Enjoying the Show?

[busterdog]

Working hypothesis:

No one is really lurking who is getting much of anything out of the creationist threads here or the creationist v. evolutionist threads in OT.

Am I wrong?

 

[Jimlarmore]

If the replies to views ratio is any indication of interest then some of them may be impactive on OT. However, there is no way to tell whether they are creationist or Theistic evolutionists.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

If the replies to views ratio is any indication of interest then some of them may be impactive on OT. However, there is no way to tell whether they are creationist or Theistic evolutionists.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Which piques my curiousity.

 

[atomweaver]

Am I wrong?

I'll take that as an invite to post...

I'm reading with interest the exchange between Assyrian and Jimlarmore over the scope of the Noahic Flood, and I eagerly await a positive response to Mallon's challenge to suggest a means by which ID can be falsified.

The forum traffic is light enough to stay on top of it all, and refreshingly civilized... Kudos to all participants for that.

 

[Bombila]

One almost always learns something from debate among intelligent people, regardless of their personal belief system. I often have wished to comment in Origins Theology, but generally this forum does not welcome outsiders. So, we are silent, but often read.

 

[shernren]

Which piques my curiousity.

What an interesting phrase.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Ken Rolph of Blacktown, Australia, sent us a word study.

"peaks my curiosity"
This set of words has popped up a couple of times on the list over the past few weeks. I wonder if the writers of this phrase mean that their curiosity rises up steeply and sharply to a great height, then drops equally steeply and sharply back down to the same level. Like the peak of a mountain, or the graph of a very slender bell curve. Perhaps so. Many, many bloggers on the Internet seem to feel this is an appropriate thing to write.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Piques my curiosity" arrived in written English in 1870, from the French piquer, to prick, to sting, to irritate. My curiosity is aroused, excited, awakened. Pique relates to words like pick and picket. That's useful to remember if you are tempted to write, "peaks my curiosity." Sitting on a peak may be pleasant and relaxing. Sitting on a picket is likely to get your more immediate attention. A pick is a sharp pointed thing, like you use to dig in a mine, or what you do to a scab. Your mum doesn't say, "Don't peak at your scabs, Narelle!" (1) No, it's definitely a pick which is the center of your attention.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Remember that something which piques your interest is likely to be, well, piquant. (2) Piercing, stinging, bitter, pungent, sharp, biting, tart, racy, stimulating in an agreeably attractive and appetizing sort of way. If that doesn't get your curiosity up and going, you're probably meditating on a peak somewhere.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See, the problem is that if you get in the habit of writing "peaks my curiosity" you might one day send it off accidentally where it could come under the scrutiny of an editor or publisher. (3) They might read it, have a fit of peak and decide you are just a hammer chewer. They won't publish you and that is hardly likely to be the peak of your career.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That would be very concerning.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) Your mum might say, "Don't PEEK at your scabs, Kylie!" but that's an entirely different thing. She knows a watched scab never heals. You are likely to pick at it out of curiosity to see when it will come off.

(2) Piquant as adjective, of course. Not the noun, which refers to a hedgehog's prickles. It occurred to me to wonder if the same term was used for porcupines and echidnas. But then I remembered that echidnas have quills. These are unlikely to pique anything if you pick them up carefully. I'm sure you recall from the last time you picked up an echidna how they just roll up into a little ball and pretend to be somewhere else. But I had one once that wriggled and gave me a nasty poke on the thumb. I heard the same thing happened to Bill Shakespeare and it scarred him for life. Afterwards, whenever he was walking alone in the bush at night he would chant softly to himself, "By the pricking of my thumbs, an echidna this way comes." In the end he didn't get stabbed to death by echidnas so it was all a waste of breath on his part. I think there's a lesson in that for all of us.

(3) This is only a bad thing if you get one of those editors or publishers who is more professional than you. The others are likely to reply: "Your recent article kinda peaked my curiosity alot. We are shortly loosing one of our freelance writers and could of been understaffed. Now about copywrite, etc. . ."

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Until next time, keep on writing, and encouraging, [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Les Stobbe [/FONT]

http://www.icwriters.com/Report.htm

 

[Oliver]

If the replies to views ratio is any indication of interest then some of them may be impactive on OT. However, there is no way to tell whether they are creationist or Theistic evolutionists.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Or even atheists seeking to understand how such an idea (I mean Creationsim) can be so widespread in the US.

 

[busterdog]

Or even atheists seeking to understand how such an idea (I mean Creationsim) can be so widespread in the US.

I am not afraid of being a specimen for that purpose, such as it is.

However, unless one is really interested in following with the logice, is it the time invested worth it? Even if one disagrees with the position, one should still be able to get inside the logic and think it through from our perspective. Without that interest, there is an obvious cost/benefit ratio issue.