Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
370 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,401 Year: 1,149/23,288 Month: 1,149/1,851 Week: 273/320 Day: 45/87 Hour: 0/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 297 of 374 (774276)
12-15-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by ringo
12-15-2015 12:15 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
ringo writes:

You quoted it but you don't seem to understand it: Black and white are distinct but gray and gray are not perceptibly different.

Imagine a room with one wall painted black and one wall painted white. Black is different from gray because you've hit he wall. White is different from gray because you've hit the wall. Everything else in the room is gray.

Now apply this to the analogy. Life is one wall. Chemicals the other wall. The gray in between. Fine. So all the things in the grey are not white or are not life.

Yes, I understand this exactly like you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ringo, posted 12-15-2015 12:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by caffeine, posted 12-15-2015 2:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 304 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2015 6:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 12-16-2015 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 305 of 374 (774328)
12-16-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by RAZD
12-15-2015 5:05 PM


Re: The Russian Dolls of life ...
RAZD writes:

Well that would depend on your definition of "quite distinct" wouldn't it? When does "quite distinct" become "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" ... ?

I have often found that when a persons arguments don't work, they often try and change the words, like you are doing.

It is not my definition of "quite distinct". Merriman or any other dictionary will do quite fine, but "quite distinct" does not mean "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2015 5:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Percy, posted 12-16-2015 11:55 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2015 4:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 308 of 374 (774361)
12-16-2015 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by ringo
12-16-2015 2:08 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
ringo writes:

No, you've misunderstood the analogy. By your definition, there is nothing between life and non-life - i.e. there is no room, just one wall touching the other; there is no gray, only black and white. That's not a continuum.

Ringo, I will try patiently to explain this one more time. I used your example. Please read it again! I am doing this for you, Percy, RAZD, Cat Sci, and anyone else who says I am not allowing for a valid continuum on this topic of "life".

Life is one wall, and it is white.....Agree?

Chemicals are the other wall, and it is black....Agree?

There is an area in between these two walls, which we will call gray, which creates a continuum between the white and the black....Agree?

We have two definitive colors (black and white), and a transition of colors in between which is hard to differentiate the color changes (gray).....Agree?

Now, how many distinct colors do we have?.....Two (white and black).....Agree?

How many non-distinct colors do we have?....One (gray, the transition between which has many shades)....Agree?

This is a valid, logical continuum......Agree?

So, Life is white (dogs, cats, bacteria, etc.)....Agree?

And Black is chemicals (let's say elemental chemicals like lead)......Agree?

And what is between in the gray?....(Virions, Viruses, Self-replicating molecules, fire, crystals, etc.)....Agree?

All of this, I agree makes perfect sense as a continuum. Do you agree? All I need is your agreement or disagreement. I claim that this continuum fairly represents the transition from chemicals to life with a grey fuzzy area of things that are in between chemicals and life. Do you agree also?

After I have gotten your response(s), I will explain further. Thanks

I am hoping that all will respond in some way...This is not a trap!...Just a very patient explanation so that no one can say that I do not allow for a continuum on this subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 12-16-2015 2:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2015 6:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 12-17-2015 10:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 310 of 374 (774374)
12-16-2015 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by RAZD
12-16-2015 4:22 PM


Re: The Russian Dolls of life ... (round 2)
RAZD writes:

Keep doing that and you continue to have continua ...but are the ends still "quite distinct"?

If not, then at what point does it become something "not quite distinct", yet still remain a continuum?

At the point when you have two distinct things, and only two things. Example: Life and non-life. These are two distinct things with nothing in between, because the term life excludes all non-life, and the tern non-life excludes all life.

To have a continuum, you must have at least three things. Two distinct things being compared or contrasted and at least one thing in between.

For instance evolution. Evolution is a continuum from bacteria to ...whatever organism you want to pick. Homo sapiens for instance. According to TOE, myriad genetic mutations gradually occurred over billions of years and many quite distinct organisms were formed in the continuum. Now if we go back to the fabled LUCA, there was sometime after a single mutation away a LUCA1 population beginning to evolve, then LUCA1 evolved into LUCA2, ad nauseam.

Now Luca to luca1 does not qualify as a continuum. But Luca to luca2 does with the transition of luca1 in between. Now even though these may be the same species, they are still quite distinct organisms, are they not? In fact, it is as small as a single mutation (nucleotide) that evolution may be identified.

Now in the grand fable of chemicals to Luca, those self replicating molecules must make mistakes and mutations and "evolve" into quite distinct populations which compete for resources and somehow magically arrive eventually at LUCA. So basically, you have the same type of continuum.

So by definition, the extremes of any continuum are quite distinct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2015 4:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2015 10:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 312 of 374 (774399)
12-17-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2015 6:27 PM


Re: Let white = life and black = non-life
Cat Sci writes:

Where do you draw the line to show where the gradient is no longer white?

