No, the length was fine, Bob. (You don't mind being called Bob?) ANd anyway, if it were too long, the code splits up long posts into two, now.

Also, welcome to the chatter. We never talk in excessive detail about you or other SOs, except when we do, which is always.

Also, I'm not sure what the point is of playing along if the hoops you jump through to get to the end are that OTT. I have a more-sensitive-than-most OTT-o-meter, but even so: underpants gnomes are never a valid step in an argument.

(I mean, I secretly don't understand what the point of much of philosophy is, because I am annoyingly practical that way. But I'll concede not being well-read in philosophy, so of course I wouldn't know the point if there were to be one.)

You hear me, people? Just say no to underpants gnomes!

Here's another thing from the Netscape article:

The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.

That's not it at all! To say the probability of God's existence is one in two means only that we have as much evidence for the existence of God as against the existence of God.

Look, even if the probability of God's existence is 1/10^180, it still follows that God either exists or doesn't. "God either exists or doesn't exists" is a tautology; that is, it's a statement that's always true. Even if God doesn't exist, it's still true, because all it says is: "A or Not-A".

Very bad on Netscape.

I am annoyingly practical that way

Wait -- aren't you the cheetah bester? That smacked of some philosophy-type logic to me.

Sorry about that. Won't happen again.

If only it were you. Sigh. You're scary and can kill with your pinky, but you're not psychotic.

underpants gnomes are never a valid step in an argument

I think I have a new tag. Thanks, Nutty!

Very bad on Netscape.

I've always thought Netscape's philosophy was suspect.

Thank dog (that came out "god" so many times that I might have to cave and admit the existence of at least one deity, male) that Bob Bob chose capitals.

Wait -- aren't you the cheetah bester? That smacked of some philosophy-type logic to me.

I beg your pardon. There is a PROBLEM with putting a cheetah in a raquetball court?? There is a PROBLEM with my being granted the right to wear combat boots into single combat with aforementioned cheetah??

I think, on the whole, that is the only worthwhile way to have single combat with a cheetah. I mean, if you just plopped me down into the savannah someplace, I would never be able to even find the cheetah, so the combat would never happen.

And what do you want to bet that some insane rap artist is right now taking notes, and will someday bet his underlings as to their physical prowess in single combat against a cheetah (or similar)?

I am preparing the lawsuit paperwork against Puffy even now.

Someone I loathe just agreed with me, and I'm trying not to freak.

Ooh, I hate that with a squirmy unproud hate.

Very bad on Netscape.

Though not quite a tautology, quite often also true. The sad part with a site like that is, they can't exactly issue a retraction. I suppose they could make one of their pop-up bullet-points tomorrow "Netscape painfully and stupidly misstates theologian's argument!" but the odds against are... well. There aren't any odds for it.

Philosophy is like math, only it uses ideas isntead of numbers. So you try to prove or disprove ideas because the mental act of wrestling with those ideas is interesting in and of itself--and also because you might stumble on something useful for non-Philosophy along the way.

What's not to like? You might not want o to engage in it yourself, but it's a cool thing.

It might be too late.

I, for one, resent the implication that Spuffy turned me into a pervert. I was a pervert long before Spuffy! I wave my perv flag with dysfunctional pride.

Someone I loathe just agreed with me, and I'm trying not to freak.

Pretend it was a monkey typing Hamlet?