Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Sorry, but I disagree. Don't equivocate. There is no medical effect. I don't know why you can't just say that and I don't think it is wasting anyone's time because it is a very important point.

Pp never said that. Google the sentence construction.

Oh, really?

There may be no significant medical effect.

"may be"

you need to say

"is no"

Are you implying there is no difference?

It’s already a statement contrary to fact, dumba$$. Similar construction: The grass may not be blue, but it’s pretty.

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty sick that OP is playing gotcha with someone who is dying. What sort of evil religious is she?

It’s pretty sick that you’re making up sick scenarios about an anonymous poster based on zero info about her. What’s wrong with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Sorry, but I disagree. Don't equivocate. There is no medical effect. I don't know why you can't just say that and I don't think it is wasting anyone's time because it is a very important point.

Pp never said that. Google the sentence construction.

Oh, really?

There may be no significant medical effect.

"may be"

you need to say

"is no"

Are you implying there is no difference?

She might have been making a private joke. Dark humor directed at herself.

I could see myself doing that in that situation.

It's pretty sick that OP is playing gotcha with someone who is dying. What sort of evil religious is she?

Does it really matter? It's not like it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Sorry, but I disagree. Don't equivocate. There is no medical effect. I don't know why you can't just say that and I don't think it is wasting anyone's time because it is a very important point.

Pp never said that. Google the sentence construction.

NP

There may be no citable evidence that you are a pedophile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Sorry, but I disagree. Don't equivocate. There is no medical effect. I don't know why you can't just say that and I don't think it is wasting anyone's time because it is a very important point.

Pp never said that. Google the sentence construction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one atheist called and asked for prayers, why would you write "why do atheists ask for prayers"?

OP likes to generalize atheists?

Is English your first language? You've been on the wrong side of two picky language issues on this thread so far, and counting.

Which two? Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an atheist then.

+1

My XH claims to be an atheist (maybe because it makes him feel superior), but he was asking prayers right and left three separate occasions. TBH, I think he and a lot of similar people aren’t atheists just disinterested in spiritual labor. They will outsource it when they want it.

If he asks for prayers, he is not an atheist.

But that's your XH. Don't make assumptions about any other. We are not interested in "spiritual labor" (whatever that is) because it is futile.

I'm an atheist, and I've asked for prayers a couple of times, for one of two reasons. 1) What I meant was "keep me in your thoughts, knowing that someone is wishing for my recovery makes me feel better," but because I know that particular audience, I translated it to "keep me in your prayers" because that was essentially the same thing, and I didn't want to get into a discussion on the difference between "keep me in your thoughts" and "keep me in your prayers" because I was dealing with a medical crisis; or 2) some people really wanted to do something for me, or seemed really upset. I didn't want the emotional burden of coming up with a list of tasks that I would feel comfortable asking of them, so I just said "keep me in your prayers" because that made them feel useful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Sorry, but I disagree. Don't equivocate. There is no medical effect. I don't know why you can't just say that and I don't think it is wasting anyone's time because it is a very important point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not an atheist then.

+1

My XH claims to be an atheist (maybe because it makes him feel superior), but he was asking prayers right and left three separate occasions. TBH, I think he and a lot of similar people aren’t atheists just disinterested in spiritual labor. They will outsource it when they want it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There may be no significant medical effect.

Please don't mis-state facts. There IS NO significant medical effect.

Where's the mis-statement? The language here is "may be no...but...." A turn of phrase that's used by educated people everywhere, who understand that it doesn't imply anything definitive about the first clause.

You pointed out the reason it is a mis-statement yourself. That it "doesn't imply anything definitive". But it should, and MUST, as it IS definitive, and we are dealing with people's health.

You seriously don't understand the language behind this? This is a simple turn of phrase that implies nothing about the value of prayer. You're deliberately "mis-"interpreting here. Why you're wasting our time is anybody's guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one atheist called and asked for prayers, why would you write "why do atheists ask for prayers"?

OP likes to generalize atheists?

Is English your first language? You've been on the wrong side of two picky language issues on this thread so far, and counting.