The limitations of the image being in a digital format do not count; in a true gradient one element is indistinguishable from the adjacent one.

With no distinction between adjacent elements. It is impossible to point to where white becomes grey....That's where a continuum can come into play:

Cat Sci: Please show me how any of this is different from what I said in Message 308

You are trying to make this a hard dichotomy; where something is either alive or it is not....

What if you're wrong and there is a third state that is neither life nor non-life but rather something between those states that we cannot distinguish from either one?

See Message 308. I created a valid logical continuum between chemicals and life. I chose this specifically because this is the continuum upon which all OOL research is based. I used Ringo's walls, because she used them, but your graphic is just fine with me.

I think you will agree, that according to OOL research, there is indeed a continuum hypothesized from chemicals to life.....Agree?

I am in no way creating any dichotomy. I am using the only scientific continuum that exists in the discussion of life.

However, look at your comments. You want the ends of the continuum to be "life" and "non-life". Not me! You, Percy, Ringo, and RAZD continually refer to the ends of the continuum with these words. I have continually said that these words make a continuum impossible, because they are mutually exclusive words.

You can have a visual continuum between white and black, because white and black are distinct colors and there can be a transition in between. You can have a continuum between chemicals and life. But you cannot have a continuum between "life" and "non-life", because, as you recognize, this is a dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive words, because one word is defined as the negative of the other word. So there is no in between. I have not chosen these words. You have. (and others have) What you have done is equivalent to your visual continuum being labeled "white" on the one side and "non-white" on the other side. Surely, I agree that the black is "obviously" non white. But also the dark gray is also "obviously" non-white, and the light grey is just as "obviously" non-white. In fact if I push away from the computer screen just a little, you can easily and "obviously" perceive that non white extends at least to the center line of the oval on the left side. So, what are you left with? Well it's not a continuum at all. It is a diagram that obviously has white on the left side to about the centerline of the oval and non-white for the rest of the diagram. No one would consider this a continuum. Non white extends all the way to white. It "obviously" includes black and a multitude of gray shades, so Non-white is not distinct but has multiple colors within.

It is absolutely impossible and logically inconsistent to have a continuum between non-life and life. That is my claim, and I stand solidly behind it.

Now, the interesting thing is, why do all of you resist the real continuum that "science" is hypothesizing from chemicals to life?, and why do you want to confuse the issue with terms like "life" and "non-life"?

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2015 6:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2015 12:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 317 of 374 (774415)
12-17-2015 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by ringo
12-17-2015 10:57 AM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
Ringo writes:

No. Every shade of gray is a colour.

Isn't that exactly what I said?.....Here it is again...

AOK writes:

gray, the transition between which has many shades

We label this color as "one" with the word "grey", but it has many indistinguishable shades.

Ringo writes:

Yes, it's a continuum because it goes from one extreme to another without distinct "shades of gray".


Ok, I see that you agree, great....You see this wasn't a trick

This is what everybody has been trying to tell you: there is a continuum from non-life to life and some of the things "between" life and non-life can not be unequivocally defined as either life or non-life.

Hold on there horsey!......I agree that everyone is trying to say there is a continuum from non-life to life. But this is not the continuum that I defined and you agreed to. That was a contimuum from chemicals to life. Do you see any difference at all in those two concepts?

I have argued that there is a valid continuum on this subject, but at the same time I have argued that there is no continuum at all that can be created between non-life and life. Those two phrases leave no in-between simply because they are mutually exclusive words. No other reason. It's a logical inconsistency. It doesn't meet the definition of a continuum, because there is no transition. Please see Message 312 It is equivalent to saying that there is a continuum from white to non-white. Which is nonsensical. I understand why it is used often

With any unequivocal definition, there can be no shades of gray.

Really, you just agreed to the continuum of chemicals to life. Life can be unequivocally defined just as pure white is unequivocally defined as far as the continuum is concerned. It only means that the grey stuff is not living, but in between chemicals and life. Whether the ends of the continuum are equivocally defined or unequivocally defined has no bearing on whether a continuum can exist or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 12-17-2015 10:57 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2015 1:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 319 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-17-2015 3:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 325 by ringo, posted 12-18-2015 10:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 322 of 374 (774469)
12-18-2015 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by herebedragons
12-17-2015 1:39 PM


Re: Let white = life and black = non-life
And you really got to stop contradicting yourself:

quote:
I am in no way creating any dichotomy.

quote:
It is absolutely impossible and logically inconsistent to have a continuum between non-life and life.

Cue a 300+ post discussion about what a dichotomy is...

I don't think we need this, because everyone realizes the dichotomy. A dichotomy cannot be a continuum.

