| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"FreeThink" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2005 09:34:06 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Plonk Etiquette |
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
15 Apr 2005 10:20:47 PM |
|
|
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself obliged to
tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so many, so many!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
15 Apr 2005 10:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:jw%7e.2626$VA3.581@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself
obliged to tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so
many, so many!
I plonk whole domaions! No WebTV for me! I set X-No-Archive=yes because
I don't care if people using Google Groups see my posts or not.
Plonk who you want, and be done with them. If you get plonked, no
problem. And perhaps they didn't plonk you, but lost you in the 1000+
posts per day.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to
be true, for what some terror in their hearts tells them is not true.
-- Oscar Wilde
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
15 Apr 2005 10:58:11 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:jw%7e.2626$VA3.581@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It
is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know
if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself
obliged to tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so
many, so many!
I plonk whole domaions! No WebTV for me! I set X-No-Archive=yes
because
I don't care if people using Google Groups see my posts or not.
Plonk who you want, and be done with them. If you get plonked, no
problem. And perhaps they didn't plonk you, but lost you in the
1000+
posts per day.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want
to
be true, for what some terror in their hearts tells them is not true.
-- Oscar Wilde
I stick to a few groups of interest to me. Within those I can very
quickly skip topics I am not interested in. Most of the time the
heading is enough. If not, the first few sentences of the first post is
enough. I do watch the topics that I have chosen to post within and
always get back to those who reply to me. Unless they are idiotic, a
troll, etc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Veruyu" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 03:48:46 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:jw%7e.2626$VA3.581@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It
is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know
if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself
obliged to tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so
many, so many!
I plonk whole domaions! No WebTV for me! I set X-No-Archive=yes
because
I don't care if people using Google Groups see my posts or not.
And it prevents any of your foolishness from coming back to haunt
you,huh?
BTW, your posts DO show up in google but are deleted after 6 days.
------
http://ancientfaithradio.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 12:49:42 AM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2005, Enkidu the Atheist dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:jw%7e.2626$VA3.581@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It
is frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know
if there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself
obliged to tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so
many, so many!
I plonk whole domaions! No WebTV for me! I set X-No-Archive=yes
because I don't care if people using Google Groups see my posts or
not.
I've plonked x-posted groups like free.christians, or soc.men. That gets
rid of certain posters that don't post to alt.atheism exclusively, and it
kills the entire thread, so I don't see the original posters through the
replies.
Plonk who you want, and be done with them. If you get plonked, no
problem. And perhaps they didn't plonk you, but lost you in the 1000+
posts per day.
I try to keep my filter size down, and every other month I go through it
and delete the ones I don't remember.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
15 Apr 2005 10:36:37 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in
news:jw%7e.2626$VA3.581@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113618846.437190.49110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Should one tell the person they plonked that they have done so? It is
frustrating when I do not get a response to a post. I don't know if
there is no interest of they just can't see it.
I plonk people for being assholes, so no, I don't consider myself
obliged to tell them. Why would they care anyway? And there are so many,
so many!
It all depends. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Puke I told. It really
got him all twisted and that was actually fun. Puke is such a despicable
liar.
There have been entire newsgroups that I have written off as hopeless.
Things are quite bad and it will likely only get worse.
rj
--
"I'm an atheist, thank God." - Dave Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 06:47:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:36:37 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
It all depends. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Puke I told. It really
got him all twisted and that was actually fun. Puke is such a despicable
liar.
Sorry bubba, but I definitely didn't get twisted. Let's face facts, plonkers
are admitting that they can't participate in a public discussion. By and
large, it's an open announcement that a plonker is information void. Fear of
embarrassment is the plonkers greatest asset. Now that's my own standard
pronouncement to those that kill file me.
It's even more fun when I respond to them anyway and they can't even see the fun
I have. But others do.
As far as lying, that's something I've never done on the ng. Your average
atheist mind is so lacking spiritually that you don't possibly know truth from
truth.
Come back some time and enjoy the discussion, if you can.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 10:17:32 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2iu1615rmdcgrqf6got6fh9tv8bcado63i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:36:37 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
It all depends. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Puke I told. It really
got him all twisted and that was actually fun. Puke is such a despicable
liar.
