Plonkers of the world unite.

[lifegazer]

This is meant to be a serious thread, believe it or not. I'm constantly being called a hypocrite for preaching unity whilst irritating certain people by labelling them as plonkers or bozos.
Disregarding the abuse I have to put up with myself, there are reasons for this which do not contradict my desire for unity. I shall try to explain...

My philosophy states that God alone is existence - that everything else is just a perception within God's mind. I occasionally drive home my point by calling you, the members here, God.
Thus, how can I call you God and a plonker at the same time? That's easy: you are God, but you are being a plonker - and you need to be aware of it and wake up from your slumber.

Check your history books. Over time, God has been - amongst many things - a murderer, a rapist, a villain, a saint, a hero, a coward, a genius, a dork. Oh, and God has been a plonker too. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence of plonkerism within this very forum.

So, you are God but you're being a plonker. You need to be aware of this, so I tell you. You need to stop being a plonker (or a murderer or a rapist or a villain or a dork, etc. etc.) if you're going to contribute towards a meaningful unity.

Hence, plonkerism (like murder or theft) has to be stamped out in the name of unity. If I spot a plonker, I tell him, for unity's sake, that he may redeem himself.

So, plonkers of the world, I ask of you to put aside your pride, awake from your slumber, and join me in the push for unity.:)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Check your history books. Over time, God has been - amongst many things - a murderer, a rapist, a villain, a saint, a hero, a coward, a genius, a dork. Oh, and God has been a plonker too. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence of plonkerism within this very forum.

So, you are God but you're being a plonker. You need to be aware of this, so I tell you. You need to stop being a plonker (or a murderer or a rapist or a villain or a dork, etc. etc.) if you're going to contribute towards a meaningful unity.
So, wait...are you telling god to stop being a plonker? Or telling me to be less like god (the murderer, rapist...& plonker) in order to be part of god? Or are you saying your concept of god is pretty much meaningless, as he, she, or it has been and continues to be all these things which are indistinguishable from regular humanity with all its inherent weaknesses? Does your god fail to contribute to a "meaningful unity"?

I am so confused....

[Suezoled]

[obvious flirt mode] I will certainly merely go on adoring Mercutio, who is god enough for anyone. [/obvious flirt mode]

[lifegazer]

The point is that by labelling plonkers as plonkers, I do not contradict my desire or call for unity. And I'm tired of "plonkers" who persist in telling me that I'm a hypocrite when it's clear that they haven't got a bleedin' clue about me or my philosophy.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The point is that by labelling plonkers as plonkers, I do not contradict my desire or call for unity. And I'm tired of "plonkers" who persist in telling me that I'm a hypocrite when it's clear that they haven't got a bleedin' clue about me or my philosophy. My point was merely that by describing god as a murderer, rapist...plonker, and then telling us not to be those things, and to be more unified and (presumably) godlike...well, I think it is perfectly understandable that people "haven't got a bleedin' clue about [you] or [your] philosophy"!

Now, Suezoled, on the other hand, has a philosophy I can understand and appreciate perfectly! *blush*

[Tricky]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The point is that by labelling plonkers as plonkers, I do not contradict my desire or call for unity. And I'm tired of "plonkers" who persist in telling me that I'm a hypocrite when it's clear that they haven't got a bleedin' clue about me or my philosophy.
You've been in here for over 1800 posts rambling on about your "philosophy" and after that time, still nobody understands it but you. What does that tell you about your ability to communicate a reasoned, internally consistant philosophy? Instead you blame the "plonkers" for not understanding your psychoreligious babble. Why don't you take a good look "inside yourself" and examine the real reason for your inability to connect with us.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
My point was merely that by describing god as a murderer, rapist...plonker, and then telling us not to be those things, and to be more unified and (presumably) godlike...well, I think it is perfectly understandable that people "haven't got a bleedin' clue about [you] or [your] philosophy"!

