A typical thread

Define "typical".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Define "typical".

That's all you ask.
If I believed in the Typical Thread, then in order for you to dispute my claim, I would have to define what I thought it was.

Please be as specific as you can; try and avoid vagueness.

So come on all ye typical - describe for me what it is that is typical.

Originally posted by Omnislash
The flying spaghetti thread touched me with its noodley post.

You can get councilling for that...

Originally posted by Omnislash
Your God eats babies!

Yep. That's one of His turn-offs.

Originally posted by Omnislash
You eat babies!

Only if by 'You eat' you mean 'God eats'.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Only if by 'You eat' you mean 'God eats'.

In the end, that would be the same if God is OOMP. 😉

Originally posted by Omnislash
The flying spaghetti thread touched me with its noodley post.

I laughed until I stopped laughing. Good stuff.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Define "typical".

Define, "define". It seems define to me. HAAAAA!!!

Originally posted by Omnislash
It is not my job to prove that this is a typical thread. The burden of proof lies with the thread. The thread makes the claim, and therefore the thread must provide evidence to substantiate its claim.

It is the thread readers position that the thread can not provide substantial evidence to prove that it is a typical thread. Therefore the thread ...[text shortened]... lieve that the tread is typical as there is insufficient evidence to warrant such belief.

😉

If we say that T = typical thread and N= non-typical thread then T must be bigger than N prior to any contradictory premise that substantiates the former assumption that N cannot be equal to T because according to formal logic, the existence of X (assuming that X could confirm this) would predict an absence of G whereas 'non- G' would preclude that neither T or N could really exist if we first prefix this with a prior conclusion of X =G . ...therefore....B+U+L+L+S+H+I+T = x

SO THERE!!!!!!

I think the question we really need to focus on is what we mean by 'typical'. There are all sorts of assumptions that have to be teased out.