Sorry bubba, but I definitely didn't get twisted. Let's face facts,
plonkers
are admitting that they can't participate in a public discussion.
<snip to>
<irony alert>
Now, me, I have BEEN 'plonked", and those who target me in this manner do so
because they cannot participate in a civil public discussion. This is quite
true. I, however, only plonk those who cannot themselves participate in a
public discussion and are simply annoyances. Or else, they are irredeemably
insulting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 12:26:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:17:32 GMT, "DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net>
wrote:
Now, me, I have BEEN 'plonked", and those who target me in this manner do so
because they cannot participate in a civil public discussion. This is quite
true. I, however, only plonk those who cannot themselves participate in a
public discussion and are simply annoyances. Or else, they are irredeemably
insulting.
I've never plonked a person in my life, and I don't ever intend to do so.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 03:31:53 PM |
|
|
on 16 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:17:32 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Now, me, I have BEEN 'plonked", and those who target me in this manner
do so because they cannot participate in a civil public discussion.
This is quite true. I, however, only plonk those who cannot themselves
participate in a public discussion and are simply annoyances. Or else,
they are irredeemably insulting.
I've never plonked a person in my life, and I don't ever intend to do
so.
So you like seeing posts by guys like Kenny Pangborn? Or Maff, who floods
the group with links to mostly irrelevant news articles? I suppose you
love reading Dr. Gassy's atheist hate-spew, though.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 09:35:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:31:53 -0500, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
So you like seeing posts by guys like Kenny Pangborn? Or Maff, who floods
the group with links to mostly irrelevant news articles? I suppose you
love reading Dr. Gassy's atheist hate-spew, though.
I think I opened one of his posts one time.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 09:00:18 AM |
|
|
on 16 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:17:32 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Now, me, I have BEEN 'plonked", and those who target me in this manner
do so because they cannot participate in a civil public discussion.
This is quite true. I, however, only plonk those who cannot themselves
participate in a public discussion and are simply annoyances. Or else,
they are irredeemably insulting.
I've never plonked a person in my life, and I don't ever intend to do
so.
But face it,, sunshine: If you kill filed everybody that you don't like, there
would be no one here for you to talk to.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 07:31:21 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Let's face facts, plonkers are admitting that they
can't participate in a public discussion.
Another pathetic and baseless lie. And how hypocritical. Here's the
moron who can't participate in a discussion and doesn't even grasp that
himself, having the ridiculous gall to accuse others of
non-participation when all *they* want to do is be free of idiots like
him!
Duck ***** has run away from every attempt to engage him in supported
discussion, even where he's requested the discussion. That's because
his idea of a discussion is not an exchange of views (supported by
rational argument and evidence where possible) whereby some kind of
conclusion can be reached, even if it's to agree to disagree. Duck
*****'s idea of a "discussion" is for him to lay down the law and
everyone around him to simper with awe at his unearthly erudition.
Yeah right. But is is a prime example of how utterly divorced from
reality he is.
By and
large, it's an open announcement that a plonker is information void.
This from the one who's renowned on Usenet as being 100% free of
factual content.
Fear of embarrassment is the plonkers greatest asset.
Clearly Duck ***** has no fear of embarrassment since he's
overwhelmingly embarrassed by respondees every single time he opens his
stupid mouth in a news group.
Now that's my own standard
pronouncement to those that kill file me.
Like Duck ***** has any standards! He's a proven liar, an acknowledged
coward and a demonstrated hypocrite.
It's even more fun when I respond to them anyway and
they can't even see the fun I have. But others do.
This is Duck *****'s idea of practicing Catholicism. Don't turn the
other cheek, don't do unto others as you would be done by, ignore every
single tenet of your religion, and then hypocritically proclaim that
he's going to some mythical Heaven, while atheistts who have more moral
fiber than he ever can hope for, will rot for eternity in Hell, placed
there by a loving god.
As far as lying, that's something I've never done on the ng.
Sixteen documented lies in one thread alone prove this to be another
lie.
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
The fact that you ran away from them proves you're a coward.
