We've cured the common cold!

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

At 8/23/2011 12:48:58 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

You might want to reconsider that definition of humor, since any life experience can easily show how narrow that definition is.

At 8/23/2011 12:47:09 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. (?) "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

If it was mean to be humorous, then it is not necessary to have sense.

At 8/23/2011 12:50:33 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:47:09 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. (?) "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

If it was mean to be humorous, then it is not necessary to have sense.

sensibility is relative. If the conversation is meant to be humorous, then it makes no sense to call it intricate and require that it be responded "adequately". A humorous conversation must have sense in the goal of being humorous, otherwise its not very funny.

At 8/23/2011 12:52:10 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:50:33 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:47:09 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. (?) "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

If it was mean to be humorous, then it is not necessary to have sense.

sensibility is relative. If the conversation is meant to be humorous, then it makes no sense to call it intricate and require that it be responded "adequately". A humorous conversation must have sense in the goal of being humorous, otherwise its not very funny.

That only establishes the degree of the humor ('not very funny'); it doesn't show how humor must preclude 'sense'.

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

At 8/22/2011 7:31:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why isn't this the breaking headline news of every news station right now? I would imagine the scientist(s) involved in the discovery/invention of this drug would be in line for the nobel prize. Either it needs more tests, or there is a catch that we don't yet know about.

At 8/23/2011 12:53:47 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:52:10 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:50:33 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:47:09 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:46:11 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:42:27 AM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:22 AM, 000ike wrote:

Since 00ike doesn't bother to understand the intricacies of humor, or respond to it in an adequate way, we must excuse him from our delightful mini-conversation.

humor isn't intricate, and there is no such thing as an adequate way to respond to it. Humor is humor, fun, laughs, not banter about science. (?) "Delightful"? "Mini-converstaion"? You talk like you're having tea with the Queen of England. In fact, that whole statement made no sense whatsoever.

If it was mean to be humorous, then it is not necessary to have sense.

sensibility is relative. If the conversation is meant to be humorous, then it makes no sense to call it intricate and require that it be responded "adequately". A humorous conversation must have sense in the goal of being humorous, otherwise its not very funny.

That only establishes the degree of the humor ('not very funny'); it doesn't show how humor must preclude 'sense'.

Whoever said humor precludes sense? Sense precludes humor. You must have sense to know what is humorous, hence, to be humorous.

At 8/23/2011 11:52:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

At 8/22/2011 7:31:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why isn't this the breaking headline news of every news station right now? I would imagine the scientist(s) involved in the discovery/invention of this drug would be in line for the nobel prize. Either it needs more tests, or there is a catch that we don't yet know about.

How often do Nobel Prizes make headlines?

At 8/22/2011 7:31:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why isn't this the breaking headline news of every news station right now? I would imagine the scientist(s) involved in the discovery/invention of this drug would be in line for the nobel prize. Either it needs more tests, or there is a catch that we don't yet know about.

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.

Good news about the cure for colds, flu and AIDS though.

At 8/23/2011 12:15:47 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.

Good news about the cure for colds, flu and AIDS though.

Brian. This is ancient. Clearly you dont think this is something that the government is not aware of in any way at all. I think youre being mislead and naive.

At 8/23/2011 12:17:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:15:47 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.

Good news about the cure for colds, flu and AIDS though.

Brian. This is ancient. Clearly you dont think this is something that the government is not aware of in any way at all. I think youre being mislead and naive.

To think that we have a panacea for all viral infections, including the common cold, and the dreaded AIDS, is a sure sign that we Americans are becoming idiots....

At 8/23/2011 12:33:20 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:17:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:15:47 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.

Good news about the cure for colds, flu and AIDS though.

Brian. This is ancient. Clearly you dont think this is something that the government is not aware of in any way at all. I think youre being mislead and naive.

To think that we have a panacea for all viral infections, including the common cold, and the dreaded AIDS, is a sure sign that we Americans are becoming idiots....

Man Is Good. No, it is a sign that Americans are the greatest. <

At 8/23/2011 12:35:24 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:33:20 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:17:28 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:15:47 PM, inferno wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.

Good news about the cure for colds, flu and AIDS though.

Brian. This is ancient. Clearly you dont think this is something that the government is not aware of in any way at all. I think youre being mislead and naive.

To think that we have a panacea for all viral infections, including the common cold, and the dreaded AIDS, is a sure sign that we Americans are becoming idiots....

Man Is Good. No, it is a sign that Americans are the greatest. <

You're an insult to Americans everywhere.

At 8/23/2011 12:36:31 PM, inferno wrote:

You're an insult to Americans everywhere.

I am their moron, which is why I lose constantly.

At 8/23/2011 12:38:14 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/23/2011 12:36:31 PM, inferno wrote:

You're an insult to Americans everywhere.

I am their moron, which is why I lose constantly.

At 8/23/2011 12:09:17 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:52:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 8/22/2011 12:39:25 AM, Freeman wrote:
....and aids - and apparently every viral infection known to man! Wow! http://tv.ibtimes.com...

That was very hard to pay attention to, the girl was pretty.

Well, maybe she's quite pretty but she's also quite fat.