I find it ridiculous that I have to defend who created the dichotomy of "non-life" to "life". Everyone posting in this forum right now is in support of this false continuum except me. They created this analogy. not me!

I just don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. I guess the word "created" is so offensive to posters in this forum that they can't even understand the word when used in another context. In fact, it is clear they don't understand most words.

I just find it amazing that my words quoted above, exactly as written can be interpreted in this way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by herebedragons, posted 12-17-2015 1:39 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2015 10:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 323 of 374 (774470)
12-18-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Admin
12-18-2015 8:42 AM


Re: Moderator On Duty
My rule for transitioning from participant to moderator in a thread is no posts for two days. Two days will have passed since my last post as Percy around noontime today (Eastern time), and then I will assume a moderator role for this thread.

I admittedly don't understand what this means. Can you explain a little?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 12-18-2015 8:42 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 326 of 374 (774480)
12-18-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2015 1:50 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!

This is your original image you posted.

This is my image alteration to your image to help explain my argument. Above the yellow line represents my legitimate continuum from chemicals to life. I agree that life can be hypothesized as an emergent property of natural chemicals. And scientists are currently performing OOL experiments in this field. This is where AOK stands above the yellow line.

Everyone (you inclusive) has been arguing a "continuum" from "non-life" to "life". I show this representation below the yellow line. I am showing that this argument is equivalent to saying that there is a "continuum" between non-white and white. The problem is, there can never logically be anything continuing in between white and non-white. The same applies to "non-life" and "Life", because these terms exclude each other and there is no middle ground. This is a logical inconsistency and not a visual one.

You can move the location of the touching arrows wherever you like, but there will be no continuum between the one side and the other, because of the terms used. In other words, the "definitely black" is no more non-white than the "almost white". They are both equally non-white. It is a logical inconsistency, and therefore should be avoided.

Percy has asked me to use different methods to explain this, and I hope this suffices.

Where do you draw the line to show where the gradient is no longer white?

In my image, I am showing you where the line can be perceived with my own eyes.

With no distinction between adjacent elements. It is impossible to point to where white becomes grey.

Does it matter? Gray is still non-white. So if you want shades of gray to be called white, then call them white. Everything else will still be non-white. It is your dichotomy. Not mine. I didn't use the term "non" in my continuum. That's why you are struggling with this, because it is your logical inconsistency.

You are trying to make this a hard dichotomy; where something is either alive or it is not.

I am not making this dichotomy. You and other posters want to use the terms with the prefix "non". For instance viruses. In my visual above the yellow line we could place the virus where we think it make sense. Let's say it is in the very light grey area.

I can say that a virus is very close to living. It's pretty far away from just simple chemicals and it is pretty close to living. That's legitimate. Now if we place the virus on the "non-life"/"life" chart in exactly the same spot, what can we say? Not much, because we don't have a continuum. We have a dividing line between life and non-life. So a virus is either "alive" by one definition or it is "not alive" by another definition. I didn't create this dichotomy. You all did. The continuum doesn't exist with your language use.

In the continuum from chemicals to life, we can have an equivocal definition of life, or we can have an unequivocal definition of life. That does not destroy the continuum from chemicals to life in any manner.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2015 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Blue Jay, posted 12-18-2015 12:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 338 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2015 8:30 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 327 of 374 (774487)
12-18-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by ringo
12-18-2015 10:50 AM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
ringo writes:

I know you've argued that. You're wrong. The only way to argue away a fuzzy line between life and non-life is by defining it away, like you do.

But I haven't defined this away. No one has accepted my definition. You have defined it away. You are using the words "life" and "non-life". Forget my definition. It doesn't exist for a moment. Your defining terms alone says anything not alive is "non-living". How can anything possibly be in between "life" and "non-life"? It can't

From chemicals to life this works. From non-life to life you have nothing but a dichotomy and no continuum. You defined this not me! And your wrong! Not Me!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by ringo, posted 12-18-2015 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by ringo, posted 12-18-2015 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 330 of 374 (774501)
12-18-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Blue Jay
12-18-2015 12:05 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
"We don't have a continuum"? Yet, in the very next paragraph you say, "That does not destroy the continuum from chemicals to life in any manner".

Hi BJ

Can you not see any difference at all in the words "chemicals to life" and " non-life to life"???????

There's a big difference! One is a continuum and one logically cannot be a continuum.

There is an association between chemicals and life. Chemicals is also not the negation of life.