The fact that you're now claiming you never lie proves you to be a
liar.
Your average atheist mind
Is light years beyond Duck *****'s
is so lacking spiritually that you don't possibly
know truth from truth.
Truth is that Duck ***** is an *****. It, like him, is that simple.
Come back some time and enjoy the discussion, if you can.
The hypocrite farts again. Since the flood thread
(http://tinyurl.com/ddz7d), from which he ran like a whimpering child,
every single time I've seen him make this challenge, I've accepted it,
and every single time he's run away. Again.
What a momumental piece of nothing he truly is.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 08:08:03 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1113654681.083163.110590
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
PUKE LIED:
Let's face facts, plonkers are admitting that they
can't participate in a public discussion.
Another pathetic and baseless lie. And how hypocritical. Here's the
moron who can't participate in a discussion and doesn't even grasp that
himself, having the ridiculous gall to accuse others of
non-participation when all *they* want to do is be free of idiots like
him!
What a momumental piece of nothing he truly is.
Budikka
I am sure he is referring to me. I recently plonked him when I realized
that he is a pathological liar or a troll or both. In any case, an
intelligent conversaton with him will result in him lying and then him
denying the lie. There is no point in carrying on a conversation with it.
It was the lies I was told by the clergy, the church and it's members is
what drove me away from catholicism and ultimately christianity.
If he acts like that in real life it is no wonder he can't get laid.
So let that be a lesson to you boys and girls. Want to end up like puke?
Go to church and get religion.
rj
--
"I'm an atheist, thank God." - Dave Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 12:24:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:08:03 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1113654681.083163.110590
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
PUKE LIED:
Let's face facts, plonkers are admitting that they
can't participate in a public discussion.
Another pathetic and baseless lie. And how hypocritical. Here's the
moron who can't participate in a discussion and doesn't even grasp that
himself, having the ridiculous gall to accuse others of
non-participation when all *they* want to do is be free of idiots like
him!
What a momumental piece of nothing he truly is.
Budikka
I am sure he is referring to me. I recently plonked him when I realized
that he is a pathological liar or a troll or both.
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 07:21:02 AM |
|
|
Another cowardly response. Here's the moron who can't participate in a
discussion and doesn't even grasp that himself, having the ridiculous
gall to accuse others of non-participation when all *they* want to do
is be free of idiots like him!
Duck ***** has run away from every attempt to engage him in supported
discussion, even where he's requested the discussion. That's because
his idea of a discussion is not an exchange of views (supported by
rational argument and evidence where possible) whereby some kind of
conclusion can be reached, even if it's to agree to disagree.
Duck *****'s idea of a "discussion" is for him to lay down the law and
everyone around him to simper with awe at his unearthly erudition. Yeah
right. But is is a prime example of how utterly divorced from reality
he is. And here's more proof of it, where he's taunting someone (is
that a *Christian* behavior?) to come back when he has somethign to
discuss, and the taunt is offered by the one who's renowned on Usenet
as being 100% free of factual content.
Clearly Duck ***** has no fear of embarrassment since he's
overwhelmingly embarrassed by respondees every single time he opens his
stupid mouth in a news group. It's not like he has any standards!
He's a proven liar, an acknowledged coward and a demonstrated
hypocrite.
So we can clearly see here Duck *****'s idea of practicing Catholicism.
Don't turn the other cheek, don't do unto others as you would be done
by, ignore every single tenet of your religion, and then hypocritically
proclaim that
he's going to some mythical Heaven, while atheistts who have more moral
fiber than he ever can hope for, will rot for eternity in Hell, placed
there by a loving god.
And he repeatedly lies: "As far as lying, that's something I've never
done on the ng."
But **SIXTEEN** documented lies in one thread alone prove this to be
another
lie:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
The fact that Duck ***** ran away from them proves he's a coward.
The fact that he's now claiming he never lies proves him to be a liar.
And the fact that he taunts people to discuss things and then runs away
("Come back some time and enjoy the discussion, if you can.") proves
himt o be a hypocrite.
