Works every time. Your too easy.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

ooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr?

Pretty much.

God works in mysterious ways... to improve your grammar.

BWE wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I agree. If you're going to mess around with deliberately seeking to annoy others by using incorrect grammar and insulting abbreviations, you're not going to gain much respect for any arguments you make against their ideology. You're merely going to look like an ignoramus out to annoy other people. They won't read beyond your "god" "xians" and "xmas". If you want to offer valid arguments against their ideology, learn a little about the ideology and treat the words the way you would any other words in the English language, with proper respect for the rules of grammar.

Hey now. Xmas is way easier to write and isn't disrespectful anyway since x means Jesus. That's why math people are such intensely religious son's of bitches.

Do you have any idea what your avatar does to the brain of an autistic person? I can't look at it, it makes my head do funny things.

Then you exacerbate it with bad grammar and spelling.

I don't mind that you use the common abbreviation for Christmas, i.e. Xmas, I do mind that you don't use an capital X, and the word "xtians" is not a real word, even if "Christ" is represented by an "X", if you're going to use the common abbreviation used by atheists who wish to be insulting, it's always a capital (at least learn to do it with style). If you want to use insulting abbreviations, be my guest, just don't complain when people don't take you seriously, and don't respond to your posts.

Also as Fallible has pointed out, also learn the correct usage of an apostrophe: the " ' " comma, indicates a missing letter, or letters, or possession. As in the word "sons" in this instance, the apostrophe is incorrect. It is used to indicate possession, as in "my son's book", and not "my son belongs to a group called the 'sons of bitches' ". If you want to have people read something you've written (see I used it correctly there, to indicate the missing part of "you have written") then learn to use initial capitals and apostrophes correctly. (Actually the use of the apostrophe to show possession does indicate missing letters. Writing, or saying, "sonses" is unwieldy, difficult in conversation, but does go back to a time when the language was developing, so the "se" in the middle was dropped and replaced by the apostrophe. We still use it to say "es" when using names ending in 's' as in Jesus, James, Judas. Some people write them as "Jesus's, James's, Judas's" but that's redundant, mostly, but not completely incorrect. So we write "Jesus', James', and Judas' instead, even though written that way with other words, indicates plurals, as in "the boy's toy" and "the boys' toys").

Said with the best of intentions. You and I haven't corresponded on this forum yet, so allow me to introduce myself as the poster who will always lecture, and who will always correct people who use the only language in which I am fluent, incorrectly. (My autism allows me to learn many things, languages other than English, is not one of them).

BWE wrote:Works every time. Your too easy.

"You are too easy" therefore "you're too easy". Sheesh it's not rocket science.

Just a note on names that end in —s, such as Jesus. I would tend to still write the 's. For example, Jesus's sandals. Whilst I appreciate the argument that this may be potentially redundant, I find that it is still necessary, because it's naturally how I would pronounce it, i.e., "Jesus-es".

According to Oxford Dictionaries:

Personal names that end in –s
With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:

He joined Charles’s army in 1642.

Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.

Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.

Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:

St Thomas’ Hospital

If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.

With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:

The court dismissed Bridges' appeal.

Connors' finest performance was in 1991.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punct ... apostrophe

So, yes, in the final examples, the 's is redundant. Just my two cents.



Also, God. What's that all about, eh?

God, God's, god, god's, gods, gods' (?).

You cannot have 'Gods' since, by definition, 'God' is singular - there is only one (allegedly).

Alan B wrote:God, God's, god, god's, gods, gods' (?).

You cannot have 'Gods' since, by definition, 'God' is singular - there is only one (allegedly).

And that's our lord Zoroaster!

If I went dressed as God to a halloween party and angelo also went dressed as God, we would be two Gods at a costume party.

Then you would both become 'gods'.

I guess we would be both gods and Gods. That is, two of the classical characters, "God", just like two Jesuses or two Harry Potters. We would be two of the same named character, if you catch my drift.

Of course, there could only be one "real" God, so to speak, so I entirely understand your point. I was, however, providing a possible exception in terms of costume party characters.

Yes, sorry about the derail, it was just to clear up Angelo's idea that names shouldn't have capitalised initial letters.

Getting back to God....carry on.

LucidFlight wrote:Of course, there could only be one "real" God...

I'd say, "at most one 'real' God"... There doesn't have to be one, unless you think God is a necessary being.

Indeed, only if you thought there had to be one. Even if you thought two were necessary, it would be awkward for them to have the same name, so you might choose God as one and Margaery as the other, to save confusion and whatnot. So, really, it makes sense to have just one God.

Spinoza's metaphysics of God is neatly summed up in a phrase that occurs in the Latin (but not the original Dutch) edition of the Ethics: “God, or Nature”, Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface).Jun 29, 2001
Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - ...
plato.stanford.edu › entries › spinoza