Joel C. Rosenberg

[Lord Jim]

It took me a while to pick up on this, but I'm getting the impression that some folks here may not have taken lib's OP entirely seriously...

Of course I could be wrong...

[Joe Guy]

Maybe wesw will chime in to comment on the seriousness of lib's post with his logic and insight incite.

[liberty]

It took me a while to pick up on this, but I'm getting the impression that some folks here may not have taken lib's OP entirely seriously...

Of course I could be wrong...

It was not intended to be a serious post. I was curious if you all had heard of these writers, especially Scottoline since she comes from Philly.

But, on the other hand internment camps for liberals may not be a bad idea. But what do we use as bait to get them into the camps so we can slam the gate shut? Since they can’t use tools, once they are in they would never get out.

Not everything serious it is a sign of intelligence if one can spot the difference.

[RayThom]

... Not everything serious it is a sign of intelligence if one can spot the difference.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. What differences are you talking about?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think he meant to write "not everything IS serious. It is a sign of intelligence if one can spot the difference".

One sign of intelligence is the use of necessary words, punctuation and capital letters to provide clarity rather than incoherence. I could be wrong.

[Econoline]

Another sign of intelligence is saying "I could be wrong."

[Lord Jim]

Another sign of intelligence is saying "I could be wrong."

I couldn't agree more...

Of course, I could be wrong...

[Joe Guy]

I think he meant to write "not everything IS serious. It is a sign of intelligence if one can spot the difference".

One sign of intelligence is the use of necessary words, punctuation and capital letters to provide clarity rather than incoherence. I could be wrong.

Another sign of intelligence is saying "I could be wrong."

Given the fact that Meade is right, is it intelligent for him to say that he could be wrong? Or is he being modest? Humble? Or maybe he's insecure. Maybe he is fearful of being viewed as someone who enjoys pontificating? Maybe he is smarter than the average person and doesn't want others to know that he realizes that. Or maybe he threw in the 'I could be wrong' just to confuse people because he likes to confuse people. Or he wrote it in there and meant to edit it out but forgot. But if he forgot, is that a sign of lack of intelligence? Maybe he just thinks too much. Thinking too much is more of a sign of intelligence than not thinking enough. Then again it can be a symptom of a mental disorder. I believe there's medication for that. But is medication really the answer? Do we really need to resort to drugs to control some people's thought process?

I've decided that Meade thinks too much. I surely must be right about that.

[Lord Jim]

Maybe he is fearful of being viewed as someone who enjoys pontificating?

I'm afraid...

[liberty]

... Not everything serious it is a sign of intelligence if one can spot the difference.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. What differences are you talking about?

It seems that would be understood. I was saying( writing) not everything is serious. The opposite of serious is not serious or of no consequence or trivial or unimportant or superficial. Somethings are just not worth worrying that much about. Nothing in this post is serious, but I could be wrong.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The opposite of serious is "unimportant"? "Trivial"? "Of no consequence"? Again, that is amazing self-awareness, lib. My wife tells me I could be wrong but she's being charitable there.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per lib: The opposite of serious is not serious

If the opposite of serious is not serious, then what is the opposite of serious? Really there are very few words where the opposite of 'Word X' is 'Word X' although 'cleave' and 'dust' are two good examples. 'Cleave' can mean to split or to adhere, depending on context. And 'dust' as a verb can mean to remove powdery material (dusting the furniture) or to add powdery material (dust the cake with confectioner's sugar).

So yes, the opposite of 'serious' is not 'serious' which leaves us, as always after one of lib's posts, gasping for information. Seriously.

I bet you didn't know that the opposite of serious could be funny.

[liberty]

Per lib: The opposite of serious is not serious

If the opposite of serious is not serious, then what is the opposite of serious? Really there are very few words where the opposite of 'Word X' is 'Word X' although 'cleave' and 'dust' are two good examples. 'Cleave' can mean to split or to adhere, depending on context. And 'dust' as a verb can mean to remove powdery material (dusting the furniture) or to add powdery material (dust the cake with confectioner's sugar).

So yes, the opposite of 'serious' is not 'serious' which leaves us, as always after one of lib's posts, gasping for information. Seriously.
I bet you didn't know that the opposite of serious could be funny.

Yes, I did know that, but it doesn’t apply here.

[Joe Guy]

Are you serious?

[RayThom]

That's funny.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not true! The opposite of serious is Peter Pettigrew

[Bicycle Bill]

liberty, "SFB" wishes you would have ended up in EOD — and so do I — because one false move and "SFB" would have collected your GI insurance, and we'd have been spared your bullshit.

-"BB"-