Since the flood thread
(http://tinyurl.com/ddz7d), from which he ran like a whimpering child,
every single time I've seen him make this challenge, I've accepted it,
and every single time he's run away. Again.
What a momumental piece of nothing he truly is. No surprises there.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 09:34:32 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2005 05:21:02 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Another cowardly response. Here's the moron who can't participate in a
discussion and doesn't even grasp that himself, having the ridiculous
gall to accuse others of non-participation when all *they* want to do
is be free of idiots like him!
But I'm still here, and LOADED with discussion.
Duck ***** has run away from every attempt to engage him in supported
discussion, even where he's requested the discussion.
But I'm still here. And ready to discuss. You just have nothing to discuss
except some wild plagiarisms you stole from somewhere.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
18 Apr 2005 04:45:27 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
But I'm still here, and LOADED with discussion.
Loaded with lies. No matter how many times and in what simple language
it's spelled out to you, there's no amount of exoplaining that can get
even the simplest of points over to you is there? Let's try it one
more time in big letters that even kindergartners can grasp:
**YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A DISCUSSION IS, YOU CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR BLIND
BLATHER IN ONE, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE BEHIND YOUR ASSERTIONS, YOU'RE A
LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE, AND YOU RUN AWAY EVERY TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO
ENGAGE YOU IN AN EXCHANGE.**
Get it now?
But I'm still here.
**NO YOU'RE NOT. YOU RUN AWAY EVERY TIME SOMEONE TAKES YOU UP ON YOUR
"DISCUSSION OFFER".**
And ready to discuss.
Countless threads from which you've fled when the going got tough prove
this to be another in your endless repertoire of cheap, blind,
transparent lies.
You just have nothing to discuss
That's a very convenieent lie for you isn't it? Slip that one in and
then run away from the beating you're taking, or the latest of your
lies that's been exposed, or the most recent empty assertion you're
unable to support, or the standard charges that are inevitbaly laid at
your door that you inevitably cannot handle. Do you **SERIOUSLY**
believe that **ANYONE** actually swallows that pathetic excuse any
more?
except some wild plagiarisms you stole from somewhere.
LoL! I never said it. I never did it. You accused me of saying this,
then you openly admitted I didn't say it. You've accused me of doing
this and then and demonstrated convincingly that I never did it, and
yet you still spout this lie. Here you are, claiming to be a
Christian, and **still bearing false witness**! Do you really think
your god wants **YOU** in Heaven?
And why do you do it? Because it's the only thing you have left.
You've been stripped bear of every false pretence you've promulgated,
you've had your every lie exposed, your every hypocrisy starkly lit,
your cowardice repeatedly revealed. How utterly pathetic that you
cling to this last and most transparent of your lies. How childish.
How worthless you truly are. What a cheap, useless rag of a human
being your blind beliefs have turned you into.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
19 Apr 2005 05:15:53 AM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2005 02:45:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
**YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A DISCUSSION IS, YOU CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR BLIND
BLATHER IN ONE, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE BEHIND YOUR ASSERTIONS, YOU'RE A
LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE, AND YOU RUN AWAY EVERY TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO
ENGAGE YOU IN AN EXCHANGE.**
No, no, bud. Your silly method of shoving 20 questions of no value out at one
time is your demise. You didn't make them up - you plagiarized them.
Some of us don't have all day to bum around like you and your stealing the ideas
of others. I've told you countless times to pick one subject line and we'll
discuss. You refuse. Fine, it's your demise.
You're letting your immature ignorance and glee at theft of the ideas of others
destroy your desire to discuss. It's time to grow up.
Pick one subject line, not 20 meaningless questions, and let's talk.
Get it now?
But I'm still here.
**NO YOU'RE NOT. YOU RUN AWAY EVERY TIME SOMEONE TAKES YOU UP ON YOUR
"DISCUSSION OFFER".**
You just don't get it.
And ready to discuss.
Countless threads from which you've fled when the going got tough prove
this to be another in your endless repertoire of cheap, blind,
transparent lies.
You started with about 20 at one time. I blew you out of the water on the first
8 or so. You had no comeback (no discussion) to offer. The rest were obviously
meaningless, worthless, and silly.
