Science > Abortion > Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature)
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2006 01:17:03 AM |
| Object: |
Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
Web Posted: July 25, 1998
study in today's edition of the prestigious science journal "Nature"
reveals that members of the scientific community are "more likely than
ever to reject God and immortality," discloses Britain's Daily
Telegraph.
That claim is based on another study which repeats a historic
survey first made in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University.
It revealed that over eight decades ago, only about 40% of the
scientists surveyed expressed belief in any supreme being. Leuba
predicted that advances in education and technology would further
erode faith in religious claims.
In 1997, Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to
revisit Leuba's study and evaluate the prediction that religious
belief was disappearing, at least in the scientific community. Author
of the book "Summer for the God's" and a professor of science law and
history, Larson said that Leuba's original survey raised "good
questions."
"They provoke responses and give much more insight into how people
think than the vague Gallup poll question, 'Do you believe in God?'"
he told a writer from Research Reporter.
Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology, repeating the same
questions and attempting to find a representative sample which met the
original survey profile. "I had no idea how it would turn out," Larson
said.
60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those,
40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's
survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such
faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe
in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba.
"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of
belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517
members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When
queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the
affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8%
expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human
immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in
1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet,
compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism"
on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement.
Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among
mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the
life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
THE GLASS IS EMPTIER...
Dr. Larson, in commenting on his 1997 replication of the 1916
study, noted that as with Leuba's report, his revelations elicited
wildly different accounts in the news media. "It's being spun in
different ways," Larson observed. "The Christian Science Monitor ran
an editorial exhorting the fact that scientists still do believe --
despite the fact that well less than half of the scientists in my
survey believed in God -- while the Journal of Humanism ran a piece
proclaiming that they do not."
"Is the glass half empty or half full?," Larson asked.
It would be difficult to interpret the figures reported in
"Nature," though, as suggesting that belief within the scientific
community is gaining popularity, or even holding its own. The "belief
in a person god" category suggests a precipitous drop, from about 40%
in Larson's survey to 7% in the "Nature" study.
CHANGING VIEWS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, GOD
While Leuba and his study were historic curiosities when Dr.
Larson and co-researcher Larry Witham decided to revisit the findings,
during its time the 1916 survey ignited considerable controversy. Paul
Karr of Research Reporter noted that Leuba's findings "touched off an
anti-evolutionary movement that would culminate in the historic Scopes
trial where science and Darwinism faced off against Christianity and
creationism for the mind and soul of the American schoolchild."
Indeed, just nine years after the Leuba findings, high school biology
teacher John T. Scopes (1900-1970) was in the middle of a legal
controversy, accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which forbade
the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. The trial
drew worldwide publicity, and was soon dubbed the Monkey Trial due to
popular misconceptions about evolutionary findings -- that "people
came from monkeys."
Criminal attorney Clarence Darrow faced off against the
prosecution's most illustrious witness, former U.S. Secretary of State
William Jennings Bryan, a populist known for his famous "Cross of
Gold" oration. Darrow conceded "the facts of the case," that Scopes
had indeed violated the Butler Act -- but he also argued for the
scientific validity of evolution. Scopes was convicted and fined $100,
but the state supreme court later overturned the verdict on technical
grounds; meanwhile, the Butler Act remained on the books in Tennessee
until 1967.
But William Jennings Bryan, the consummate politician, also was
typical of the "amateur scientist" of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. He was a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, but as described by Edward Davis in a review
of "Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science (James
Gilbert, University of Chicago Press, 1997), was also "representative
of an older, less abstract, way of understanding scientific knowledge,
a common sense Baconianism that eschewed speculative hypotheses (such
as evolution) and saw both science and religion as ways of glorifying
God."
The paradigm exemplified by Bryan -- the practical, "amateur
scientist" who understood the scientific enterprise as a reaffirmation
of the sacred -- may be even less represented today within the
academic community than when John Scopes went to trial in Dayton,
Tennessee nearly three-quarters-of-a-century ago. Evolution, a core
tenet of modern life sciences such as biology, was not a major point
of contention even among professional academicians then. It reflected
the tension between the "common sense" position of the "amateur
scientists" and the more rigorously trained professionals. Davis
argues that "Bryan's 'greatest mistake' was to assume that this view
of science was still operative among professional scientists in the
1920s. Because it was still part of the popular conception of science,
however, his actions leading up to the Scopes trial 'revealed a fault
line between popular and professional science.'"
