Comments on: Why don’t atheists just shut up and stay home? (a repost)

By: Why don’t atheists just shut up and stay home? (a repost) | Lousy Canuck « I used to think I was crazy until realized I was merely a Xian.

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:01:31 +0000

[…] Why don’t atheists just shut up and stay home? (a repost) | Lousy Canuck. Rate this: Share this:TwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was […]

By: Robert B.

Robert B. — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:49:22 +0000

We do not speak up to evangelize atheism, for that is antithetical to our position

I don’t understand. Can you expand on this point a bit? Or link an article about it?

By: How dare we advertise our existence!? | Lousy Canuck

How dare we advertise our existence!? | Lousy Canuck — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:47:04 +0000

[…] is the kind of stuff I was talking about when I originally posted the “Why don’t atheists just shut up and stay home” repost yesterday, about atheists needing to fight to be allowed to do the exact same outreach that […]

By: Ryan Dunlop

Ryan Dunlop — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 04:50:45 +0000

Helena wrote the following: ‘“won’t” is future indicative & “wouldn’t” is present subjunctive. It is impossible to have an imperative in a question.’

While grammatically, you are indeed correct, meaning can bend the strictness of grammar. Specifically, while this question the woman asked may not have grammatically been an imperative, she may have asked it like an imperative and/or like an interjection. If she meant her question as an imperative (and/or if people interpreted her vocal, facial, and gestural cues as such), then what she said probably constitutes an imperative.

In other news, that was a fine rant, worthy of sharing on FB, which I did. Thanks for the read!

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:54:53 +0000

Wotta buncha sissies on your playground.

Kraken rum?!? That deserves a post of its own, when the blog gods allow…

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:11:49 +0000

Also, re playgrounds: they had a tendency of pantsing me instead. I’m a bleeder, and I’m sure they didn’t want to get my blood all over ’em.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:53:37 +0000

All these extra eyes sure do mean I’m getting caught out on lots of typos and other mistakes I shouldn’t, by rights, ever make being an English major.

Then again, I never graduated. One French credit shy of a BA (Eng). Even still, I’ll blame the Kraken rum and insane workloads.

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:41:07 +0000

Jason – Did that actually work when you were getting hassled on the playground?

Me, I got thrown out of trig class for non-mathematical reasons – but I woulda been all over yer case for misspelling “spatial”…

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:49:52 +0000

Pierce: we all have our pet peeves. One of mine is the phrase “pet peeve”.

How about — “your right to swing your fist ends when the vector of your fist approximates a direction and speed that it might conceivably intersect with my nose, if our spacial coordinates were slightly different”?

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:47:02 +0000

Your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose…

I utterly hate that cliche. Situationally and legally, that just doesn’t work.

The definition of “assault” in law includes threatening gestures, and any honest cop will promptly arrest every person he or she sees swinging a fist at a face unless persuaded that move came as part of a game, street theater, or the like.

If a fist swings towards my nose, and I see it in time, situationally things will get weird. Beyond that, prognostications become a little vague: kids, don’t try this experiment at home or anywhere else, okay?

Otherwise, an excellent spiel, btw!