You just have nothing to discuss
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
20 Apr 2005 06:14:54 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
You didn't make them up - you plagiarized them.
Talking of *discussion*, let's meet in a court of law and *discuss
libel*, shall we? I'm ready when you're done running away like the
cowardly pig you are. Still wiating on that non-existent "evidence" to
support this tedious lie you invented.
Some of us don't have all day to bum around like you
Apparently you do since your entire life is on Usenet, judged by the
liberal staining of Usenet from your diarrhea. Anyone who checks our
message record will see that I post only sporadically, as time permits
in the real world. You post every day, insubstantially, but all voer
Usenet. Clearly your;e the one who has nothing to do with his time.
I really don't know which is more pathetic!
Is it your laughably transparent lies?
Is it the fact that you're forced into employing these lies in a
desperate attempt to try and disguise the vileness you spew on Usenet.
Is it the horrible hole you have in your miserable, empty life that
breeds the hatred and vileness in you that finds its (fortunately, I'm
guessing) only outlet on usenet?
Your silly method of shoving 20 questions of no value
When you know you're going to get your ***** kicked again, this is an
easy out for you, isn't it? Lie about things. You're so transparent
it's pathetic.
out at one time is your demise.
No, it's your lie, because it doesn't matter how many questions are out
there, **YOU RUN AWAY*. The proof of this is three-fold:
1. The questions don't start out as 20 (or 75 as you've lied on more
than one occasion). They start out as **SINGLE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS**
from which you run. Those individual questions then accumulate on your
cowardly *****, and the total grows every time you run away from yet
another one. Looked at another way, the number of unanswered questions
is a direct gauge of your cowardice. How about that?
This cumulative effect has been explained to you on many occasions. The
fact that you're too stupid to comprehend it is your "demise". (do you
even know what that means and in what context it's appropriate?).
2. Every time I raise even **ONE** issue, **YOU RUN AWAY**. Evidence
of this is all over Usenet.
3. On many occasions I've specifically invited and/or instructed you
to **CHOOSE ONE ISSUE** and **YOU RUN AWAY**. Again, evidence of this
is all over Usenet.
and your stealing the ideas of others.
Ha ha ha ha. It's an enormous sign of the fundamental bankruptcy of
your position that you're forced to keep digging up this tired old lie.
But then you have absolutely nothing else to offer, do you, since I've
publicly whipped your stupid juvenile ***** raw all over Usenet, and
everyone knows it.
I even opened a thread in which you could try to make a case for this
farcical plagiarism charge (which is all you have left to cling to in
the incessant whipping you get from me, boy, isn't it?), but **YOU RAN
AWAY** LoL!
I gave you three URLs where you could have reported it, but, in a
pathetic admission that you're lying, **YOU RAN AWAY** even from that
offer.
Not only did you directly admit, in the plagiarism thread, that I never
said I plagiarised anything, you also conceded that I never did it.
Which is only appropriate, because I neither said it nor did I do it,
and your pathetic, tired, straw-man lies aren't going to change that.
Although a court of law will, I guarantee it, change your refusal to
apologize and retract your lie.
I've told you countless times to pick one subject line and we'll
discuss.
And Ive responded every time with an offer to discuss that **YOU RUN
AWAY** from! But you're always welcome any time to go back and pick
**ONE** to discuss if you can find the courage and the intellectual
wherewithal. (I won't hold my breath).
Here they are, for your convenience:
1. Does the Bible make no assertion of any kind that the Earth is
some 6,000 years old or does it imply such an age if the ages of
Biblical characters are added up and compared with known historical
events? If you take the list of 75 names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus
and add the ages up, factoring in when those people supposedly lived in
relation to known historical events, then the age of the Earth from
creation to now according to the Bible, tallies to some 6,000 years.
Do you deny this (support your answer)?
2. Do you have evidence that people in the past lived to 900 years?
Science doesn't know of any.
Support your answer.
3. The Bible describes seven (24 hour) days - six of creation and one
of rest. Can you offer a supported rebuttal to this? (Note,
desperately chanting "No it doesn't" does not constitute a *supported*
rebuttal).
