I suggest you may be right, but it is fun to speculate.

And I do appreciate your not doing that.

To justly evaluate a life and thereby judge its value or worth is the thing I’m trying to get at. Nobody does it right in the angst of suicide. The method I’m proposing isn’t very logical, and your complaint about it in your PS is valid, but it’s easy to do. And it turns out, quite interesting in my case. You simply write a quick list of ten Moments, taking no more than five minutes. Then put a + beside the wonderful Moments and a (–) beside the horrible ones. (A Moment cannot be mundane or you would not remember it as important.) Then do the math. I’d be interested in seeing the averages.

I suppose I am supposed to find some contorted relavance to the poem.

So I am being told. When I read them, I see several ways of saying the same thing. Would you care to speculate on why that might be. Perhaps you'd like to reiterate one of the the usual Dovina-dimtard answers or perhaps something like, "This is a consequence of trying to make Dovina see she is a 'woman' and therefore innately bad at arguing."

that's not too bad a definition of prayer.

When I said, “No to both you and zodiac,” I was saying that that way of looking at prayer has always led nowhere. I admittedly sidestepped the issues you raised, and addressed prayer from the position of people who pray, which I think carries some validity that you are sidestepping when you reduce prayer to illogical guff. (Sorry, you didn’t say that, but I think it’s where you’re headed.) You do not have to answer the concerns I raised in the above comments any more than I have to answer yours.

I have defined closed mindedness in several ways and at several times during this discussion, and I think it's abundently clear what I mean by the term. If you wish to review each statement I have made for its grammatical clarity and correctness, please do so with someoine else. I am not interested in that at this point. It might have made a difference several days ago, but now everyone but you seems to know where I stand on that.

If you can prove that he cannot change the original description without telling the truth sometimes, then you are right. But don't give some trivial example. We are dealing with an intelligent deceiver.

Seldom does someone comment on one of my poems as you have done here. They usually raise other issues, often having nothing to do with the poem, with which I often argue. You have stated your opinion of the poem, and I accept it.

"but You are so far away" from what? What do you mean?

My life evaluated like this (according to the ratio of good Moments to total Moments that I’ve remembered) might be considered, in some dark hour, (perhaps an hour in which suicide seems appropriate) not just bunk, but as in this ordinary hour, for its (my life’s) just evaluation.

"Because I'm cold." It is a lie, why not change it to deceive. You will say that's not fair because the Liar-Confuser is not answering, but holding the truth in his mind. I say baloney, he can do that under the original rules.

If they say that prayer is a logical process, will you confront them on it? Because if you do, it could only lead to differing definitions of the word “logical.” You would prevail using the dictionary definition, and they would go away unchanged in their belief, but with a clearer understanding of what the word “logical” means. My question to you on this and many similar arguments is: What’s the point?

My answer to your second question is yes. I don't even have to think about it to answer yes or no, because I am a deceiver and will continually deceive you by lying differently about what my answer is. If I must stick with my original answer, then you have imposed a rule.