The soul and drugs
-
TClarke wrote:
Shakespeare, whom you stated did not respect the language has been its biggest single contributer. He invented a great many word
Do you think if he resepected it he would have invented 2,000 odd words, and used it in such bizare combinations? No, he was a popularist. He wrote sordid, steamy, consumerist plays with no intention that they should last any longer than a season. No intention that they should be preserved. Using words that were designed merely to capture the attentiuon of the audience. Audacious creations, puns, colourfull metaphor mixing. No, he didnt respect it any further than the next time the doors of the GLobe opened. It is one of our countries odd quirks that his works SHOULD come to represent English so completely. I will agree that is is an evolved language. It has evolved precisely because it has existed for so long outside of any control, any official body to regulate it. Compare this with French for example.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
How long have you known Shakespeare? Did you guys drink tea together to discuss this? Heh, you guys and your speculations stated as fact.
This statement was never false.
-
TClarke wrote:
Still, it's strange that you don't rate the language.
Well, I dont kmnow enough others really fluently to comment. I have heard foreigners applauding the ease of humour, poetry and music in English (this was compared to Dutch). However, my original pbjection was to pedantry. It is a mistake to be a pedant regarding the English language, it is too changable, too fluid, to, well, too lowly born to pedantic material. eg, why 'develop' and 'developement' Where is there extra 'e' from in 'developement', The French say 'develope'. This is more normal. With this, one could be a pedant (as said, French is very strict).
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
We throw the e away. Its development.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A bit authoritarian there...
Because I didn't say please? :rolleyes:
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
do you support freedom of speech?
As a matter of fact, I do. But I also expect people to express what they're trying to say in proper terms if they expect a reasonable answer. Of course, you're free to babble on as you usually do. -- modified at 12:44 Wednesday 19th September, 2007
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
Good luck with that. I'll just sit back and watch you futilely command posters on a public forum what to type. :laugh: Babble.
This statement was never false.
-
Man, you are the king of super pseudo scientific babble. :doh:
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
I didn't claim it was science. Just a theory of mine. But thanks for taking a special interest. What, are you bored with Heinze? You need another target to pump up your ego? Do you get your thrills from sitting at a desk typing in insults? Maybe you should go sailing and get out more.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Actually soul appears in the old testament. Its a translation, but the concept didn't originate with the French Philosopher.
So your saying that it was invented a few hundred years before the French dude by some drug fucked monkey working on some piece of fiction that made it's way into the old testament.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Nope, saying the concept wasn't unique to the French dude. Thanks for playing and twisting my meaning out of context. I'm not promoting anything here by the way. Just pointing out that the concept is an old one. What's your interest in attacking me?
This statement was never false.
-
I didn't claim it was science. Just a theory of mine. But thanks for taking a special interest. What, are you bored with Heinze? You need another target to pump up your ego? Do you get your thrills from sitting at a desk typing in insults? Maybe you should go sailing and get out more.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I didn't claim it was science.
No, but you're careful to sprinkle it with all sorts of existing scientific terms. You call it a theory. So it sure sounds like you're trying to pass it off as science.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What, are you bored with Heinze?
He'll be pissed because you didn't get his name right. :laugh: I guess he's coming down off his salvia trip so you'll have to do in the meantime.
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
-
Nope, saying the concept wasn't unique to the French dude. Thanks for playing and twisting my meaning out of context. I'm not promoting anything here by the way. Just pointing out that the concept is an old one. What's your interest in attacking me?
This statement was never false.
-
I think we've reached agreement. The pedant's point, which I presume was that he believed you should have used affected instead of effected was certainly not worth the comment. For the record, even if English were super strict he still wouldn't have had a point. You wrote: The mind might be effected by drugs That could mean influenced (as in the meaning of affected). Or it could mean that there was a resultant change from the drugs (as in an effect). So close it's absolutely pointless to separate and if my memory of one of my English teachers is correct, the difference is only one that was imposed fairly recently. All the best
TClarke wrote:
and if my memory of one of my English teachers is correct, the difference is only one that was imposed fairly recently.
Probably correct because at the end of the 19th century 'Ensure' was added to the language with a supposed diference to 'Insure'. If you read then early 19th century literature, Trollope for example, you will often have the sensation you are reading American English.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
How long have you known Shakespeare? Did you guys drink tea together to discuss this? Heh, you guys and your speculations stated as fact.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
How long have you known Shakespeare? Did you guys drink tea together to discuss this? Heh, you guys and your speculations stated as fact.
Didnt you ever go to school and study a subject, and therteby gain understanding of it? They are called English Language and English LIterature.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Is that necessarily true? Atheism is not believing in God. Does atheism imply not believing in souls automatically?
I would say so. I've always understood soul as a spirit that currently inhabits our body, but will transcend our death. To most atheists, nothing comes after death, so there's nothing to transcend it.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
Whether you believe in God or not, you have a body, soul and spirit. The spirit is the entity that is going to carry the consequences of your actions and believes / unbelief.
Johan Lombaard Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
How long have you known Shakespeare? Did you guys drink tea together to discuss this? Heh, you guys and your speculations stated as fact.
Didnt you ever go to school and study a subject, and therteby gain understanding of it? They are called English Language and English LIterature.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Sure, but I never assumed I knew what the guy was thinking. You yourself stated that we had to salvage his works, yet you claim to know his mind. That's quite the leap.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I didn't claim it was science.
No, but you're careful to sprinkle it with all sorts of existing scientific terms. You call it a theory. So it sure sounds like you're trying to pass it off as science.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What, are you bored with Heinze?
He'll be pissed because you didn't get his name right. :laugh: I guess he's coming down off his salvia trip so you'll have to do in the meantime.
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
Hey if you want to read into it more than there is, then by all means, carry on. I am stating that its a theory, and guess what? Many theories use scientific terms. You might want to try harder at trolling me. Logic isn't working for you.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
What's your interest in attacking me?
Just a bit paranoid, eh? :rolleyes:
Save an endangered species. The American Engineer.
Not at all. Calling the kettle black. Your trolling skills are amateurish at best. Maybe you should stick to picking on kids. What are you, like 60 trolling a forum board trying to punk folks? Borderline.
This statement was never false.