I guess :-)

[Daphne – That evens things out.]

[Daphne – Guess I was right about the school, then.]

P.S. Here’s something for Andrea or Pat or whatever her name was (the German blog reader)
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8243/wurstkoffer.jpg

[Daphne – Pat is a Swedish man. Andrea is a German woman.]

I think it’s in Germany. It must be an extension of the Rhine or something.

Sorry you suddenly find it all so very dull. What it comes down to, as with most arguments, is truth vs untruth (whose truth, whose untruth ? ). Illogical arguments being your jumping-off point for this discussion, I assumed you would be interested in seeing where it may lead. Clearly, I was mistaken.
As to what is and what is not the ‘real’ world, that would be a discussion worth having – maybe you could use it to catch up on your sleep, at the same time ?
Did you know that s_ _ t must taste good ? 20 million flies can’t be wrong !

[Daphne – I found St Aloysius College-type ‘wit’ deeply boring when I was there, let alone now.]

Hmmm, we’re not the only ones who are trying, it seems. Nice try, to toss in a remark like ‘personhood begins at birth’ as a given but it won’t work. A living human being is a person and a person is a living human being. The attempt to separate personhood from the definition of a human being is an exercise in deception, designed to de-humanise targeted sectors of human society. It has been practised forever. Probably, the instance people will identify with most easily is the classification of Jews as non-persons by Nazi Germany, as a warmup to the attempt to eradicate that entire sector of humanity. There are, actually, even worse examples than this but the strategy is invariably the same . In this case, the idea is to de-humanise the pre-born sector of human society (ie. of living human beings), using tortured reasoning to separate the definition of human-ness (sorry :-) from that of personhood, prior to giving the green light to going ahead with their extermination. The whole point is to make something intrinsically wrong acceptable to society at large. Additionally, I suggest you re-visit the Law of Malta, Catholic or not, more carefully.

[Daphne – This is not an argument I am interested in having. If you want to believe that Malta is some kind of last bastion where wheels can be reinvented and centuries-old debates rehashed in the belief that they will result in new thoughts, go ahead. I find it all pathetic and dull. I am no longer 17 and at sixth form college, and earnest debates about when life begins and ends make me glaze over. The argument that interests me is not that, but the one about Malta joining the real world.]

I’ve heard of the Panama canal. But where’s the uterine canal?