Today, the fault line appears between the scientific community
which increasingly doubts supernatural or religion-based explanations
of how the universe operates, and the wider popular culture which is
in the midst of both a fundamentalist revival, and a disturbing
popularity of new age and related pseudo science beliefs. One example
could be the recent article in Newsweek Magazine, which suggests a
convergence of scientific opinion and more traditional religious
doctrines. The agreement may exist more in the news rooms of popular
magazines, than in the libraries, labs and observatories where
scientists actually do their work.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2209 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke loves to play
with little girls' nipples:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
21 Jan 2006 12:23:36 PM |
|
|
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need to hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving "in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436 OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit it was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't think Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't know what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix, New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama, on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of the 20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service under the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said, Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
I left the service
in 1994 after 10 years of service under the SSB program, a program
that
was available to ALL.
But you criticize Gore for that.
Nope, you did.
lol
We see that Al Gore left the service after REQUESTING TO GET OUT
EARLY.
LIKE YOU.
Nope, it was offered and I like thousands of others accepted. I didn't
request it.
lol
So according to David Barnes, Al Gore did not fulfill his duty.
<Yawn> I never said that.
Yes you did.
Then show us where.
"Osprey didn't serve his entire term. He got out early, so he didn't fulfill
his duty" - David Barnes.
That was YOU and under different circumstances.
Now Barnes, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite and ignore that
little
fact would you?
Barnes is smart enough to know what he said.
Barnes is not smart enough to know people catch his lies.
Then show us where.
every single post...which is THOUSANDS
You live in a dream world, Spud.
I served 10 years, left voluntarily after being offered an early out
as
everyone in 1994 was offered the same thing, and I received an
honorable discharge.
And were told you could never come back if you left early.
Nope, I was never told that.
Then you lied in the past.
Nope, you lied and can't support your statement. No one ever told me I
couldnt come back.
You specifically said you were not allowed to come back because of this.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
Gore didn't even serve a first term!!!
So you claim that leaving early is not serving. My point exactly.
You said it, not me.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. He can't come up with a quote that supports
his statement.
Stop twisting in the wind.
Let's watch Barnes squirm and turn his head...the circus show he is
about to put on should be entertaining.
You are a coward.
You are a liar.
Squawk! Liar! Liar! Polly want a cracker! Liar!
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
21 Jan 2006 01:05:35 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need to hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving "in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436 OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit it was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't think Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't know what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix, New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama, on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of the 20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service under the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said, Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
I left the service
in 1994 after 10 years of service under the SSB program, a program
that
was available to ALL.
But you criticize Gore for that.
Nope, you did.
lol
We see that Al Gore left the service after REQUESTING TO GET OUT
EARLY.
LIKE YOU.
Nope, it was offered and I like thousands of others accepted. I didn't
request it.
lol
So according to David Barnes, Al Gore did not fulfill his duty.
<Yawn> I never said that.
Yes you did.
Then show us where.
"Osprey didn't serve his entire term. He got out early, so he didn't fulfill
his duty" - David Barnes.
That was YOU and under different circumstances.
Nope, you can't run like that.
Gore didn't serve his entire term of service..according to you that
means he did not fulfill his commitment.
Now Barnes, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite and ignore that
little
fact would you?
Barnes is smart enough to know what he said.
Barnes is not smart enough to know people catch his lies.
Then show us where.
every single post...which is THOUSANDS
You live in a dream world, Spud.
I served 10 years, left voluntarily after being offered an early out
as
everyone in 1994 was offered the same thing, and I received an
honorable discharge.
And were told you could never come back if you left early.
Nope, I was never told that.
Then you lied in the past.
Nope, you lied and can't support your statement. No one ever told me I
couldnt come back.
You specifically said you were not allowed to come back because of this.
Message ID?
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Gore didn't even serve a first term!!!
So you claim that leaving early is not serving. My point exactly.
You said it, not me.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. He can't come up with a quote that supports
his statement.
Stop twisting in the wind.
You are the one getting caught lying.
Let's watch Barnes squirm and turn his head...the circus show he is
about to put on should be entertaining.
You are a coward.
You are a liar.
Squawk! Liar! Liar! Polly want a cracker! Liar!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
21 Jan 2006 04:45:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving "in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix, New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
I don't need to - I accept your excuse. You never said that Gore
didn't "fulfill his commitment." I accept that. What you actually
said was, that since he got out early he didn't "serve fairly."
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Fine with me.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted and I assumed you were smart enough to
understand that we were speaking of officers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
21 Jan 2006 09:43:39 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving "in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix, New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
<snipping your excuse>
get back to me when you can actually back up what you claim and you
don't need to lie.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted
That's the first thing you have said that was right.
Maybe that friend that was actually in the Air Force that you consult
with can give you some information to help you with your next lie.
Fact:
You were never in the Air Force - you lied
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 12:46:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1137901419.067528.77830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need
to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a
rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and
over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the
Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving
"in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does
not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a
crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit
it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat
unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I
don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by
using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't
think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't
know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program
available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting
office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix,
New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of
the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service
under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore
served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
<snipping your excuse>
get back to me when you can actually back up what you claim and you
don't need to lie.
