NationStates Jolt Archive

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real NS situation...

Capitol City, Jocabia ~ Sen. Pomp S. Windbag proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the holocaust was just a bunch of people who learned to become permanently invisible from the teachings of Nazis.

Under Senate Resolution 69, introduced by the Capitol City Dodecahedrenite, the answer would come from nationstate Education Commissioner Marie Elena de Cordoba de Arnaz de Rodriguez de las Puertas de los Toros de Chili con carne des Tampicos "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Hausendougalwafer, a retired optometrist, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of the holocaust in school history classes without also teaching the alternative of "mystic invisibility"

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Jocabian Department of Education Commissioner Marie Elena de Cordoba de Arnaz de Rodriguez de las Puertas de los Toros de Chili con carne des Tampicos:

1. Is it possible that people can turn invisible?

2. If the answer is yes, the I would like for you to teach invisibility as an alternative to the holocaust. The Nazis turned them invisible.

3. If the answer is no, please explain when and where you investigated each and every person killed in the holocaust for an ability for invisibility.

"I'm not demanding that she (de Cordoba) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no invisibility.' "

Possible problematic answers:
• As the resolution is written, if de Cordoba does answer no to the first question - stating that people cannot turn invisible - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

• But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the invisibility of people is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is mystic invisibility not being taught in Jocabian schools?

Windbag said he suspects that de whatshername would answer that the means of invisibilty are uncertain. De Cordoba was not available for comment.

Reductio ad absurdum for the win.

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real NS situation...

*snip*

:D

I get the feeling I'm missing something by having Poo Twaddle on ignore.

you should consider sending that to the tennessee legislature.

not that they will understand it.

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real NS situation...

Capitol City, Jocabia ~ Sen. Pomp S. Windbag proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the holocaust was just a bunch of people who learned to become permanently invisible from the teachings of Nazis.

Under Senate Resolution 69, introduced by the Capitol City Dodecahedrenite, the answer would come from nationstate Education Commissioner Marie Elena de Cordoba de Arnaz de Rodriguez de las Puertas de los Toros de Chili con carne des Tampicos "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Hausendougalwafer, a retired optometrist, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of the holocaust in school history classes without also teaching the alternative of "mystic invisibility"

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Jocabian Department of Education Commissioner Marie Elena de Cordoba de Arnaz de Rodriguez de las Puertas de los Toros de Chili con carne des Tampicos:

1. Is it possible that people can turn invisible?

2. If the answer is yes, the I would like for you to teach invisibility as an alternative to the holocaust. The Nazis turned them invisible.

3. If the answer is no, please explain when and where you investigated each and every person killed in the holocaust for an ability for invisibility.

"I'm not demanding that she (de Cordoba) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no invisibility.' "

Possible problematic answers:
• As the resolution is written, if de Cordoba does answer no to the first question - stating that people cannot turn invisible - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

• But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the invisibility of people is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is mystic invisibility not being taught in Jocabian schools?

Windbag said he suspects that de whatshername would answer that the means of invisibilty are uncertain. De Cordoba was not available for comment.

I'm a Goofball and I approve of this Thread. :)

I'm a Goofball and I approve of this Thread. :)

I was hoping you'd show up. I'd love to teach you all about mystic invisibility.

you should consider sending that to the tennessee legislature.

not that they will understand it.

I dunno, if members of the Kansas school board understood and (some of them) sympathized with the points brought up by the FSM letter, I think the Tennessee fellows will get it.

I was hoping you'd show up. I'd love to teach you all about mystic invisibility.

As a member in good standing of the Loyal Order of Ninja Clowns, I'm afraid I cannot reveal our secrets. *nod*

As a member in good standing of the Loyal Order of Ninja Clowns, I'm afraid I cannot reveal our secrets. *nod*

You guys are supposed to attack the questions so I can defend mystic invisibility. Geez, do I have to walk you guys through everything?

You guys are supposed to attack the questions so I can defend mystic invisibility. Geez, do I have to walk you guys through everything?

