Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	5-Apr-05/7:32 AM
But don't you see how that's different from "Ask and ye shall receive"? Incidentally, I have always though Jesus's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane was one of the stupidest prayers ever uttered by a divine being. I mean, Jesus asked God to spare Him the horrors of the cross, but only if it was possible. The implication of such a prayer is that if God could have spared Jesus from the cross, he would not have done so unless specifically asked to. Surely Jesus trusts God? Surely He trusts that God would only make Him suffer if it was necessary? NO. It seems Jesus thought God might conceivably make him suffer just for a laugh or something. UTTER TOSH!
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	5-Apr-05/7:22 AM
I haven't made any new rules restricting his liberty! What would a Liar-Confuser answer if you asked him the following question "Consider the word 'green'. Does it begin with G?" Imagine you're a liar-confuser. Suppose you wore a hat because you were cold. The shortest description of why you wore a hat is "Because I'm cold." If I say to you "Consider the description of your reason for wearing a hat. Does it begin with A?" What would you answer, bearing in mind that YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION and you MUST LIE?
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	Dovina 12.72.13.149	5-Apr-05/7:07 AM
No to both you and zodiac. Jesus prayed like Sliver is praying, except that Sliver is praying to St. Joseph. They both said something like, “please give what I think is right, nevertheless, not my will but yours be done.” Praying is partly the recognition that God understands the situation much better than the person praying. It’s like a child asking a good parent for something. Sometimes the parent is influenced by the child’s request, sometimes not.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.13.149	5-Apr-05/6:57 AM
You could not have more clearly not gotten it.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.13.149	5-Apr-05/6:54 AM
You've already said that, and I have already agreed to it. What you ignore is that it takes a rule to constrain a Confuser to the terms under which he must answer. Originally, he could answer any way he wanted as long as it was a lie. You have now made a rule restricting his liberty in answering.
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	5-Apr-05/3:57 AM
Then the rule should not be "Ask and ye shall receive," it should be "Ask me to do whatever I want, and I will do whatever I want." Do you agree?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	5-Apr-05/3:50 AM
No. The only two rules required are 1. He must answer the question. 2. He must tell a lie. You have already said you agree with both of these. Consider this simpler example. It makes your misunderstanding clearer: Go to a Liar-Confuser and say "Consider the word that describes the colour of most peas. Does it begin with with G?" If he answers anything other than "No" then he has broken rule number 2: Thou shalt lie. Using the alphabetical method, you can extract from him the spelling of the word 'green'. It's exactly the same with the "Why did you do X?" example. Suppose X is "hit Father Christmas". And the Liar-Confuser's reason for hitting Father Christmas is "Because he's gay." We say to the Liar-Confuser "Consider THE description of why you hit Father Christmas. Does it begin with A?" THE description of why he hit Father Christmas is "Because he's gay". If the Liar-Confuser answers anything other than "Yes" to the first question, then he has not told a lie, because the description begins with B, not A. Do you get it now?
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	zodiac 212.118.19.109	4-Apr-05/10:43 PM
Oh God, this conversation's going downhill fast. So why bother asking God to "help them elect a leader", etc? Why not just ask for His will to be done, even if it means not finding a leader at all, or finding one who's a total clod? Do you hope the new pope will have a stronger hand and take more stands than JohnPaul2 did, or do you just generally hope he'll have strong hands and take stands? If your answer is the first one, what do you hope he'll have stronger hands and better stands than JP2 about? I'm genuinely curious.
Re: a comment on Vietnam by the_poetess	zodiac 212.118.19.109	4-Apr-05/10:35 PM
I recommend the exact opposite of pinkbunnyofdoom's suggestion. Only total hacks write about classics.
Re: a comment on tumbleweed by crooked_smile	zodiac 212.118.19.109	4-Apr-05/10:23 PM
Is that your answer?
Re: a comment on He hit me over the head with a by T. Jonathron Remp	zodiac 212.118.19.109	4-Apr-05/10:22 PM
Oh, sorry. I'll rephrase: You ought to have not used 'whence'.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	zodiac 212.118.19.109	4-Apr-05/10:21 PM
"Closed-minded people reject propositions for reasons other than the propositions' content, such as the race, sex, etc of the person presenting the proposition" is the exact opposite of "[closed-minded] refuse to consider CONTENT that conflicts with what they already believe." Can you not see that the closed-minded under the first definition only consider the source [i.e., I won't consider his proposition that my odor is offensive, because he's Negro, or because he's zodiac], while the closed-minded under the second definition only consider the content [i.e., I won't consider his proposition that Negroes are inferior, because it goes against my pre-existing ideas about Negroes.] You're going to say "-=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. already said that, and better, and besides they think you're dim." Whatever. You could not have more clearly not gotten it the first time.
Re: Listless Nights by blindwriter	tadpole 68.70.105.87	4-Apr-05/9:29 PM
I love it. . .it's like I can see the picture you painted with the poem in my mind
Re: a comment on Prayer For The Church by sliver	tadpole 68.70.105.87	4-Apr-05/9:20 PM
Well, if they were truely Catholic in their prayers, they most likely would have been praying for whatever God-willed. . .even if that meant their own deaths. (you know, like Jesus during His Passion when He asked more than once for His suffering to be taken away. . .unless it be the will of His Father)
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.10.98	4-Apr-05/7:51 PM
His a Confuser. That makes him a deceiver. He will consider the question, and then answer it deceptively. How many times must we go over this? It will take a new rule to make it any different.
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/5:30 PM
I have not introduced any new rules. If the Liar-Confuser changes his description, then he is not answering the question you asked him. The question you asked him refers to THE (note definite article) description you asked him to think about in the first question. You say to him "Consider the shortest description of why you did X. Does it begin with A?" If the Liar-Confuser does not genuinely consider the real description of why he did X, and makes up some other one, THEN HE IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!!!
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/5:25 PM
I wish you'd get your comments right before hitting Submit. That's the second time today I've had to retype a comment because you deleted yours while I was typing. You have introduced another rule! Will it never end. Now he must not lie in his mental description, nor can he change his mental description. Why can't he have many mental descriptions, switch among them at any time for the purpose of confusion. And why should he hold the true description in his mind while you ask for its spelling? Surely a liar can lie about that. Is he no longer a Confuser?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/5:19 PM
You have introduced another rule! Will it never end. Now he must not lie in his mental description, nor can he change his mental description. Why can't he have many mental descriptions, switch among them at any time for the purpose of confusion. Is he no longer a Confuser?
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 81.153.196.50	4-Apr-05/5:16 PM
OK, I'm glad you agree they have to answer the question. But what lie are you suggesting he changes? You aren't discovering his lie, you're discovering the description (the description he has in his mind) of what his reason was for doing X. There's no lie in his mental description. It's genuinely the description of why he did X. If, on the other hand, I asked him to TELL me what the description was directly, THEN he'd tell me a lie like "The description is: 'I did X because I'm Father Christmas'"
Re: a comment on No Worries by Dovina	Dovina 12.72.8.226	4-Apr-05/5:09 PM
I never said they don't have to answer the questions. Their ability to not answer would make the game silly, which I'm not sure it isn't anyway. But you said the Liar-Confuser cannot change his lie as he sees it being discovered. That is a new rule!