If you're inclined to accord any, what might your ultimatums entail — Aryamoy Mitra

Find a technology that will counteract the effects of the mechanism.

Find a technology that will counteract the effects of the mechanism. — T Clark

Clever.

Decide for yourselves (human population) how to reduce the total population number on the globe to 100 000 000 souls in two generations and carry through. If you are just one person too many in 100 years, I'll send you all, without any exceptions, including the Pope, Yeti, the BigFoot and the Loch Ness Monster, to the bottom of hell in a fiery spit of Satan's first-born serpents and monsters, to torment you and all your des- and ascendant relatives to a vile and blimey puke-sea hot lava replete with snakes and worms, to eat your inyards and the overhead speakers will blast "If I Won a Million Dollars" by the Barenaked Ladies to all eternity to learn what happens to those hapless souls who disregard my wrath and defy my precise and exacting instruction, written in proper standard informal English, with no ambiguity.

Find a technology that will counteract the effects of the mechanism. — T Clark

Modern Estate Law penning has come up with a wonderful clause to be included in Last Wills: "Should anyone contest this will, he or she will be immediately, expressly and irrevokably disqualified from receiving any part or portion of this estate and his or her shares, if any, will be added to the estate to be divided up among the other heirs." IN other words, "go against my word and will, and I'll screw you big time."

No word is given in case ALL heirs attack the will, singly or jointly.

Aryamoy is naturally not a lawyer.

Aryamoy is naturally not a lawyer. — god must be atheist

Infallible analysis. I'm not even an undergraduate yet - let alone a lawyer.

On a side-note, what on Earth are you sermonizing with regards to? Are you being facetious? Your comments bear no pertinence, whatsoever, to the theme underlying this thread. I don't know if you're surreptitiously pinpointing a specific phrase, and careening on a meaningless tangent - but if you are, it's not in the slightest commensurate with this forum's stated intents.

Your comments bear no pertinence, whatsoever, to the theme underlying this thread. — Aryamoy Mitra

I beg your pardon. Both of my comments bear serious pertinence. I admit there was a lot of poetry also included in the first post of mine in this thread. But that's why I put the message you asked for in the first sentence.

Added in my first post in this thread, what may seem like a complete waste of space with letters and words on it, was a reference to the ultimatums of old: the Ten Commandments, Hammurabi's Laws, etc. In those days the Law, codified, promised serious penalties for unlawful behaviour. The laws, as codified, also included a section how GOD will deal with those who don't respect the law as codified. They included supernatural elements, and punishment most severe. They were promised to be executed by GOD. Conversely, in my first post, there were fictitious elements, reference to BigFoot, for instance, which tried to emulate, in a jocular way, the warnings in the old law books for punishment by GOD.

This was done in parallel to your opening post: a threat to destroy the world, under certain conditions. The destroyer, so to speak, was serious, but in our world only an assumption. In the old lawbooks, the most severe punishment was serious, but only carried out by an assumption -- by GOD. This is the pertinent referencing part.

The second post of mine on this thread bears pertinence to the reply by @T Clark. TC's response was a very witty, and smart, remark that defeated the demand very nicely... that is, if fulfilled. It was in logic a little bit like a good Backgammon game -- come from behind, and turn the situation around. That's how I look at it, anyway.

My reply to that, was a reminiscing about the same type of Backgammon move in real life. True my second post had no pertinence to the original topic, but it had pertinence inasmuch as it reflected -- in a way -- the type of logic used in TC's post. And on this website it is in good form to have a little bit of excursion from the original topic as long as relevance to the posts replied to is valid in one way or another.

I am very keen on needing to explain my utterances. I belonged to a club a long time ago, where they branded me an idiot, having always contributed to the conversations something that they reckoned was not pertinent. Whereas all my contributions had pertinence. Soon after I was branded an idiot, I was ousted from the group.

I want to avoid the same fate for me in this group. The pertinence is explained, therefore, because I don't want to be branded an idiot here, too.