Well, then you should have bothered to mention that in the original thread. Instead, you said:
To me, that very clearly states, “If you want to comment that there are no ghosts, you may not do so in this thread.”
I’d construct it otherwise: “If you merely want to comment that there are no ghosts, you may not do so in this thread.”
I.e., what is being prohibited is not the Fighting of Ignorance, viz., the assertion that no formulary for exorcising ghosts will in fact have any effect, for the simple reason that ghosts do not exist, but the mere heaping of ridicule on someone for asking a question that presupposes something with a high level of woowooitude[sup]1[/sup].
The characteristics of unicorns according to medieval bestiaries are fairly well established, and of some interest to those interested in going beyond “mythical horse with horn on forehead” to find out what the credulous did think about the anatomy of unicorns. To inquire about that and simply get scoffing, “Unicorns don’t exist[sup]2[/sup]; havent you heard?” responses is not fighting ignorance – because there’s a set of legendary data it may be worthwhile to preserve, for a variety of possible reasons.
-
I coined it. If you want to argue there’s no such word, bite me!
-
Sure they do – it’s the supply of virgins to catch them that’s dwindled.
The sheer tonnage of what is not obvious to you, DtC, boggles the imagination.
[Moderating]
Again, let’s refrain from taking potshots at other posters in ATMB.
Sorry about that. I’ve been busy.
You are engaging in equivocation. That’s one of them logical fallacy thingies. Changing the context of the discussion by using a different definition for the word doesn’t prove your point.
Ah, and so in Dio’s post "Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Would I be expressing a fact or an opinion if I said there were no such thing as smurfs?"
You know for sure he was not talking about the Money-laundering kind? Or are you making a assumption?
::rubs palm-heels into eyes::
Reading this and the other Usual Suspects thread right now, I think I understand why Indiana Jones sometimes just shoots the swordsman.
Nice one.
In today’s classic column, Cecil himself has shown some degree of tolerance for a bit of “woo”…
Quite so and fascinating stuff it is. But if in the course of such discussion I discover that my collocutor believes in the actual existence of the mythical beast then it is surely allowable to point out politely that all the evidence rather strongly suggests that he or she is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Not at all. In fact, unicorns existed. There have been good well researched scientific articles (one by Willy Ley) about what creature was the basis of the medieval unicorn- was it the Rhino? The Oryx? Both of which are very real. Or perhaps the extinct Elasmotherium? Or perhaps it was based upon a single-horned goat, which do rarely exist. Or even prehaps some other animal, now extinct. Not impossible at all.
And one can have a good scholary discussion about what was the biblical "re’em" based upon. Was it another Rhino or Oryx? Or was it the Tachash? And, what was the Tachash based on? Badger? Dugong? Giraffe?
Don’t be ridiculous - Cecil doesn’t exist.
Regards,
Shodan
Pop culture references to smurfs tend to refer to the cartoon critters that are blue and annoying, rather than to esoteric criminal enterprises. Given the context of the discussion and the topic involving ghosts, vampires, and “woo”, I can say with 99.9% certainty that Dio was referring to the fictional blue fairies and not to any technical term applied to money laundering.
But you are correct, I cannot read Dio’s mind. Though even if he stated in the thread an explicit statement to the effect that he was unaware of any technical criminal terms and was speaking of cartoon characters, I technically would be unable to prove he was talking about the fictional cartoons and not the money launderers. I mean, we’d actually have to believe Dio when he said what he was thinking, and there are plenty of people who are unwilling to do that just on principle.
I can confirm with absolute authority that I was talking about the cartoon characters and had no awareness of any other definition of the word. I’m also reasonably certain that DrDeth knew that and was being facetious when he brought up the criminal slang definition.
Yeah, everyone knows that Santa is really your parents, and Cecil is really Ed Zotti.
I had a hunch, true. 
But still, it becomes hard to say “*there’s no such thing as …” *when life has imitated myth to such a degree, one has to be so very careful in defining the term. For example, what I posted about unicorns. Or Robin Hood, or King Arthur, or King David. The last three certainly have clear legendary and even mythological sources, but most historical scholars agree that there was some real person in each case upon whom the myth and legands were based. Hell, we have legends about Geo. Washington, and he’s certainly real. No doubt, King Arthur is more legend than real, and Geo. Washington is more real than legend, but we can’t really say “there was no such person as King Arthur”, just because he’s 90+% legend, just like we can’t say “Geo. Washington is a myth” just because he’s 10% legend.
[slight hijack]
To that end, can you tell us what you are an “expert” of? (your custom title, in case you were wondering what I was referring to.)
[/slight hijack]
It’s just a joke.
Santa is Shodan’s parents?? WTF? Well, that explains the note last year:
"Thanks for the milk and cookies.
Regards,
Santa"