4. The Genesis creation is proscribed, every day, by the words
"evening and morning" - not "morning and evening", but "evening and
morning" - to reflect the Jewish habit of starting/ending their day at
sunset. These were intended to be 24 hour days. Can you offer a
supported rebuttal to this?
5. The first thing God does before the main creation sequence is
divide light from darkness (just how is that done, BTW?) and label them
day and night. Immediately after that it specifies that evening and
morning were the first day. Not the first era or indefinite time
period, not "Day One", but "The First Day" - this was the first actual
day ever. These are ordinal numbers, not cardinal. This proves beyond
doubt that the days were indeed literal days as we know them
now, and not indistinct geological periods. Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
6. Genesis then immediately goes on to describe the creation, each
"act" being of the duration of one of these days. The days are even
counted off. Exodus then codifies this interpretation with the
commandment that we emulate God by working six days and resting on the
seventh. ("Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the
seventh day is
the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work...For
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:9-11) Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
7. The word used in Genesis is exactly the same word (yome) that is
used in Exodus. The two are indistinguishable. They refer to 24 hour
days. Can you refute this? Support your answer.
8. Who is the arbiter of what is true and what isn't true in the
Bible? Support your answer.
9. Why would the word of god contain lies or ambiguous statements?
Support your answer.
10. If we cannot be sure which parts of the Bible to rely on and which
not, how can you rely on those that parts of the Bible which try to
claim there is a god? Support your answer.
11. If we cannot be sure which parts of the Bible to rely on and which
not, how can you rely on those parts of the Bible which claim this god
had a son called Jesus? Support your answer.
12. What's the yard-stick for truth and fiction in the Bible? Support
your answer.
13. In another thread, I said that the Biblical god was so
dissatisfied with the Earth that he was forced to destroy it. You
responded, "No, clearly not in the bible." which appears to suggest
that you think that what I said is not supported by scripture. Was
this the case and are you now retreating from this claim, especially in
view of the Gen 6:6 quote: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man
on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD
said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the
earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and
birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."? Support
your answer.
14. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the Bible is
actually a god's words, regardless of how accurately they're reported?
Support your answer.
15. In order to start making your case for the existence of a god, you
need to establish, with independent **EVIDENCE** (that is, according to
Webster's online dictionary at www.dictionary.com: "A thing or things
helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" and not simply faith or
unsupported beliefs) that there was a god. Can you do
this? Support your answer.
16. You need to establish, with independent **EVIDENCE** (i.e.,
according to Webster's online dictionary at www.dictionary.com: "A
thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" and not
simply your blind unsupported beliefs) that there was a Jesus. Can you
do this? Support your answer.
17. You need to establish that the Bible has *independent verifiable
support* **NOT** for its historical stories, but for its *stories about
a god*:
17.a) Creating the universe - or admit you cannot.
17.b) Interacting with humanity - or admit you cannot.
17.c) Hosting an afterlife - or admit you cannot.
17.d) Allowing a hell - or admit you cannot.
17.e) Judging who goes to which of c and d above - or admit you
cannot.
18. Offer supported argument (note that faith, belief and Bible quotes
do not count) that praying isn't begging given that it is a
supplication (look it up at www.dictionary.com if you don;t understand
the word) most often done on the knees and the entire Islamic religion,
which by all accounts worships the same god as you do, is based on an
Arabic word that means "submission" (to God). Can you do this?
Support your answer.
19. Offer supported argument, independent of the Bible (note that
blind faith, gullible belief, and Bible quotes do not count), that this
Jesus was the son of some god. Can you do this? Support your answer.
20. Offer supported argument, independent of the Bible (note that
blind faith, gullible belief, and Bible quotes do not count), that this
Jesus worked miracles. Can you do this? Support your answer.
21. Offer supported argument, independent of the Bible (note that
blind faith, gullible belief, and Bible quotes do not count), that this
Jesus was crucified. Can you do this? Support your answer.
22. Offer supported argument, independent of the Bible (note that
faith, belief and Bible quotes do not count), that this Jesus rose from
the dead. Can you do this? Support your answer.