However non-life is the negation of life. Look at the white non-white chart. About two thirds is non-white by anyone's eyes. What is left....white. Nothing in-between. Black is no more non-white than light grey is non white. They are equally the same non-white. Every other non-white shade is equally non-white. There is no progression. just one side and the other side. The terms that you chose, life and non life are what disqualifies the continuum. The terms are defining it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Blue Jay, posted 12-18-2015 12:05 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Blue Jay, posted 12-18-2015 9:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 331 of 374 (774506)
12-18-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by ringo
12-18-2015 12:20 PM


Re: The horse is just about dead!
ringo writes:

Of course it can. That's what people have been telling you for hundreds of posts.

"Is this thing alive?"
"I dunno."

But that doesn't absolve you from the dichotomy, and it doesn't establish a continuum.

In the scientifically established and published chemicals to life continuum, we can say that DNA molecules are closer to life than lead on the continuum, simply because they are organic complex chemicals rather than elemental chemicals. But on your false continuum of non-life to life you cannot say that DNA is any more closer to life than lead, because they are equally non-life. That's not a continuum. It is just a negation of the affirmative. A multitude of other organic non-living complex chemical arrangements are just as equally non-living.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by ringo, posted 12-18-2015 12:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 12-19-2015 11:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 349 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2015 12:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 332 of 374 (774509)
12-18-2015 1:29 PM


out of here!
Have a nice weekend. No matter how obstinate you think I am!

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2015 3:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 341 of 374 (774704)
12-21-2015 10:58 AM


End of discussion!
Well,I guess that's it then.

Apparently no one wants to discuss the continuum of chemistry to life. Over and over I offered this as logical and valid with no argument from me. It is what is mentioned in Biology books, and peer reviewed papers, but no one in this forum wants to discuss it. It has all the gray area that all of you want with no argument from me against it. It has no dichotomy and no hard lines. Yet not one poster other than me wants to use it as the model or analogy.

Why is that?

I certainly am not willing to continue any discussion about the exact same continuum concept using the words "life" and "non-life". Therefore, you all win by fiat. Whuptydoo!

As far as my definition of life, I was looking forward to rebutting RAZD, but now I can't. Definitions of words and their application are the only way I can defend it. And that's been ruled out by fiat as well.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!


-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by herebedragons, posted 12-21-2015 11:36 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 346 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2015 1:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 345 of 374 (774780)
12-22-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by herebedragons
12-21-2015 11:36 AM


Re: End of discussion!
Stop it, you're not a martyr; neither are you restricted from pursuing your argument, you just need a different approach.

I am only responding to this, because it demonstrates my point very well. Your sentence above is self refuting. You say I am not restricted from making my argument, then you say that I am restricted, because I must make another approach. I have used multiple examples in words and graphics and it doesn't matter. The ruling is I lose by fiat.

If you accept a continuum between chemicals and life, then what's the problem?
That's what I would like to know. I have offered two valid logical continuums for this discussion, and every one else seems to be stuck on "non-life" to "life" which I clearly think and have shown multiple times now that it is nonsensical. But now it makes perfect sense just because Percy says so.

Demonstrate that there is a non-arbitrary point at which we can separate living beings from non-living beings.

We have it now. It's called cellular life. It's call Cell Theory which is just as important as the hailed TOE.

quote:

1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells[13]
2. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.[14]

Cell theory has become the foundation of biology and is the most widely accepted explanation of the function of cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory



Now I have quoted and used this before. Here is the evidence you demand, but you will just ignore it is my guess.

That is the point of your proposed definition of life.

No, the point of my definition is to shift the current cellular life to something possibly simpler that that. I have used the example of a mitochondria for instance.

Why is the production of ATP not an arbitrary line? What is so special about ATP as opposed to say GTP or some of the other energy carrying molecules that others have mentioned?

The group think in this forum has created a "common usage" understanding of the word "arbitrary" that has no relationship to Mr. Webster or the English language. Even to the point where some think that grades in education are arbitrarily chosen. How can I argue against such use of the language? When I am forced to use the "common language" that is used in this forum. I answered all of this in Message 14 over a month ago.

What would having such a hard distinction between life and non-life be helpful to our study of biology?

Maybe, possibly, just on a whim, it might be because Biology is the study of "LIFE". That's why Wiki says that "Cell theory has become the foundation of biology". I assume that understanding is helpful if it is the foundation. But in this forum, I'm not sure what "helpful" or "foundation" means in the common language. I suspect it is nothing like the editors of wiki intend.

There are a lot of questions that have been raised that you have not addressed; and they don't require discussion of a continuum to answer. Address what your opponents have proposed as being flaws in your definition.

And which "common language" dictionary can we agree on. No one here, but me can see that in official english "non-life" is the negation of "life". No middle ground possible. But the fiat language trumps that. And I assume it would also with any defense I make, because I am defending a definition and that has words with meaning within. Most of which RAZD thinks is controversial. Word and definitions is my only defense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by herebedragons, posted 12-21-2015 11:36 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 1:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 348 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2015 8:18 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020