Come on Unc, at least he aint nit picking…
Thank you, Askeptic. And for the record, nitpicking is one word.
Daniel
Damn Lib, I like you on your good days…
You’re right. I’ll withdraw my objection. Sorry, Lib. I have the wrong fight, wrong time.
Quick, somebody get Scott, I need a ruling. I just won an arguement… (smiley)…
No problem. You and I usually get along well, so I just let it go without responding, figuring you were having a bad day. I hope things are okay for you.
It’s a small “a” in askeptic.
Yes, but I always just ignore that. If you ignore it, it ain’t a rule. 
Look, it’s one gigantic fucking love-fest.
Can’t let this continue. It’ll ruin my reputation as an ill-tempered misanthrope. So fuck off, Left Hand of Dorkness.
(BTW: I no longer endorse the anti-Bricker sentiments I expressed in the quote in the linked post.)
I’d like to see you try that with the “Don’t be a jerk” rule. I don’t care who you are Lynn will smite thee…
But if it’s SkipMagic, he’ll smite twee.
Glad folks liked the lesson plan! And this is a very good point. I think the best way to incorporate it would be to offer the students an alternative argument with similar structure but clearly legitimate points as contrast. (“I also thought about bringing you all some loaded guns to play with during recess, but then I thought, if I do that, then y’all are going to shoot your guns, and if you do that, then someone might not pay attention where they shoot their gun, and if they don’t pay attention, they might accidentally shoot someone else, and if they shoot someone else, the person they shoot might die. Bring guns? Someone might die! How is that different from Bring cookies? Cities Burn!”)
Excalibre, I wrote that? Er, um, yes. Sorry about that. High tensions and all, post-election, everyone was awful, I blame society. You can quit fucking off now.
(See, you were right–I am one of the most forgiving people on the boards! Thanks for that, by the way)
Daniel
That would be difficult…
Kinda the point I was making…
First, I have already been called on that by John.
Second, that would go against the spirit, and wording of the agreement.
I am curious to know if Scott understands your excellent illustration, in particular the slight problem with the hypothetical argument.
That’s exactly **UncleBeer’s ** point. It’s a moot point, though, as you wasted no time in running roughshod over the spirit, the wording, the letter and the intent of the agreement.
I watched with a jaundiced eye as the agreement took shape in t’other thread, but I figured it would make for an interesting test of integrity.
Guess what? You didn’t pass.
This thread has finally surpassed Roland Daschain’s Don’t we also have to respect cheaters and sociopaths?, and broken into the top 50 most viewed Pit threads of all time. :smack: