Sideline thread for debate conversations...

[edgray]

You don't have to use the term "murder". If I unwittingly restricted it to that, that is my mistake.

The question would be better asked as "Should euthanasia be legal?"

I will state this in the thread and give you both a chance to start over, if desired.

that makes more sense. I'd be happier with that, as euthanasia simply doesn't fit the descption of murder at all:

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought"

It's up to Butterfly, but I feel my post didn't properly address the question at hand because of that reason.

 

[edgray]

:thumbup

 

[USF Sam]

I feel like I have TOTALLY screwed the pooch here.




Butterfly, Ed... here's how it'll work.

Butterfly- you let me know when your opening statement is completed. 300 word limit. Once you've "planted your flag" the field will be opened to Ed.

In RL this would be declared a mis-trial and we'd start over AGAIN.. but I'm trying to avoid that.

 

[Butterfly]

that makes more sense. I'd be happier with that, as euthanasia simply doesn't fit the descption of murder at all:



It's up to Butterfly, but I feel my post didn't properly address the question at hand because of that reason.

I'm happy to stick with my first post... I don't mind if you change yours (although I've replied to it... only seeing all this after hitting submit). But I'm happy for us to start over if you like.

 

[USF Sam]

I'll see if I can get a MOD to clean up your debate thread once we get Butterfly's REAL opening statement.

 

[USF Sam]

Ed, the mess have been cleared away.

You're up.

 

[HK]

Fuck the word count!

To be fair though, it makes everything I write a little less rambling than it might otherwise be.

 

[edgray]

In OffTopicz, word count fucks you.

 

[USF Sam]

Fuck the word count!

To be fair though, it makes everything I write a little less rambling than it might otherwise be.

That's the idea. Forces you to compress your thoughts.

According to Word, you came in at 299. Nice job.

In OffTopicz, word count fucks you.

HOWEVER... according to Word you came in at 302.

I've looked over your post and I'm going to let it stand for the following reasons:

First- I saw at least two instances where the word "that" could have been removed.
Second- You are the first to go over, so this can serve as a warning to everybody to mind the Word count.
Third- It was two words and clearly an "oops" and not an effort to get an unfair advantage.



Official Warning:

IN THE FUTURE ALL DEBATERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE WORD COUNT LIMIT.

 

[edgray]

HOWEVER... according to Word you came in at 302.

I've looked over your post and I'm going to let it stand for the following reasons:

First- I saw at least two instances where the word "that" could have been removed.
Second- You are the first to go over, so this can serve as a warning to everybody to mind the Word count.
Third- It was two words and clearly an "oops" and not an effort to get an unfair advantage.

According to Pages my count came out at 300 on the nose and I just checked again and it came out at 300 on the nose.

Macs are far superior machines. There is no reason not to believe the 300 claimed by Pages. Word is wrong

 

[USF Sam]

According to Pages my count came out at 300 on the nose and I just checked again and it came out at 300 on the nose.

Macs are far superior machines. There is no reason not to believe the 300 claimed by Pages. Word is wrong

 

[HK]

Not to be totally weird, but I went and counted Ed's post literally by moving my finger across the screen and muttering '1..2..3..4..5..' under my breath, and it comes to 300 words.

So it's pretty odd that the your word counter brings up 302. Especially since your count on mine 299, was exactly right! Unless Ed edited his post just after you counted it or something?

 

[hart]

302 or 300 I think if you are less than five letters over give it a by, Sam, this is offtopicz not Geneva

 

[USF Sam]

Not to be totally weird, but I went and counted Ed's post literally by moving my finger across the screen and muttering '1..2..3..4..5..' under my breath, and it comes to 300 words.

So it's pretty odd that the your word counter brings up 302. Especially since your count on mine 299, was exactly right! Unless Ed edited his post just after you counted it or something?

:dunno <---- never has a smiley been more appropriate

302 or 300 I think if you are less than five letters over give it a by, Sam, this is offtopicz not Geneva

Already did.

 

[edgray]

at the bottom. I've counted by hand too. This wouldn't be the first time a Microsoft product made an error.

 

[edgray]

1 Paragraph???

Yeah there you go... :24: :24: :24:

 

[Butterfly]

For what it's worth, Open Office counts 303 words :24:

 

[retro]

it's because Word counts those two dashes as "words".

 

[USF Sam]

For what it's worth, Open Office counts 303 words :24:

:24:

OK... new rule... I'm instituting a 10% allowance in the word count. :24:

 

[edgray]

:24:

OK... new rule... I'm instituting a 10% allowance in the word count. :24:

that's what Microsoft call a "feature".