S
Scottgun
Guest
Check out Mark Shea’s new article: insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2546&Itemid=48
That is a well-done article.Check out Mark Shea’s new article: insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2546&Itemid=48
While I am not scholar of the English language, I too am mystified by this collection of characters.Having spent my life in fascination and study of the English language, I must confess I am at a loss for the definition of “pwnz0rd”.
Anyone want to help me out here?
Ain’t sure about z0rd, but “pwn” was originally a typo for “own,” as in, “I own you now!”. It rhymes with spoon, I’m pretty sure, and inflects as “pwn, pwning, pwnage (the act of pwning someone)”.Having spent my life in fascination and study of the English language, I must confess I am at a loss for the definition of “pwnz0rd”.
Anyone want to help me out here?
How very curious.Ain’t sure about z0rd, but “pwn” was originally a typo for “own,” as in, “I own you now!”. It rhymes with spoon, I’m pretty sure, and inflects as “pwn, pwning, pwnage (the act of pwning someone)”.
It’s an online gaming expression.
Yes, I would say it’s entirely appropriate to say the Pats got “pwned”. Although, I’ve never in my life heard it pronounced “poon.” My friends and I always pronounce it “pown,” like own with a p added to the front.How very curious.
So it is spelled “pwn,” pronounced “poon,” translates to “own,” and means “defeat” or “dominate.” Could it be said that the Patriots got “pwned” on Sunday?
Not entirely impossible. Actually, not impossible at all! You just have to make the "Ought"s contingent, part of an “If, then” statement. “If you want to be happy, you ought to follow our code of morality,” for example, is a perfectly logical statement, though its premise may be wrong (it’s something to argue about). If course, you have no real reason for wanting to be happy, but if you do, then morality may be for you.The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe – any moral universe at all – of Should from a purely materialistic universe of Is turns out to be impossible.
What’s TIA, do you have a link?On topic though, yeah it seems like an interesting article. I also downloaded the free ebook from TIA. Will read through it when I get the time.
TIA is The Irrational Atheist. It’s available as a free ebook download from irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html . Not a Catholic book I’m thinking, but a deconstruction of illogical atheist arguments against faith in general.What’s TIA, do you have a link?
PinoyCathoic is correct.What’s TIA, do you have a link?
I didn’t see any pwnzoring being done there. I saw her post 2 great reasons why god doesn’t exist, and then I read about 6 paragraphs of her complaining about athiesm and making ridiculous statements with no support, but never did she actually provide a counterarguement for the disproofs of god. Maybe later in the article, but frankly, if you’re going to barf up “athiesm sucks athiesm sucks athiesm sucks because I say so athiesm sucks athiesm sucks” page after page eventually I’m just going to give up.Check out Mark Shea’s new article: insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2546&Itemid=48
You’ve gotten some good explanations of the “pwn” part.Having spent my life in fascination and study of the English language, I must confess I am at a loss for the definition of “pwnz0rd”.
Anyone want to help me out here?
That’s because St. Thomas already did in the Summa (it’s written in the scholastic style, providing objections and then answering them). It’s easily available to anyone. It’s even online at NewAdvent.I didn’t see any pwnzoring being done there. I saw her post 2 great reasons why god doesn’t exist, and then I read about 6 paragraphs of her complaining about athiesm and making ridiculous statements with no support, but never did she actually provide a counterarguement for the disproofs of god.
Do you read the article? She definately made a stance that she was going to go ahead and disprove them, but then failed, fell flat on her face with nothing.That’s because St. Thomas already did in the Summa (it’s written in the scholastic style, providing objections and then answering them). It’s easily available to anyone. It’s even online at NewAdvent.