Attitudes and behaviour.

[Owlswing]

Not in the Oxford Dictionary. Is it American slang or a witchamacallit  black spell?

PDNFCFR

[ippy]

Bible has a capital B, by the way.

To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.

It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not.  It is simply a correct use of English.  Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
           2 - the Jewish scriptures;
       3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible

N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.

Ignoramus.  You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun.  I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun.  Got it?  It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.

Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?

So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?

I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.   

Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.   

Hope you have a better day today BA.

ippy

Well done Ippy - a prime example of how to give BA a whip to hit you with - the three mispellings you quote - uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable are not BA's but mine. According to my Third edition 2005 of the Compact OED notes that - page vii lines 13 to 17 inclusive - with -ise and ize - either spelling can be used. The spelling -ise is far more common in British English, while -ize is usually found  in American writing. The other two, for your information, are not mispellings but typos.

Hope that the rest of today is better for you ippy.

Beg your pud looks like I was wrong, it must have been my new glasses, my mistake apologies.

ippy.

PS. By the way me making a mistake doesn't add anything to BA's case he's not that difficult.

I'm the last person to pick up on spelling mistakes I wouldn't have noticed, my spelling ability is so poor I don't know how I would survive without spell checker, which picked up the spelling in that post, I didn't pick it up, and can't argue with anyone about the inns and out of spelling, I'm sure you must be right about the spelling.
 
 

[Owlswing]

Bible has a capital B, by the way.

To you perhaps, but not to me; to me it is just a words meaning book.

It is not a matter of Christianity and belief, or not.  It is simply a correct use of English.  Bible is a proper noun, and requires a capital B.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Bible - 1 - the Christian scriptures;
           2 - the Jewish scriptures;
       3 - bible (please note uncapitalised) a book regarded as giving comprehesive and relible information about something e g the electrician's bible

N B - number 3 is everything that number 1 is not; and probably number 2 as well.

Ignoramus.  You were referring to the Christian/Judaic Bible, which requires a capital as it is a proper noun.  I assume you were not referring to such as the electrician's bible, or some such, which does not require a capital, as it is a common noun.  Got it?  It's amazing that you can reach your time of life, and still not grasp the very basics of the language.

Going by your post BA, are you saying that you don't care for an Atheist (a non-religious person would be a more accurate description but Atheist if you must, it's OK), appraisal of your manual?

So if one person has got it wrong multiply that number by a couple of billion and they've got it right, is that what you were trying to convey, only if not it certainly looked as though that's what you were saying?

I didn't refer to this bible of yours I used the word manual, I thought it might be a good idea to check to see if manual was a good description of your book, so I had a look into my copy of the OED the shorter version 6th edition 2007, where in one part it does actually refer to 'ecclesiastical history', so although you might not care for me substituting manual for bible, non the less it's an accurate description of the book we both with pre knowledge from previous posts knew what book I was referring to when I used the word manual.   

Oh and I noticed that when I spell checked my own mailing my spell checker, set to British English, picked up three spelling mistakes in that post of yours, namely: uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable; remember it was my spell checker, not me, that picked up your mistakes.   

Hope you have a better day today BA.

ippy

Well done Ippy - a prime example of how to give BA a whip to hit you with - the three mispellings you quote - uncapitalized, comprehensive and reliable are not BA's but mine. According to my Third edition 2005 of the Compact OED notes that - page vii lines 13 to 17 inclusive - with -ise and ize - either spelling can be used. The spelling -ise is far more common in British English, while -ize is usually found  in American writing. The other two, for your information, are not mispellings but typos.

Hope that the rest of today is better for you ippy.

Beg your pud looks like I was wrong, it must have been my new glasses, my mistake apologies.

ippy

No apology necessary - except perhaps for having mixed me up with BA!

Goddess forbid!

[OH MY WORLD!]

Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html

[ippy]

Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html

Oh well I did try to help.

Your lot are doing too well at rugby these days, we might have to be finding ways to sabotage your team soon.

ippy

[OH MY WORLD!]

 Axe man,
Rugby? Rugby is for panty waists.

[Owlswing]

Hey ippy axe man,
Get educated. Most of us Metis are half French.

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_metis/fp_metis1.html

Oh well I did try to help.

Your lot are doing too well at rugby these days, we might have to be finding ways to sabotage your team soon.

ippy

Football (Soccer) - 90 minutes of trying to convince the referee you are hurt

Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not - and without the armour used in Gridiron and Ice Hockey!

[ippy]

Axe man,
Rugby? Rugby is for panty waists.

At least you don't need to dress up as a gorilla to play rugby, shorts, shirt, a pair of studded boots and a gumshield, thats it.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not

Well, most of the time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate

[Owlswing]

Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not

Well, most of the time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate

Tom Williams did not have to convince the referee that he was hurt, merely that he was bleeding. The injury did not have to be anything but a minor cut, but, under the rules, he had to come off to have the extent of the bleeding investigated.

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch and a substitute on to it. It was not, Soccer like, to get a player on the other team penalised or disciplined.

[jeremyp]

Rugby - 80 minutes of trying to convince the referee that you are not

Well, most of the time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate

I have to say I'm quite surprised you feel the need to defend what was obviously a flippant comment from another flippant comment, but here goes...

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch

I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.

It was not, Soccer like, to get a player on the other team penalised or disciplined.

In your post you never specified any reason why football players feign injury and it's not always to get the other team officially penalised.

[Owlswing]

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch

I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!

[jeremyp]

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding,

Yes I agree and he feigned an injury.

not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

No, he simulated a blood injury.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

Dean Richards admitted to using the same tactic on four other occasions.

[Owlswing]

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding,

Yes I agree and he feigned an injury.

not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

No, he simulated a blood injury.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

Dean Richards admitted to using the same tactic on four other occasions.