Asking somebody to stop being a murderer and to awaken to their divinity in the name of unity, would be good sense.
God only acts like a plonker because God has lost awareness of true identity. My philosophy seeks to reawaken that awareness and to stamp out plonkerism in the name of unity.
Nothing wrong with that.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tricky

You've been in here for over 1800 posts rambling on about your "philosophy" and after that time, still nobody understands it but you. What does that tell you about your ability to communicate a reasoned, internally consistant philosophy? Instead you blame the "plonkers" for not understanding your psychoreligious babble. Why don't you take a good look "inside yourself" and examine the real reason for your inability to connect with us.
There's nothing difficult to understand about the sentence "Only God exists.". The reason why I'm still trying to convey this message after 1800 posts is because plonkers such as you:-
(1) Do not care.
(2) Are brainwashed with materialistic assumptions.
(3) Are afraid to accept that statement as true.

The onus is upon YOU to open your brainwashed mind, releasing that vice-like grip on that unsubstantiated materialistic-philosophy which has been fed into you, and to sincerely explore what I have to say, rather than just being a difficult moronic plonker with total disdain for all Idealism.
I cannot force you to be open and sincere. But I will make sure that this forum is aware that you are a plonker and that your position is both dishonourable and closed-minded.

[uruk]

So then we are justified in bringing to your attention that you are god being an imature hypocrite and god using faulty logic in his arguments?

This is just a sad attempt at rationalising your borish behaiviour.
It does not serve your purpose to insult the people you are trying to convince. Please look up Aristotelian and Rogerian arguments
and you will learn why it is bad to insult those you wish to convince.

otherwise you will get back what you dish out.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There's nothing difficult to understand about the sentence "Only God exists.". Oh, its easy enough to understand all right. But what you forgot to add was point (4) which is that we have never been provided any solid, consistant reasons to think it might be true. Yes, the concept is simple. You're ability to back it up is really lacking.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
So then we are justified in bringing to your attention that you are god being an imature hypocrite and god using faulty logic in his arguments?
I've explained why I call people such as you plonkers. You just don't listen. We cannot have unity whilst the world is full of plonkers. So I must awaken the God in you to dispel the plonker that is you. But you must recognise that you are being a plonker first.
And don't lecture me about faulty logic. You're recent posts in my most recent thread (a line from Berkeley), have been abysmal.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oh, its easy enough to understand all right. But what you forgot to add was point (4) which is that we have never been provided any solid, consistant reasons to think it might be true. Yes, the concept is simple. You're ability to back it up is really lacking.
May I remind you that this thread is here to explain why labelling you a plonker does not contradict my philosophy or make me a hypocrite to that philosophy.
I have no choice but to expose the plonker in you.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
It does not serve your purpose to insult the people you are trying to convince.

Insults are irrelevant to my philosophy. You are God, so how can I insult you?
The things I say are wake-up calls and are necessary.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no choice but to expose the plonker in you. And I you.

[Wudang]

Well, help me stop being a plonker. Help me sincerely explore your philosophy. So just explain to me why I should trust my apparent sensations of thought, love etc and not my apparent sensations of red, heavy etc. Explain why the former must be taken as valid sensations but the latter may not. We could even devote a thread to the subject and call it "Upchurch's question". What do say? Help me in my unbelief.

[varwoche]

I'm not sure what a plonker is, though I suspect I may be one. I may even revel in plonk.

[uruk]

There's nothing difficult to understand about the sentence "Only God exists.". The reason why I'm still trying to convey this message after 1800 posts is because plonkers such as you:-
(1) Do not care.
(2) Are brainwashed with materialistic assumptions.
(3) Are afraid to accept that statement as true.
:-

Your so emotionaly invested in your philosophy you can not see the other possibilities.

(4). I am not explaining my self clealy enough or being too general
(5). I am using faulty logic (i.e. circular, non sequiter, ad hominem)
(6). I may be wrong

your ego will not allow you to consider these three possibilities.
You will never be tooken seriously untill you properly consider and address these possibilities.


But you must recognise that you are being a plonker first.
And don't lecture me about faulty logic. You're recent posts in my most recent thread (a line from Berkeley), have been abysmal.