I don't need to - I accept your excuse. You never said that Gore
didn't "fulfill his commitment." I accept that. What you actually
said was, that since he got out early he didn't "serve fairly."
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Fine with me.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You
denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted
That's the first thing you have said that was right.
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Maybe that friend that was actually in the Air Force that you consult
with can give you some information to help you with your next lie.
Fact:
You were never in the Air Force - you lied
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 01:00:07 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137901419.067528.77830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they need
to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a
rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over and
over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in the
Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think serving
"in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that does
not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was a
crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the 436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I admit
it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat
unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I
don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by
using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't
think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't
know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program
available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting
office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort Dix,
New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part of
the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service
under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore
served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
<snipping your excuse>
get back to me when you can actually back up what you claim and you
don't need to lie.
I don't need to - I accept your excuse. You never said that Gore
didn't "fulfill his commitment." I accept that. What you actually
said was, that since he got out early he didn't "serve fairly."
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Fine with me.
Once again boy, that's not what I said.
And you failed to show a quote, proving once again you know you lied.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You
denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted
That's the first thing you have said that was right.
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Once again boy, you like to lie. Why?
Maybe that friend that was actually in the Air Force that you consult
with can give you some information to help you with your next lie.
Fact:
You were never in the Air Force - you lied
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
I know.
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 02:10:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1137913207.056875.315540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137901419.067528.77830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article
<1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article
<43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the
quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they
need
to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a
rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over
and
over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in
the
Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think
serving
"in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that
does
not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was
a
crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the
436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I
admit
it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat
unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served
in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I
don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by
using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't
think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using
undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you
think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue
influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same
thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't
know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program
available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting
office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort
Dix,
New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part
of
the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base
near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service
under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his
commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore
served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who
said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote
that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you
are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
<snipping your excuse>
get back to me when you can actually back up what you claim and you
don't need to lie.
I don't need to - I accept your excuse. You never said that Gore
didn't "fulfill his commitment." I accept that. What you actually
said was, that since he got out early he didn't "serve fairly."
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Fine with me.
Once again boy, that's not what I said.
And you failed to show a quote, proving once again you know you lied.
It is called logic.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You
denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted
That's the first thing you have said that was right.
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Once again boy, you like to lie. Why?
Liar
Maybe that friend that was actually in the Air Force that you consult
with can give you some information to help you with your next lie.
Fact:
You were never in the Air Force - you lied
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
I know.
You no nothing about me.
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 03:36:43 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137913207.056875.315540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137901419.067528.77830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1137870335.365223.57280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a66dnWv3CcXT5U_eRVn-iw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210120060701543913%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article
<1137824600.697664.271670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1137777423.711015.238910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <43D07952.DABD47F6@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CFD8E0.19E9FFC@Il.Postino.it>, 'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <43CE7D90.E0F14BE@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<Na-dnR8osuYRIFDenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
in
message
news:170120061854095587%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article
<43CD4685.186882B6@Il.Postino.it>,
'Soli
Deo
Gloria'
<Pablo.Neruda@Il.Postino.it> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article
<1137476684.513771.181430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria')
wrote:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
Can't you add somethingto the
quoted
material?
Of course they can't because they
need
to
hold
on
to
what
ever
they
can. She is sounding a lot like a
rambling
mentally
ill
person now
who
just stutters the same thing over
and
over.
Yes I served with a combat unit in
the
Air
Force,
that
is
NOT
to
say
I
served "in" combat. They think
serving
"in"
combat
means
one
who
is
on
the front lines.
And you left under conditions that
does
not
allow
you to
ever
return,
by your own admission.
I served with the 436 MAW and I was
a
crew
chief on
mobility.
I
worked
with the Air Drop section with the
436
OMS/AGS
unit.
When I said I served in combat, I
admit
it
was
a
bad
choice of
words.
Stop making excuses for your lies.
If he served during wartime in a combat
unit but
was in
support,
doesn't
that mean he's served in combat?
Nope. He doesn't even think Gore served
in
combat
and
Gore
was
on
the
front lines.
That is another lie on your part. I said I
don't
think
Gore
served
fairly
like the others who served a year or more.
How ironic. You left the military early by
using a
program
that
didn't
allow you to ever serve again, but you don't
think
Gore
"served
fairly." The hypocrisy never stops with you.
Using a programme available to all and using
undue
influence
because
of
who you are, not the same things, don't you
think?
Agreed. However, Gore used no "undue
influence." He
used
a
program
available to all. So it is exactly the same
thing.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
What were you referring to?