*vanishes in a puff of cotton candy scented smoke*

Nobody of you ever saw me. Why? Because I'm invisible :p Proof me wrong ;)

I was also not killed by Nazis :D

*vanishes in a puff of cotton candy scented smoke*

See if you were really third level you wouldn't have left evidence you vanished.

Here are the stages -

http://jocabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/natural-mystics.html

My girlfriend and I decided we should invent mystic invisibility. The first level would be that you could be inside of a closet and no one would be aware of your presence unless they opened the door. The second level would be that you could walk around in public and people wouldn't remember having seen you unless you talk to them or do something to be noticed. The third level is complete invisibility. And unlike those goofball mystic flyers, I've already achieved the second level. Take that, jumpers.

Yeah, that's right. I sourced myself. Fear my Net-Fu.

See if you were really third level you wouldn't have left evidence you vanished.

Here are the stages -

http://jocabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/natural-mystics.html

My girlfriend and I decided we should invent mystic invisibility. The first level would be that you could be inside of a closet and no one would be aware of your presence unless they opened the door. The second level would be that you could walk around in public and people wouldn't remember having seen you unless you talk to them or do something to be noticed. The third level is complete invisibility. And unlike those goofball mystic flyers, I've already achieved the second level. Take that, jumpers.

Yeah, that's right. I sourced myself. Fear my Net-Fu.

Teach me your ways shifu.

Brilliant.

I want to be known as the first person to accuse Poot Waddle of being a troll. Is there a prize?

Also, I'd like to point out that Cluichistan was the first person to scream at me for thinking people with "political views other then my own" were trolls.

Teach me your ways shifu.

If you teach me how to make my signature hurt people's eyes.

*snip*


Perhaps you would like to explain the purpose of this thread of yours? Is it, as seems to be assumed by several of the people that posted in this thread, nothing but a school yard bully attempting to ridicule another person in the playground?

If not, what is it then?

Perhaps you would like to explain the purpose of this thread of yours? Is it, as seems to be assumed by several of the people that posted in this thread, nothing but a school yard bully attempting to ridicule another person in the playground?

If not, what is it then?

Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Worth the read.

Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Worth the read.

Perhaps he should have posted it there then eh?

If you teach me how to make my signature hurt people's eyes.

Use a format something like this:
Words Words Words Words Words Words Words Words
Words Words Words Words Words Words Words Words

Perhaps he should have posted it there then eh?

He didn't need. That's the point.

He didn't need. That's the point.

Need to or not is irrelevent. What this is then, if yours in the only interpretation, is this is a SPAM thread then... an attempt to knock or attack a single poster from a topic in a different thread and to spread it around more. Griefing perhaps.

Need to or not is irrelevent. What this is then, if yours in the only interpretation, is this is a SPAM thread then... an attempt to knock or attack a single poster from a topic in a different thread and to spread it around more. Griefing perhaps.

Or it's to point out the simple absurdity in position of the fellow from your article. At worst it's spamming, yes. But only if you find someone pointing out something ridiculous in your post (not because of you specifically, but in the article itself) that offensive.

Perhaps you would like to explain the purpose of this thread of yours? Is it, as seems to be assumed by several of the people that posted in this thread, nothing but a school yard bully attempting to ridicule another person in the playground?

If not, what is it then?

The answer is in the first thread.

Reductio ad absurdum for the win.

The fact is that there is very little difference. Logically, we might as well teach mystic invisibility as an alternate "theory" to the holocaust, if we're going to teach ID. Both are based on complete speculation with no evidence to support them. Neither is falsifiable. And both wish to replace a prevailing theory with mountains of evidence.

Perhaps he should have posted it there then eh?

Actually, I did. But then I thought, hey, maybe PW is right for once and I really should advocate replacing the holocaust with theories about invisibility.

You stopped replying in that thread, so I don't see why you'd care.

Need to or not is irrelevent. What this is then, if yours in the only interpretation, is this is a SPAM thread then... an attempt to knock or attack a single poster from a topic in a different thread and to spread it around more. Griefing perhaps.

It's an attempt to attack the position.

Dude, I don't give a crap about you. This is a debate forum. Your arguments. That's it. I'll address you as far as it relates to the argument, but otherwise, you're a sidenote, just the guy behind the tuba, not the song I'm dancing to.