I am calling you logic faulty because I am judging it based on a set of established rules in argument. Thats why it is important to study and read on the subjects you are talking about. You admitted to not really reading or studying alot of points you assert. You are usuing a tool (logic) without reading the manual.
your arguments suffer because of this. That is why you getting such a backlash here on the forum. Your logic is a best slipshot, which most people here will agree. You need to do your homework. You consider my posts abysmal simply because I do not agree with your world view. I and other have pointed out where your logic is faulty, but you refuse to consider the possibility. I am not offended by or resort to name calling because you don't agree with my world view. I engage in debate with you because it tests my world view, and I learn things. Yes even from you.

So buck up and take a higher road as you put it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm not sure what a plonker is, though I suspect I may be one. I may even revel in plonk. I didn't know either. But, unlike some folks, I try to learn things I don't know about. (http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html)

[MLynn]

I am not God, I'm a finite human being (plonker?). And, I always hated philosohy classes in school (double-plonker?).

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't know either. But, unlike some folks, I try to learn things I don't know about. (http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html)
Yikes, I'm a plonker AND a slacker.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MLynn
I am not God, I'm a finite human being

Actually, that's just how you perceive yourself via your abstract sensations. You really should read my latest thread (a line from Berkeley).
What you shouldn't be doing is making assertions of absolute truth pertaining to the reality of your identity, particularly when you also say this:-

And, I always hated philosohy classes in school (double-plonker?).
Yes you are being a plonker, because you hate the only possible path to the truth - philosophy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by varwoche

Yikes, I'm a plonker AND a slacker. I wasn't referring to you. ;)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't know either. But, unlike some folks, I try to learn things I don't know about. (http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html)

Yeah. From the thread title I thought he was going to whine about someone putting him on ignore, but yet it is more of the same "nobody understands me and it is all their fault" nonsense. Now we have the "I preach unity by insulting people" claim right out of the George W. Bush "I'm a uniter, not a divider, and you are either with us or against us" school of diplomacy.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, that's just how you perceive yourself via your abstract sensations. You really should read my latest thread (a line from Berkeley).
What you shouldn't be doing is making assertions of absolute truth pertaining to the reality of your identity, particularly when you also say this:-

Yes you are being a plonker, because you hate the only possible path to the truth - philosophy.
So...you think I am behaving stupidly because I have a different perception of life and reality than you do. I will certainly think about what you say, but if you are trying to insult me it ain't working ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Now, Suezoled, on the other hand, has a philosophy I can understand and appreciate perfectly! *blush*

Actually, it is Suexoled's philosophy that seems the more baffling of the two.

N/A

:p

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Actually, it is Suexoled's philosophy that seems the more baffling of the two.

N/A

:p

*internally debates on whether to toss Nozed out of her Skeptical Gods pantheon*

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Actually, it is Suexoled's philosophy that seems the more baffling of the two.

N/A

:p Much as I am tempted to agree with you, I am more tempted to--just this once--engage in some unquestioning and grateful acceptance.

Lucky me!:D

[evildave]

From Roger's Profanisaurus (http://www.maxim-magazine.co.uk/profanisaurus/profan_front_index.php)


plonker n. An actor who relies entirely on one crap put-down line and a three wheeler car to maintain an entire situation comedy for years and years and f***ing years.


I dunno. Sounds like lifegazer is being the plonker here, using this definition of plonker.

Being abusive is not a technique that will "unite" anyone. Except maybe people who like being abused... but that's what religions are for.

[lifegazer]

(1) He/she totally ignores your post and talks about their beliefs instead, thus proving that you are wrong.
(2) He/she totally ignores your post and lectures you on getting an education.
(3) He/she totally ignores your post and relies on satirical insult to shut you up.
(4) He/she thinks that science is a philosophy.
(5) He/she thinks that science can explain any metaphysical enquiry.
(6) He/she doesn't realise that it's possible to be an Idealist and a lover of science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(7) He/she just doesn't care whether there's a God or not.
(8) He/she is just stupid (poor sod can't help it) but insists on pretending that he/she is not.

The list will probably lengthen.
Edit:
(9) He/she acts like a politician and dances around your credible philosophy, thus avoiding the need to address it.
(10) People would rather flirt than know their God.:D

After reading Ac's post:-
(11) People will absolve themselves of all plonkerism by deflecting all of the above upon myself.