I wasn't referring to anything specific because I don't
know
what
programmes or influence you are talking about.
But you started it. Gore left Vietnam on a program
available to
all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Soldier_and_journalist
August 1969: Enlisted at the Newark, New Jersey recruiting
office.
August to October 1969: 8 weeks of basic training at Fort
Dix,
New
Jersey
Late October 1969 to December 1970: Fort Rucker, Alabama,
on-the-job
occupational training at the Army Flier newspaper.
January 1971 to May 1971: field reporter in Vietnam, part
of
the
20th
Engineer Brigade, stationed primarily at Bien Hoa Air Base
near
Saigon.
May 24, 1971: Given an honorable discharge, after his early
discharge
request was granted.
David Barnes claims that anyone who got out of the service
under
the
SSB or VSI program, did not fulfill their contract.
You were the one who said, Gore didn't fulfill his
commitment.
Nope, I never said that. You did.
Osprey gets caught lying again. You said, "I don't think Gore
served
fairly like the others who served a year or more"
Barnes gets caught lying again. You said, "You were the one who
said,
Gored
idn't fulfill his commitment". Then you come up with some quote
that
doesn't even say that.
Oh, I see. You saying Gore didn't "serve fairly" wasn't saying he
didn't fulfill his commitment." Your lies are as twisted as you
are.
Go ahead, post a message ID in which you are referring to this quote.
<snipping your excuse>
get back to me when you can actually back up what you claim and you
don't need to lie.
I don't need to - I accept your excuse. You never said that Gore
didn't "fulfill his commitment." I accept that. What you actually
said was, that since he got out early he didn't "serve fairly."
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Fine with me.
Once again boy, that's not what I said.
And you failed to show a quote, proving once again you know you lied.
It is called logic.
You don't know waht logic means.
You were
fine with that. They BEGGED me to come back when I left.
You were never in.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know. You
denying
the truth doesn't make something untrue.
The evidence supports my statement. You were never in, you lied.
What evidence is that?
You failed to know where OTS was located. Then lied about it when you
got caught.
Nah - you were enlisted
That's the first thing you have said that was right.
And you got out early, so you are admitting you didn't "serve fairly."
Once again boy, you like to lie. Why?
Liar
If you can show the quote, then you can make that claim. So far you
are batting zero in supporting your claim. Which makes YOU the liar.
Maybe that friend that was actually in the Air Force that you consult
with can give you some information to help you with your next lie.
Fact:
You were never in the Air Force - you lied
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
I know.
You no nothing about me.
You lie
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
You just lied again.
why do you prefer to lie?
Is this something they teach lawyers to do?
I thought lawyers were supposed to have a code of ethics.
Tell us the truth, you are not a lawyer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 09:37:53 AM |
|
|
In article <1137922603.360998.237910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
You just lied again.
why do you prefer to lie?
Is this something they teach lawyers to do?
I thought lawyers were supposed to have a code of ethics.
Tell us the truth, you are not a lawyer.
You should be so lucky as to have a lawyer like me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 12:41:23 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220120060737537306%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137922603.360998.237910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
You just lied again.
why do you prefer to lie?
Is this something they teach lawyers to do?
I thought lawyers were supposed to have a code of ethics.
Tell us the truth, you are not a lawyer.
You should be so lucky as to have a lawyer like me.
Yea, if they feel like going to jail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 01:23:40 PM |
|
|
In article <Dq-dnQPhTIrDTE7eRVn-sg@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220120060737537306%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137922603.360998.237910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
You just lied again.
why do you prefer to lie?
Is this something they teach lawyers to do?
I thought lawyers were supposed to have a code of ethics.
Tell us the truth, you are not a lawyer.
You should be so lucky as to have a lawyer like me.
Yea, if they feel like going to jail.
Isn't it interesting that when I say you should be so lucky as to have
a lawyer like me, your first thought is about your criminal activities
rather than one of dozens of civil areas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study: Really Smart People Reject Christianity (The Journal Nature) |
22 Jan 2006 04:30:41 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Dq-dnQPhTIrDTE7eRVn-sg@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220120060737537306%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1137922603.360998.237910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Now, explain why you prefer to lie.
Never happens. But you be sure to keep saying it.
You just lied again.
why do you prefer to lie?
Is this something they teach lawyers to do?
I thought lawyers were supposed to have a code of ethics.
Tell us the truth, you are not a lawyer.
You should be so lucky as to have a lawyer like me.
Yea, if they feel like going to jail.
Isn't it interesting that when I say you should be so lucky as to have
a lawyer like me, your first thought is about your criminal activities
rather than one of dozens of civil areas.
What criminal activities?
If you would like I can give you the name of someone you should talk to
if you think you can accuse me of criminal activities.
You lied, you are not and never wree a lawyer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: R | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
