How, exactly? The writer has merely substituted "Buddha" for "God" in a standard English phrase; the intention remains the same although the phrase is a complete nonsense since Buddha < > GodOriginally Posted by fattman
How, exactly? The writer has merely substituted "Buddha" for "God" in a standard English phrase; the intention remains the same although the phrase is a complete nonsense since Buddha < > GodOriginally Posted by fattman
Since the < > symbol stands for "not equals" I'd say your understanding is wrong. My point is that since, as you say, Gautama never claimed to be more than a man and said that all questions about whether God exists are meaningless as we can never know, clowns like George substituting the word Buddha for God in common English expressions just shows what damn fools they areOriginally Posted by fattman
Homointern,
In the good old USA, ">" means greater then and "<" means less then and not equal is an "=" sign with a "/" through the middle. I knew we had different languages but different signs?
I'm afraid I can take no responsibility for gaps in your education - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_m ... al_symbolsOriginally Posted by fattman
Darn I must have missed computer science while I was taking calculus. Math symbols ~ computer science symbols. Thanks for the education.
Love - 0 = ∞
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKoV1yJnqAI[/youtube]
There are one or two good Catholic schools, I supposeOriginally Posted by fattman
He invented the Zimmer frame, right?Originally Posted by fattman
Everyone has to have a hobby. Did you enjoy it, by the way?Originally Posted by fattman
They do everywhere else too, darhling. Poor old Beryl. Perhaps she was pawing at her null hypothesis? I hear it does get a bit crusty.Originally Posted by Khor tose
JESUS LOVES YOU, yes, even you nancies