[Acrimonious]

(1) He/she totally ignores your post and talks about their beliefs instead, thus proving that you are wrong.
(2) He/she totally ignores your post and lectures you on getting an education.
(3) He/she totally ignores your post and relies on satirical insult to shut you up.
Lifegazer's post contains 300% of the USDA's recommended daily allowance of Irony (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irony&x=0&y=0).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

Lifegazer's post contains 300% of the USDA's recommended daily allowance of Irony (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irony&x=0&y=0).
You're forgetting that I'm the one who has constructed an entire philosophy of his own here. I'm the one who has to defend his arguments from plonkerism.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Well, help me stop being a plonker.

We might need the A-team for this assignment! ;)

We could even devote a thread to the subject and call it "Upchurch's question". What do say? Help me in my unbelief.
I've asked you a question in my Berkeley thread that needs answering. Then I can expose your plonkerism.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Lifegazer, how does the scoring work? Is one a plonker if one matches a single item on your list, or must one match all the items?

[evildave]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're forgetting that I'm the one who has constructed an entire philosophy of his own here. I'm the one who has to defend his arguments from plonkerism.

As I mentioned before in a different topic, I constructed and deconstructed a philosophy similar to that a long time ago.

Yes, we could all be one entity. Every human, perhaps every other thing, too. Either split into many entities, or a single one wrapping around and restarting again from scratch at the end of 'time'. Got to spend eternities somehow. So what? It's a useful model, or lens or weltanschauung, or paradigm but nothing more can be said of it as "truth" or "Truth".

It's just one unprovable scenario among {bignum} possible scenarios, where {bignum} is not really 'infinite', but characterized by astronomical numbers of significant digits.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by varwoche

Lifegazer, how does the scoring work? Is one a plonker if one matches a single item on your list, or must one match all the items?
Was you thinking of trying for plonker king of JREF? You're up against some tremendous opposition here, I tell you. I think Wudang won my plonker of the month after only 4 days of this month (though I now regret giving him that award so early after talking to uruk and Rand alot recently)... so try again in April.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Was you thinking of trying for plonker king of JREF? You're up against some tremendous opposition here, I tell you. I think Wudang won my plonker of the month after only 4 days of this month (though I now regret giving him that award so early after talking to uruk and Rand alot recently)... so try again in April.
Are plonkers plonkers because of their deeds and/or their thoughts?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by varwoche

Are plonkers plonkers because of their deeds and/or their thoughts?
There are no deeds without thought, except by instinct - which is really just pre-established thought.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're forgetting that I'm the one who has constructed an entire philosophy of his own here. I'm the one who has to defend his arguments from plonkerism. Well, first, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Acrimonious's (rather humorous) line.

Second, yes, you've managed to make up an entire philosophy of your own. Yes, you're the one who has to defend your made up philosophy. Yes, you are being hammered because of your poor argument skills, which education could only help. Are you actually surprised by this?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, first, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Acrimonious's (rather humorous) line.

How many times do you think that I've seen lines like that? I've been pushing the same philosophy for almost three years. I hardly ever meet anyone with a unique slant now - Acri' included. This forum is full of the "usual suspects".

Second, yes, you've managed to make up an entire philosophy of your own. Yes, you're the one who has to defend your made up philosophy.

I've made nothing up. In fact, I'm angered by your statement since I aim to serve reason in whatever I say. I'm here as a 'natural philospher' - not an astrologer or a soothsayer or a preacher of any religion that you've ever heard of.

Yes, you are being hammered

That's a subjective comment. Would you class going for a walk in the snow as being "hammered" by that snow?
Your comments have the strength of a snowflake. I.e., no effect upon my philosophy.
Also, I have my critics here, yes, but it's to be expected given the nature of this forum.

because of your poor argument skills, which education could only help. Are you actually surprised by this?
Your education is dependent upon the philosophy of the state you were born in. Given a magic wand, I could have made you "arrive" in any nation worldwide. Are you trying to tell me that your philosophyis independent of the state/nation you were born within?
That's a highly significant question. Please answer it if you have any balls.

Edit:
btw Upchurch, after considerable conversation with you, I recognise that "you" (upchurch) are smart (intelligent). My gripe with you is that:-
(1) You don't recognise who you are. You still think that having the perception of being upchurch means that you actually are ~upchurch~. That's a subjective crock, of course.
(2) You'd rather use your time, here, to destroy lifegazer than find your own divinity and create a better future for mankind as a whole.

