(June 15, 2017 at 4:34 pm)Mariosep Wrote: So, as usual with you Oh ye atheists, you have not been thinking as to come to your own personally thought out and written up meaning of existence.
You guys can't think at all.
Addressing Mr. Obvious:
Dear Mr. Obvious, you are obviously not learned at all much less intelligent, because the best way of giving the concept of what a word means is NOT to use the word in your definition of the word; think now, isn’t that circular talking and therefore betraying your intrinsic ignorance of the meaning of the word itself?
Hint: do research on principles of lexicography.
Your post will be located for the convenience of readers at below my signature post, as my signature post follows right away in Annex.
Adressing Mariosep:
Thin veils of expensive words lugged together in an awfull, unchopped monstrosity of a sentence is not a display of intelligence.
Neither is a void question anymore than a vain and pathetic attempt at seeming deep.
Existence is. I dare you to find me a better way of putting it. Honestly. It's not using the word to explain itself. It's simply stopping where no more words are needed. Where the growing pile would be detrimental. Less is more. Brevity is key. A lesson you'd do well to learn.
Hint: The world is a much simpler place than you may make it out to be. And perhaps more absurd than any of us realize.
Your post was adressed above, for the convencience of readers. Because it's simpler. I'm a simple guy. And not a pathetic showboat desperate to get a rise out of people by being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
"If we go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, suggesting 69.
-
- Your mum, last night, suggesting 69.
-