Four other occasions Prior to the one that he got caught - a flippant comment tarring everyone in rugby with one man's chicanery! Years ago!

For me - end of!

[Sassy]

All we get on here is pedantic, presumptuous comment, with no regard for the sincere beliefs of other human beings

Ah your talking about others?

For me that sums up your own comments but years of experience dealing with you tells me that like other (mainly fundies) you can't see your own obnoxious replies and often snide comments.

Of course like Sass, CM oh and of course Vlad it doesn't matter how many people tell you your wrong or being a idiot it's always their fault not yours 

the constant infantile use of terms like, "magic," fairies," "spaghetti monsters," etc. 

I'm sure the believers of magic, fairies and spaghetti monsters get the same ridicule but if your going to come out with nonsense as you do that can't back up your beliefs then I don't know how you expect others to take them seriously?

Seeing that atheists get much the same abuse maybe the answer to your problem is grow a set of f off.. just a suggestion 

I don't have a problem  -  it is the likes of you who have the problem, that's why you spend your days denying its existence.

Why would anybody that thinks the whole idea of god or gods is only for deluded people, want to deny the existence of something that's not there in the first place; I'm not denying the existence any kind of god, they don't exist in the first place to deny, other than in peoples minds. Unless, of course, you can prove me wrong which would be necessary due to the present lack of credible evidence, like zero evidence, to support this cranky idea of yours BA.

ippy
ippy   

The truth in your case is twofold.

A. You do not seek or want to know the one and only true God, so why would you need evidence?

B. The bible clearly expresses that those who seek God with a good heart finds him.

So the reality is that you, Ippy, have no idea what the bible says. And cannot find proof because you don't want it. But you cannot dismiss the beliefs of those who have when you have neither the knowledge or want to know God.

That sums it up!

[Sassy]

but a couple of billion others

Ooh look  One for all you trainspotters.

The Earth must be flat.

23 Dec 2012
2.2 billion Christians (32 percent of the world's population). • 1.6 billion Muslims (23 percent).
• 1 billion Hindus (15 percent.
• 500 million Buddhists (7 percent).

You atheists...
Size 10 foot and mouth comes to mind... Could have trouble retrieving this one Euston.

[Sassy]

but a couple of billion others

Ooh look  One for all you trainspotters.

The Earth must be flat.

Is that supposed to be funny, or perceptive?  It's neither.

Ooh you're exceptionally grumpy at the moment.

Merely pointing out that at one time if one relied merely on numbers the Earth would indeed be flat.

Your argument citing 2 billion counts for nothing despite the huge number.

Well explain why it counts for nothing when it is true. So it counts for truth and it counts that 32% of the worlds population disagree with you and Ippy.
Which makes you both likely to be on the wrong side. I think it counts for a lot...

[Aruntraveller]

So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.

Argument from numbers proves nothing.

Your posts prove even less.

[Rhiannon]

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch

I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!

It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. 

[Sassy]

So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.

Argument from numbers proves nothing.

Your posts prove even less.

Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.

[Aruntraveller]

So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.

Argument from numbers proves nothing.

Your posts prove even less.

Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.

PMSL - for you to define my ignorance as staggeringly deafening is complimentary on levels you can't even understand.

[BeRational]

So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.

Argument from numbers proves nothing.

Your posts prove even less.

Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.

Are you saying that if more people believe something, it makes it more likely to be true?

If so, then you would have had to conclude the Earth was flat, and that the Sun orbits the Earth at various times in the past. Did the Earth become a sphere when more people believed that, or was it always a sphere and at one time most people were wrong?

[Owlswing]

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch

I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!

It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. 

Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.

[Sassy]

So had you lived in previous times the Earth was flat - fact.

Argument from numbers proves nothing.

Your posts prove even less.

Not going to allow you to move the goal post. BA was right. You mocked the truth he told you. Your ignorance is staggeringly deafening... Want to take time out and see if you can bring yourself back into this reality.

PMSL - for you to define my ignorance as staggeringly deafening is complimentary on levels you can't even understand.

I see you are intellectually challenged  so did not  understand the sound of ignorance being deafening.... I wrongly assumed you were educated enough to know the original saying which my comment referred to. Seems you were limited in your knowledge and had you not been you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of admitting you pissed yourself laughing because your ignorance.

Even more embarrassing the fact the joke is on yourself.

Should have took time to think about it.

[Sassy]

The feigned injury was nothing more than a ruse to get him off the pitch

I agree. But he did feign an injury and he was therefore doing the opposite of trying to convince the referee that he was not hurt.

All he had to do was to show that he was bleeding, not that he had suffered an injury like a broken bone, a twisted ankle, he just had to show blood and, thanks to the H & S rules, he had to leave the field and be substituted.

He did not roll around on the floor in simulated agony.

However I don't think that this is the kind of feigned injury that happens in virtually every game of Soccer, in the so-called Top Flighyt, anyway.

AS you say "a flippant comment from another flippant comment" - the incident has not, as far as I am aware ever been repeated.

The most interesting thing that I have seen in soccer this season is Jose trying to explain why Chelsea have been shit so far!

It's called football, Matt. Soccer's an American sport. 

Actually - no. It was called Soccer here - from Association Football. The Americans call it soccer because they refer to Gridiron as football.

You are wrong.. Football has always been football here. The Americans called it soccer. They obviously could not  tell the difference between our football and Rugby. As for baseball is basically our rounders played by women in this country.

I suppose basketball another version of our netball. I was captain of both our netball and rounders team before I left school.

I remember years ago Frank Bough talking to the Osmond Family, He asked them what they thought of English football. Maria Osmond replied; You mean soccer and he instantly replied... NO, I mean football.

Because it is football...