I've known people like you all my life - naturally smart, but lacking the intelligence to step beyond the "knowledge" force-fed upon you within the community of your birth.

Am I wrong about you? If I am, you'll become my friend - not my enemy.

[Acrimonious]

You're forgetting that I'm the one who has constructed an entire philosophy of his own here. I'm the one who has to defend his arguments from plonkerism.
Let me break it down for you.
(1) He/she totally ignores your post and talks about their beliefs instead, thus proving that you are wrong.As opposed to you, who constantly completely ignore every single other person on this board to blather on about your own beliefs? You, who discount anything and everything that isn't in 100% complete agreement with your Beliefs (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=philosophy&x=0&y=0) as absolutely wrong.
(2) He/she totally ignores your post and lectures you on getting an education.As opposed to you, who continually ignore every single book & research suggestion made by forum members who have seen your same "original" philosophy before, debated more concisely and intelligently by philosophers centuries ago. You, who stumble obliviously, making the same mistakes these better men saw and corrected in their own hypotheses, too ignorant of the past to realize the unoriginality of it all, and too presumptuous to even consider the idea that you aren't even the slightest bit wrong on any matter.
(3) He/she totally ignores your post and relies on satirical insult to shut you up.
Does "Plonkers of the world unite" ring any bells?

How many times do you think that I've seen lines like that? I can imagine quite a lot. I don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy detection.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Also, I have my critics here, yes, but it's to be expected given the nature of this forum. gazer,

You might be right. I don't think so but you could be right. There is a problem though. Your philosophy so far has been demonstrated to be logically inconsistent.

You have made straw men and engaged in ad hominem in addition your argument is both circular and a non sequiter.

That's a highly significant question. Please answer it if you have any balls. Why should anyone answer your questions when you refuse to answer theirs?

[RandFan]

Gazer,

Why do drugs and alcohol affect our intangible realm in predictible ways?

Why does a knock on the head affect our intangible realm in predictible ways?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm here as a 'natural philospher' - not an astrologer or a soothsayer or a preacher of any religion that you have ever heard of.And yet, you advocate a monotheistic god. hm. Have to wonder if you know what natural philosophy is....

You claim to know the will and mind of God with no indication of how you came to know this information. It's true that you are a soothsayer or a preacher (hard to call you an astrologer, but I suppose your methods of deriving your information might make as much sense), but I have to point out that there have been many forms of your "unique" philosophy. As I've mentioned before, Interesting Ian has something very similar, I believe.
Your education is dependent upon the philosophy of the state you were born in. Given a magic wand, I could have made you "arrive" in any nation worldwide. Are you trying to tell me that your philosophy is independent of the state/nation you were born within?Well, first, I'm primarily operating under a scientific approach (or method) to the world, reason, etc. I find it odd that you refer to that as a philosophy given that above you claimed that anyone who "thinks that science is a philosophy" is a plonker.

Of course forms and methods of education are variant depending on culture and geographic location. (Doesn't really add credence for that "all is one" stuff, does it?) But the scientific method is taught and used successfully across the globe. The method itself is not dependent on the culture it is used in.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
debated more concisely and intelligently by philosophers centuries ago.

I recently made the comment that I (my philosophy) could have predicted QM several-thousand years ago, given an acceptance of the existence of a ~primal cause~.
I.e, accept that God is real/true and the duality between classical and contemporary physics [B]is to be expected/B].

[uruk]

1) 1) He/she totally ignores your post and talks about their beliefs instead, thus proving that you are wrong.
(2) He/she totally ignores your post and lectures you on getting an education.
(3) He/she totally ignores your post and relies on satirical insult to shut you up.
(4) He/she thinks that science is a philosophy.
(5) He/she thinks that science can explain any metaphysical enquiry.
(6) He/she doesn't realise that it's possible to be an Idealist and a lover of science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(7) He/she just doesn't care whether there's a God or not.
(8) He/she is just stupid (poor sod can't help it) but insists on pretending that he/she is not.
.

let me see.
1 certainly applies to you, you should probably listen to the second part of 2, 3 defintiely describes you, you definitly tried number 5. well, I'll leave it up to everyone to confirm number 8.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I recently made the comment that I (my philosophy) could have predicted QM several-thousand years ago, given an acceptance of the existence of a ~primal cause~.
I.e, accept that God is real/true and the duality between classical and contemporary physics [B]is to be expected/B]. How would this have been possible when you are unable to reconcile them now?

