by Terry 23 Replies latest jw friends
Daystar asserts: Somewhere in the universe there is a planet inhabited entirely by Q-tips.
1. Q-Tips are a a brand name of a Unilever product. Unilever have never been to other planets or sent any of their products to other planets.
2. Items that look like Q-Tips but were not manufactured under the authority of Unilever are not really Q-Tips.
I have to say Terry------except for that last SILLY reply (which is just an example of YOUR corny humor) your wisdom on Man v. Women has earned my RESPECT!
I'll take that over rubies and gold any day. Thanks.
Terry, your response to peg, man vs. woman, started with "I Think." What you responded with demonstrats that you are a "Thinker." Where do you get your information from concerning this response to peg? The response is right on point, it is logical and I can't prove you wrong on this response
Personal experience.
I've learned to modify my behavior over the years because it didn't work for me.
The problem is that by the time you learn something important in life it is too late to benefit from it!
The irony is overwhelming.
I think because I can't stop myself. The problem with thinking is what Zig Ziglar calls "Stinkin' thinkin'"
If you can eliminate stinkin' thinkin' you stand a chance of helping yourself.
funkyderek,
I believe you have made some assertions that you can't actually prove in your response to daystar.
To your knowledge Unilever has never "been" to other planets—which, as an aside, raises the philosophical question of whether a conceptual legal entity (i.e. named Corporation) can ever really go anywhere or do anything—nor can you positively demonstrate that the company which makes Q-Tips has never populated a planet with their brand product.
It would arguably be a very compelling marketing gimmick to position your product as the only human product to ever have populated a given planet, perhaps Unilever has done so.
However, perhaps you simply forgot to add that your "proof" that he was wrong was simply a belief—one which you feel to be compelling enough to consider it proof. Personally, I agree with you. However when viewed purely from a scientific standpoint, you technically failed to disprove daystar's assertion. You simply stated in a very elaborate fashion that you disagree with his assertion and that you believe certain things about Unilever and its products that would preclude the accuracy of his assertion.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
