I think it's pretty obvious that no religious person is going to be able to refute the FSM. If you non-religious people want to argue religion so much, why don't you try to think up a refutation?
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the FSM argument? Is it the fact that god could be made out of noodley appendages? Is it The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts? What exactly must be debated in order to counter the FSM?
More like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an equally valid god than any of the others. In other words: there is no proof he exists, nor has any ever existed, nor do we know any way to show how we might find out he exists in the future.
If you can show how your god of choice is different from the FSM, or any other random made up shit, you get to stay in the argument. If you can't show that, you're LITERALLY arguing about nothing.
It applies equally to anything supernatural, not just gods.
It really applies to any argument for which no evidence can be provided. In the absence of evidence, all statements are simple conjectures, statements of personal preference, or other such things.
Maybe more: "It really applies to any argument for which no evidence COULD be provided." There is a lot I could say, which I can't provide evidence for now. But someone might be able to in the future. The problem with gods is that nobody has yet come up with an experiment that could prove that one exists.
Isn't [sic] implied due to the quote button just copy pasting? The only time I think you would use [sic] is when you quote something somewhere where the source is not one or two posts up, like another site. $2%
Isn't [sic] implied due to the quote button just copy pasting? The only time I you would use [sic] is when you quote something somewhere where the source is not one or two posts up, like another site. $2%
Not quite -
Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.
Yes, I've read Wikipedia, it says what I say. Copy pasta. Seeing as the quote button on this forum just copy pastes the post, with all its typos, into a blockquote, [sic] is almost implied. Few people ever bother correcting quotes without red on these forums.
Yes, I've read Wikipedia, it says what I say. Copy pasta. Seeing as the quote button on this forum just copy pastes the post, with all it's typos, into a blockquote, [sic] is almost implied. Few people ever bother correcting quotes without red on these forums.
I disagree. These days, even though exact reproduction of data is so trivially easy that half the time, we don't even think about it, the use of [sic] has not yet died. However, it is mostly used to point out spelling and grammatical errors, as I've seen it used, which the Blockquote button does not do. I say use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to.
Isn't [sic][sic] implied due to the quote button just copy pasting? The only time I [sic] you would use [sic][sic] is when you quote something somewhere where the source is not one or two posts up, like another site. $2%
Seeing as the quote button on this forum just copy pastes the post, with all it's [sic] typos, into a blockquote, [sic][sic] is almost implied. Few people ever bother correcting quotes without red on these forums.
Since we're allowed to discuss rules, I was trying to slip the term past as a way to point out misspellings and grammatical errors. I figure it's not as overt as any of the other methods that have been used around here, but the chances are it's against the rules.
Another circumstance where "sic" is useful is when the source post you quoted from gets edited. The emphasis is that the change was introduced by them, not you.
True, it doesn't point it out. But it doesn't have to, since the quoted text is a direct copy it's either 100% original, modified in minor fashion to improve readability and/or shorten the quote, or just plain fabrication.
Isn't [sic][sic] implied due to the quote button just copy pasting? The only time I [sic] you would use [sic][sic] is when you quote something somewhere where the source is not one or two posts up, like another site. $2%
Seeing as the quote button on this forum just copy pastes the post, with all it's [sic] typos, into a blockquote, [sic][sic] is almost implied. Few people ever bother correcting quotes without red on these forums.
You [sic] fuck. I swear to god the first reads "I think you"... my mind just moved on before my fingers had typed the word.
Since we're allowed to discuss rules, I was trying to slip the term past as a way to point out misspellings and grammatical errors. I figure it's not as overt as any of the other methods that have been used around here, but the chances are it's against the rules.
You've made your point, and while it is indeed not as overt as just red text, it's still pretty obvious. And since its use as a way to correct spelling and grammar isn't much different from using red text (the act of which has been discouraged when used in abundance), I think it too is discouraged, when used in abundance.
Also, isn't using sic every other sentence in the same quotation the wrong way to use it? It applies to a block of text after all, the text being copied without modification, at least, that's how I've seen it used generally.
Also, isn't using sic every other sentence in the same quotation the wrong way to use it? It applies to a block of text after all, the text being copied without modification, at least, that's how I've seen it used generally.
I'm pretty sure my usage is perfectly valid. As for the doubling up, it perhaps isn't common usage, but after thinking about it I realised the second usage would highlight that the first usage wasn't mine.
Cans someone explain this to me. If you hit the quote button, it copies things out verbatim. Unless someone manually copies out parts, why not just assume it is as written?
Cans someone explain this to me. If you hit the quote button, it copies things out verbatim. Unless someone manually copies out parts, why not just assume it is as written?
Same point Nineless made. Hee-hee. You guys can agree! ^_^
Cans [sic] someone explain this to me. [sic] If you hit the quote button, it copies things out verbatim. Unless someone manually copies out parts, why not just assume it is as written?
Of course you assume it. However, the use of "sic" allows one to place emphasis on various aspects of the quote. ^_~
It's less severe since it doesn't actually correct the other person's spelling and grammar; it just emphasizes the presence of mistakes. Plus, some people might not even know what it means.
I think you misunderstood the issue, Mrs. MacRoss. I'm not asking for a button that will automatically put in "sic" for me. The issue is that using "sic" in that manner would most likely be against the forum rules. That's why this is in the rules discussion thread.
Comments
If you can show how your god of choice is different from the FSM, or any other random made up shit, you get to stay in the argument. If you can't show that, you're LITERALLY arguing about nothing.
I say use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want to.
Another circumstance where "sic" is useful is when the source post you quoted from gets edited. The emphasis is that the change was introduced by them, not you.
Also, isn't using sic every other sentence in the same quotation the wrong way to use it? It applies to a block of text after all, the text being copied without modification, at least, that's how I've seen it used generally.
I'm not asking for a button that will automatically put in "sic" for me. The issue is that using "sic" in that manner would most likely be against the forum rules. That's why this is in the rules discussion thread.
No, wait... this forum doesn't have any problems with the kind of posts you mention.