Furry Canary

Reply to Lawyer Joke Time in Humor JoeUser Forums

Q. What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? A. One is a bottom-dwelling scum-sucker ... and the other is a fish.

Reply to Imagine! in Religion JoeUser Forums

'lets say 10% of all Jews do this, that should be an army of about 120,00 or so maybe more.' Waaaaay more!

Reply to "To Serve Man"... science, diet, and unintended consequences in Current Events JoeUser Forums

'Possible reason: hormones in milk. Buying organic might reduce the hazard.' Depends upon exactly what hormones they're talking about. Even 'organic' milk contains hormones. Of course, these are hormones that are extremely beneficial - but only if you are a young calf, not an adult human.

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.' You didn't miss it; it was a late addition. It took me ages to find the quote, so I'm particularly glad you thought it was worth it! 'I think it’s nice to end up (if this is the end) on a harmonious note. As you said, our views probably won’t have changed from this discussion. But I’d like to think we’ve extracted some good fodder from each other, which is always a healthy th

Reply to CSI Is Great But... in Entertainment JoeUser Forums

Hilarious! I am forced to agree entirely. (Apart from the bit about 'CSI is great but ...')

Reply to May have been an Unnecessary Question in Misc JoeUser Forums

'In the west, as your post shows, we tend to worry a lot more about 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' questions.' Perhaps so, but if we stopped to consider the potential risks inherent in all the possible answers to every question we asked, the art of conversation (and thus meaningful engagement with other members of the species) would die out altogether. You asked a completely innocent question, with no hidden agenda or intention to cause pain. Th

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'Obviously not.' But yes - it IS interesting! Apologies for the delay, but sometimes work, study, parenthood etc. do have to come first. I still disagree fundamentally with your use of the word 'logic' to describe a requirement for faith, and with your assertion that faith is somehow necessary from an intellectual point of view. Intellectual perspectives in which there is n

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'Why do I want to run up to you my Furry friend and give you a big hug? (No, I'm not gay.)' Wouldn't mind if you were. I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb. We each still think we're right, of course, and neither of us is going to give an inch, which is as it should be ... but I can't help but be impressed. All right, here's a bit of my favourite 'mumbo jumbo' for you. It goes without sayi

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

Ah, so when you use such words as 'proof' and 'truth' and 'science' and 'vibration' and 'frequency' and 'consciousness' etc. etc. etc. they are sufficienty flexible to mean (1) anything you want them to, and (2) nothing that requires you to address potentially awkward questions. I don't doubt your sincerity Andy, but the corruption of the language to this extent to obfuscate meaning is a mechanism that has been well employed by supposedly spiritual co

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

I just can't keep up with your pearls of wisdom, Andy! Here's one from a little earlier that I missed ... 'By definition, you can’t keep the Truth under wraps for long.' But by definition of what - 'truth'? Ah yes, here it is in the Oxford Bonkers Dictionary: 'Truth (n): that which cannot be kept under wraps for long'. Hahahahahahaha! Oh this is too much; I need a lie down!

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

Thanks for the clarification. Equally wrong of course, in that 'the Creation' is a matter of pure conjecture, but you can't have everything. Laugh? I had to wring my socks out! This is tremendous!

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.' 'It’s basic logic.' It gets even better! Not only do you speak for God, but it's LOGICAL that you do so! You obviously understand logic even less than you understand science. And your megalomania knows no bounds! So don't stop now ... this is getting more hilarious by the moment! Incidentally, I notice that, whoever you claim to be speaking for, you conveniently fo

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'I can be a bit blunt at times.' Obtuse means almost the opposite of blunt. I meant blurry, evasive, indistinct, fluffy, fuzzy ... hah! ... furry. 'I've retained my integrity throughout, Furry.' Bully for you. 'From God's point of view ...' Ah. so now you purport to speak for God. Well that figures.

