I guess something such as scalding hot herbal tea could be quite undesirable, but even then I'd venture that any kind of tea is far better than condemning the human race, and all other earthbound races, to extinction by celestial war.
Hey, just saying, it might vary. The more details you give, the more concrete my decision. It's still not set in stone. I guess its like, etched in clay or some such. Which now that I think about it, is technically 'set in stone' but that's really just an example of my point.
And in any case, what if Armageddon is entirely tea-centric? What if the entire situation is a trick question, a fabrication designed to confuse and bewilder the innocents?
Having returned from my meal of Mealy Mealington; which, unlike the two prior, did not include tea, I pose to you this query, is not your question on trick questions a trick question? After all, it is built on the notion of innocence and, as many could tell you, there are scores of people that make they're living fooling honest men that stipulate. "You can't fool an honest man", yet these men(hit the character limit)
(continuation)are being fooled and thus their statement is dishonest The paradox of honesty being one of the virtues of innocence, your statement falls into question as a trick does it not. This is of course assuming you disregard the impressive numbers of holes in my argument, but given that I bothered to write this whole thing out I'd like to pretend that you will, (hitting the character limit again)
(another continuation)which isn't to say that I expect you to, just that I'll cling to that delusion.(on a semi-interesting tangent, apparently you’re not aloud messages in access of 420 characters (with spaces), marginally useful and whatnot)
I am reluctantly forced to submit to that point. This entire debacle is starting to remind me of one I recently had with an acquaintance stemming from him commenting that his leg was hurting; it eventually boiled down to me proclaiming that he should forcefully whack it with a hammer in the name of not being ignorant, and him giving up on the conversation because (I hate you, tea based, demonic character limit)
there was no way for him to respond without sounding bad due to the web of bullshit and logical fallacies the two of us had woven, you sir have won, kudos and so forth. On a moderately lengthy digression I enjoy how you commented that you approved of my logic and then proceed to leave your signature as it was, that reminds me of myself, a lot. And also of a bunch of other people that I know. (character limit = evil)
Visit the Beginner's Box
Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.
Comments on Profile Post by Apronymous