A number of problems with your thesis have been demonstrated and you simply choose to ignore them.

[RandFan]

Gazer
1) He/she totally ignores your post and talks about their beliefs instead, thus proving that you are wrong.
(2) He/she totally ignores your post and lectures you on getting an education.
(3) He/she totally ignores your post and relies on satirical insult to shut you up.
(4) He/she thinks that science is a philosophy.
(5) He/she thinks that science can explain any metaphysical enquiry.
(6) He/she doesn't realise that it's possible to be an Idealist and a lover of science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(7) He/she just doesn't care whether there's a God or not.
(8) He/she is just stupid (poor sod can't help it) but insists on pretending that he/she is not.[list=1] I have responded to every single post that you have addressed to me. You on the other hand have ignored many of my posts.

I don't think you need an education. It would help if you would learn the rules of logic and know what constitutes a fallacious argument please see: Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

You have insutled me throughout and I have not done so to you.

I think this is a straw man. Philosophy is the search of truth through non empirical means. Science relies on the scientific method which includes empericism

Another Straw Man.

Another Straw Man

I do care but I fail to see the relevance of the statement.

Perhaps, but then most of us are willing to answer your questions. You on the other hand simply run away.
[/list=1]

[RandFan]

Update Your philosophy violates the law of parsimony.

Your philosophy assumes that which it tries to prove. (The fact that our perceptions are internal proves that there is no external.) When this fact only proves that our perceptions of the real world are internal.

Your philosophy is a non sequitur because you state in effect that an intangible realm obviates the possibility of an external reality. This doesn't follow.

You accept that our perceptive world contains both order and predictability but you then use the tooth fairy as an argument when the tooth fairy has neither order nor predictability.

You claim "fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable." When in reality we can know the position and not the state, or the state, and not the position.

You use ad hominem.

You are abusive.

You use Straw Men.

You ignore posts.

You refuse to answer questions.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer


I've asked you a question in my Berkeley thread that needs answering. Then I can expose your plonkerism.

The question was repeatedly answered in "Upchurchs question". Atlas did a decent job of answering for me.

[Zep]

So...

I'm confused.

Are we all supposed to be Plonkers for God? We're Plonkers and We're Proud? Closet Plonkers?

And the exhortation: "Plonkers Of The Work Unite"? Well, the next line is usually: "You have nothing to lose but your chains," but what do we think it SHOULD be?

[RandFan]

lifegazer,

You still have not answered my questions or responded to my posts. In light of the fact that you complain that others ignore your posts this makes you a hypocrite.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I recently made the comment that I (my philosophy) could have predicted QM several-thousand years ago, given an acceptance of the existence of a ~primal cause~.
I.e, accept that God is real/true and the duality between classical and contemporary physics [B]is to be expected/B].

and I've explained how your predictions would have not only been useless, but completely wrong. A post you ignored.

[Wudang]

He's probably pondering his planned new thread about why his theory does (Or does not?) predict a constant speed of light but not sound.

Wudang - King of plonkers

[RandFan]

It appears that at least for the time being that lifegazer has left the building.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RandFan
It appears that at least for the time being that lifegazer has left the building. It's only been two days. Maybe he had a rough weekend.

[scribble]

hrmmm... been there beforE?

[gnome]

An interesting possible etymological progression here...

plonker - someone who you'd put in your kill file

plonk - the sound made of someone landing in a kill file (ignore list)

to plonk - to drop someone in your kill file, as in "I plonked him"

plonker - someone who drops people into their kill file

The word changes to its opposite, in a sense, through this progression.

I have to say, the OP reminds me of the Daily Show's parody of the 2000 presidential debates... *WARNING--not a real bushism* in the parody Bush made a call for unity in his closing statements by saying "It's time to put aside the partisanship of the past by voting for only Republicans."