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

I'll keep this short, Andy - we're going nowhere, and I detect a certain deliberate obtuseness in your answers. 'Furry, I can only assume that you’re either deliberately missing the point I’m making, or you have a ‘blind spot’ that is preventing you from seeing.' No, I'm asking what gives you the right to pronounce 'your inner-spirit is Who You Really Are.'' 'Consciousness and the physical brain are not “opposites”.' The quest

Reply to No Quarter.. in War on Terror JoeUser Forums

'Piss on the feelings of other countries about us, no matter what we do they still will hate us and be the petty little people they are.' Hmm, now who does that remind me of? Still, you go right ahead, MM. Gaze into the abyss, and it will gaze back into you. Become what you most hate.

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

‘Only if scientists substitute the word "describe" with "explain".’ / ‘Science can only expect to describe consciousness and its relationship with the brain.’ I suspect that you really don't understand science at all. Explanation is exactly what it does. Conversely, one thing it really doesn't do is description. I tend to think that this function is best tackled by poets, authors and artists. ‘I've been swotting up on consciousness and

Reply to AFRICA FACES EXTINCTION in Current Events JoeUser Forums

'Nothing can help the starving, warring, diseased millions of uncivilized Africa ... They are the leaders of African nations' Just how many nations does Africa have, Marvin? Anyway, good to hear from you, and nice to see that your rabid lunacy is as uncompromised by facts or rational argument as ever it was. Whenever I need a good belly laugh, I know just where to look!

Reply to Detainees are given fair and speedy legal reviews.. in War on Terror JoeUser Forums

'David Hicks was formally charged by a US military commission on August 26, 2004.' I acknowledge my mistake; my source material was out-of-date. However, I do not retract my argument; Hicks was imprisoned for two and a half years without charge. 'Fair and speedy'? Now THAT'S what I call 'BS'.

Reply to Detainees are given fair and speedy legal reviews.. in War on Terror JoeUser Forums

David Hicks, an Australian, was captured in Afghanistan on 9 December 2001, and subsequently imprisoned in Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay. He has remained there ever since (over three and a half years). He has not been charged. Fair and speedy? Hmm. (Well, I guess that must make me a lefty!)

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'Consciousness itself eludes scientific weighing and measuring.' Not so. There has been a great deal of investigation in recent years into what we refer to as consciousness, and what the anatomical and physiological bases for it might be. There's a significant way to go, and numerous theories on offer - which is as it should be. It is quite possible that in the near future science will produce observable results that enable us to explain cons

Reply to The Terrorist Attacks in London in Politics JoeUser Forums

'So by using your strange brand of logic, because some of our missles/bombs hit innocent people that we're next and we somehow like the Brits might deserve it??' WHAT? I can assume only that the voices told you this, drmiler, because I certainly didn't. Get well soon!

Reply to The Terrorist Attacks in London in Politics JoeUser Forums

'Did the "Brits" kill women and children in Iraq? NO!' Der - are you kidding?

Reply to The Terrorist Attacks in London in Politics JoeUser Forums

'Such a statement betrays the goodwill you offered when you condemned the attacks. It's akin to condemning a rape and then lambasting the woman for being promiscuous.' Only if you choose to view the UK as the rape victim. Analyse the situation from an Iraqi perspective and it's not hard to perceive this less as a rape, and more as retribution FOR a rape.

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'As you haven’t come across any form of proof or inner-conviction that would satisfy you personally, you choose not to believe in psychic ability, (or God, or whatever.) Yet your conclusions are still subjective nonetheless.' Not exactly. It hinges on the difference between believing / not believing and whether or not observable evidence exists to support a particular argument. There are many phenomena in this world that I would - subjective

Reply to Those who are 'anti-psychic' in Misc JoeUser Forums

'The fact that you described my views as "pathetic", means that you're on a different wavelength to me.' No, not your views, just this particular argument. And I am perhaps guilty of using too emotive a word here; maybe 'flawed' would have been a better choice. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that you continue to draw attention to the subjective nature of your argument. So, my apologies AB. 'It's a question of sharing views in a fr