging stuff.
Posted by: Loren Jan 15 2004, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Jan 15 2004, 01:23 PM)
Or that atheists are burned when they touch a bible therefore can't read it.
Well, actually, that kind of does happen with me, sort of...
Only, when I touch a Bible, it bursts into flame!
Great fun at parties and during church services!
Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 03:17 PM
QUOTE (Loren @ Jan 15 2004, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE (chefranden @ Jan 15 2004, 01:23 PM)
Or that atheists are burned when they touch a bible therefore can't read it.
Well, actually, that kind of does happen with me, sort of...
Only, when I touch a Bible, it bursts into flame!
Hilarious! Wonderful! I bet the police are on their way to arrest me now for my thundering laughter in the middle of the night must have awakened and frightened most of my neighbors!
Posted by: Doug2 Jan 15 2004, 06:26 PM
QUOTE
Well, actually, that kind of does happen with me, sort of...
Only, when I touch a Bible, it bursts into flame!
I was in church not too long again and the pastor insisted that atheists are afraid of the bible. He said he pulled one out in the debate and the atheist backed off and tried to keep from touching it. How funny. Christians will say anything to try to persuade themselves that the bible has some magical pixy dust power that all atheists know about but deny. I love that I am an atheists with half a dozen bibles/concordances and more knowledge of them than most christians. Not the least bit afraid of bad fiction. I am a bit afraid of people that kill because they think it is truth though.
Hank, are you sure you are not http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv guy?
Posted by: fortunehooks Jan 15 2004, 08:36 PM
welcome hank,but you didn't give us a nice greeting you started off being very assertive. pointing all non believers to your presupposed right direction.
when you're a guest in someone's home you tend to be a bit
hesitant,and you just don't enter someones' bedroom if they haven't offered or invited you to view that area of the house.
mr.hank you over stepped the respect lines,but you did in a way where there is no doubt that you expected to offend.
i thank you mr.hank you really made me see the moment of clarity as to why i choose to acknowledge scientific facts,and throw away preconceived,outdated in my opinion dogmas.
jjriab: glad to see you're doing well for yourself,and it's always nice to see the presence of more intellect on this site
contributing and making the troll public realize intelligence is sought after strongly here but not forced on anyone.
lokmer: very informative i love the avatar man.
josalo: my thoughts exactly the most uttered phrase on this site.
consummate deist: i hope to hear how you enjoyed the british
dig.
can any help with my english. not sure if i was to put the words over and stepped together as one.
i hoped that the evolution debates had ceased with the discovery of archaeopteryx lithographica in the 1860's it clearly showed that birds evolved from dinosaurs. so the genesis oral tradition that was shared way back when is stated correctly outdated.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME YOU'VE BEEN A WONDERFUL AUDIENCE.
Posted by: Emperor Norton II Jan 15 2004, 08:39 PM
It was in an article a long time ago, but I think they found a bird-like reptile pre-dating Archeopteryx
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 08:52 PM
Thanks, fortunehooks. I should point out, though, that the avatar is not a picture of me I'm very much a male
The avatar is a photo I took over the summer of a woman who was modelling for me. I was going for a "Birth of Venus" theme.
Glad you liked it, though.
-Lokmer
Posted by: fortunehooks Jan 15 2004, 08:56 PM
you are correct there was a fossil discovered in 1992.
protoavis from the late triassic.
lokmer i apologize. let's not tell anyone about the mistake
a photographer how can i get to learn your profession in two months another of my jokes.
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 09:05 PM
QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Jan 15 2004, 08:56 PM)
a photographer how can i get to learn your profession in two months another of my jokes.
Hmm...that sentance is in dire need of some punctuation - I can't make hide nor hair of it. Did you mean:
A photographer! How can I get to learn your profession in two months? (another of my jokes [i.e. just joking]).
or
A Photographer? How can I get to learn your profession?
In two months, I will tell another joke.
Posted by: Matthew Jan 15 2004, 09:17 PM
QUOTE
Hmm...that sentance is in dire need of some punctuation - I can't make hide nor hair of it
Boy am I glad that I am not the only one notices these things. Lokmer, I wanted to ask you, do you struggle like I do with being a big grammar freak? I am not only hyper-concious about punctuation but I also find myself rather big on grammar and to some extent proper English.
Matthew
Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 09:33 PM
I wouldn't call it a "struggle." More of a hobby.
But yes - internet speak drives me nucking futs.
-Lokmer
Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 16 2004, 10:33 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 15 2004, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Jan 15 2004, 08:56 PM)
a photographer how can i get to learn your profession in two months another of my jokes.
Hmm...that sentance is in dire need of some punctuation - I can't make hide nor hair of it. Did you mean:
A photographer! How can I get to learn your profession in two months? (another of my jokes [i.e. just joking]).
or
A Photographer? How can I get to learn your profession?
In two months, I will tell another joke.
Well, unless he puts his jokes on a schedule, I would go with the first choice...
Posted by: Derek Jan 16 2004, 10:46 AM
I agree that good grammar is imperitive when writing, but it also reminded me of something I saw. It's funny to see the different personalities expressed through their styles of speaking. From other comments on the site, I gather than at least some of you are fans of www.albinoblacksheep.com. So I thought some of you might get a kick out of another one of it's links: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
It's a satire about internet personalities and tendencies, maybe you can identify a few of these characters in yourselves and in others, and hopefully be able to laugh at both!
Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 16 2004, 11:07 AM
QUOTE (Derek @ Jan 16 2004, 10:46 AM)
I agree that good grammar is imperitive when writing, but it also reminded me of something I saw. It's funny to see the different personalities expressed through their styles of speaking. From other comments on the site, I gather than at least some of you are fans of www.albinoblacksheep.com. So I thought some of you might get a kick out of another one of it's links: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
It's a satire about internet personalities and tendencies, maybe you can identify a few of these characters in yourselves and in others, and hopefully be able to laugh at both!
Never seen it, Derek, but I am a changed man forever...
I have already categorized several people, but I'm looking for myself. Maybe Ideologue? Rebel leader?
I'll keep looking. I think I'm a mixture of just about everything. Good site
Posted by: Consummate Deist Jan 16 2004, 11:12 AM
Lokmer, sorry I had to bail yesterday - I have so much to do before I leave and really can only come here for part of my lunch period (if I get one). You, Traffic Demon, Matt and the others did a hum-dinger job, y'all carry on in that manner and make me proud of you while I'm gone!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)