And love a good quote: [I Smoked Pot]

@rottenrobi Beautiful...❤️

@rottenrobi The fact that there is no such thing as coincidence is a provable fact based on dictionary definitions, it has nothing to do with religion.

The word "coincidence" is an abstract noun derived from the prefixed verb "to coincide". It is meaningless nonsense for the following reason. When we remove the prefix "co" (which means "together" as in "co-operate" = "operate together", "coexist" = "exist together", etc) we are left with the nonexistent root word "to incide". Yes, that's right, there is no such verb as "to incide", it is not in the dictionary. Therefore, logically speaking, there cannot be such a thing as "coincidence" for the plain and simple reason that they cannot "coincide" for the plain and simple reason that they cannot "incide together" for the plain and simple reason that there is no such word as "incide". How much more logical can one get? All this is so obvious that I discovered it myself when I was still only 7 in 1969.

@NankerPhelge For fuck sake dude, really?

@Bratt ignore him. He’s similar to Hairbrush diva. Annoying and petty

@BettyBeez 🙄

@Bratt Yes, really. I got it all from my late father's old dictionary, which I have kept. It's the 1968 edition of the Newnes Family Reference Dictionary. I later confirmed it with my old school dictionary, the 1970 Pocket Oxford Dictionary. That's right, the word "incide" isn't in that either. It's still not a valid word because my computer spellchecker doesn't recognise it as one. How much more factual proof do you need?

@BettyBeez I'm just a typical British person who likes everything to be correct and precise. So is Hairbrush Diva - and most of the other British members of SW. It's usually the ones who aren't British who couldn't care less about such things.

@NankerPhelge y’all both the same person. Stop it. It’s obnoxious

@BettyBeez No, we're not. Check our postings for obvious differences before you go around throwing wild accusations. While you're at it, check all the other British members and see what you find.

@NankerPhelge I'm sorry, what?

@JBtheUndefined LIAR! I never did anything of the sort. I intend to take legal action against this site if it allows this kind of slander. Why do you all hate me so much that you make up lies about me?

@Bratt I was addressing BettyBeez.

@JBtheUndefined Stop trolling then.

@JBtheUndefined Whatever you are, why are you picking on me? What did I do to you?

@NankerPhelge Jesus Christ Nanker. How do you sit down with that stick up your arse?

@NankerPhelge Lol... the only thing you said that offended me was, [quote]All this is so obvious that I discovered it myself when I was still only 7 in 1969.[/quote]
No one likes a "know it all", but you still made me laugh.

@rottenrobi No one likes a "know it all", yet everyone likes the truth. All I did was tell the truth, so how did that offend you?

I forgot what we were even talking about @NankerPhelge.

@rottenrobi The fact that there's no such thing as coincidence.

I was kidding, @NankerPhelge. Of course I remember.

I thought coincidence was when two, seemingly not connected, incidents occurred at the same time.

[b]Incident[/b]: an occurence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience.

[b]Coincidence[/b]: a situation in which events happen at the same time, in a way that's not planned or expected.

You might be right, I'm not a linguist.

@rottenrobi If my dad's old dictionary did not have the word "incide" in it, then "incide" cannot be a word because my dad told me when he bought that dictionary that it had [b]every[/b] word in it, and of course I took that as literally then at 7 as I would now at 58. Since "incide" is the root word of "coincidence", that means the nonexistence of the word "incide" renders the word "coincidence" meaningless and nonsensical, doesn't it? How much more logical can one be?