I just wanted to see whether it’s possible for something I post to be without controversy.
I agree that it’s possible.
I disagree, but respectfully and in a soft voice.
Waiting for someone else to point out a problem before I said…
No, you weren’t. If you were, you wouldn’t have said that you weren’t looking for controversy. That’s practically inviting it.
He’s just testing you to see if you recognize the Epimenides paradox.
I dispute that that’s a paradox.
No, you don’t.
So, you’re calling Lib a Cretan?
I have it on good authority that Ms. Hope Springs died in 1994.
I don’t dispute the paradox, but I do dispute the proposition that you’re disputing it in the first place.
Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt’s work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me, who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanized world. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken. If La Fontaine’s elk would spurn Tom Jones the engine must be our head, the dining car our oesophagus, the guard’s van our left lung, the cattle truck our shins, the first-class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? It’s over there in a box. Shunt is saying the 8.15 from Gillingham when in reality he means the 8.13 from Gillingham. The train is the same only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is moulting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No there isn’t room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I’m having treatment and La Fontaine can get knotted.
Obvious nonsense. The world and our species is hopelessly screwed up; there is no hope.
“Springs” ? How can an emotion spring ? More nonsense.
And eternal ? Nothing is eternal; everything dies or decays, sooner or later.
“I” ? There is no I; we are all biochemical computers; the self is an illusion.
And “Reckon” ? Since your entire OP is nonsense, you obviously reckon nothing.
To the sufficiently determined, nothing is without controversy.
Of course, nothing is without controversy. It’s nothing, isn’t it? Nothing is the absence of anything, right?
What I’m saying is, who could dispute that nothing is without controversy?
What on earth is that? :dubious:
But if we are speaking of truly nothing, then we are speaking of the absence of all physical laws as well; after all, they are something. Since there’s nothing to stop it, therefore, something could spontaneously appear out of that nothing. Including something controversial.
Unattributed Monty Python.
Elk. Such a woody word. Not tinny at all.
Does she go? I bet she does. I bet she does. Know what I mean? Wink wink nudge nudge, say no more, eh?