23. Offer supported argument, independent of the Bible (note that
faith, belief and Bible quotes do not count), that 500+ people (as you
claim) or "hundreds" of people (as you claim) personally witnessed and
testified to the death and resurrection of Christ. Give each of their
names and produce the testimony or afidavit of each person. Can you
do this? Support your answer.
24. Demonstrate, with supported argument, that you have more evidence
for your gods than the ancient Egyptians, Romans, or Greeks had for
their gods. Can you do this? Support your answer.
25. Could have been a global flood at any time in the Earth's history
based on the Genesis flood story? Support your answer.
26. Explain how it was that the Bible writers could have come by
knowledge of such a flood when no humans were alive to see it. Support
your answer.
27. Explain how it was that the Bible writers lied and pretended there
*were* humans around when this mythical flood of yours occurred.
Support your answer.
28. If the flood occurred (as you agreed) within the last 10K years,
especially if it were 4.5K years ago as the Bible
indicates, continental drift couldn't have covered up the evidence. It
works too slowly to have done so. Therefore, the geologic record would
have the evidence of this global event in it and this evidence would be
all over the planet in strata that are ~4.5K yrs old. There is no such
evidence.
29. The fossil beds would also record the flood because ~4.5K years
ago, if a global food had occurred, there would be the genesis of a
stratum containing a massive and jumbled mix of fossils of all kinds of
organisms, all dating the same age. These would become the petrified
remains of vertebrates and shelled organisms which died in the flood.
There is no such stratum in the fossil record. Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
30. You claimed: "And the flood, from start to gone, only lasted one
year. Geologic records take more than 150 days to show up. Can you
support this claim?
31. Where would all the dead bodies of people and organisms that died
in a global flood disappear to? Did some god magically whisk them away
to oblivion, or would they simply have lain there, buried under tons of
mud, until they became fossilized and therefore part of the fossil
record? Support your answer.
32. Except in confined areas where obvious local flooding has
occurred, not a single creationist on the planet has ever been able to
show any evidence whatsoever that the **GEOLOGIC** column indicates any
trace of any flood that was global in extent, as described in the story
of Noah in Genesis. Can you refute this? Support your answer.
33. The fossils are not jumbled and mixed as they would be had a
catastrophic flood suddenly wiped out most every living thing. If the
fossil record had been "created" by a global flood as many Genesis
flood advocates maintain, every stratum would give the same age and the
preserved state of the fossils would be roughly the same no matter
where these fossils were found. This is demonstrably not the case.
Can you refute this? Support your answer.
34. The deeper down the strata you go, the older the rocks measure and
the difference between fossils at lower levels and those at upper
levels becomes greater the further down you go, indicating that the
fossil record was laid down over an immense period of time and was not
the result of a relatively short global flood. Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
35. No organisms have been found in the very lowest layers. No
*modern* organisms have ever been found in the lower layers where life
starts to show up. This refutes the mixing that a global flood would
have inevitably caused Can you refute this? Support your answer.
36. The earliest life is nothing like what we see today. It's very
primitive and consists of a few single-celled or multi-celled
organisms. This refutes the mixing that a global flood would have
inevitably caused Can you refute this? Support your answer.
37. There are no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no fish, nothing
like we see today in the lowest rock strata, even where there is
evidence of life in those same strata. None! This refutes the mixing
that a global flood would have inevitably caused Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
38. No human fossils have ever been found mixed in these lower layers.
None. Not one. Not a single one. Ever. This refutes the mixing
that a global flood would have inevitably caused Can you refute this?
Support your answer.
39. The fossils show every indication of evolution as you progress up
through the fossil record, with organisms becoming increasingly like
modern ones the higher you go, with changes small and large leading
from one group to the next. This refutes the mixing that a global
flood would have inevitably caused Can you refute this? Support your
answer.
40. There are no flowering plants in the fossil record earlier than
the cretaceous. How is this possible if flowering plants were created
only 6 - 10,000 years ago and all but wiped out in a flood shortly
after? Did the flowering plants run away up the hills and die last
while the primitive ferns, with their "smaller brains", couldn't figure
out how to escape the incomprehensibly massive rainfall? This refutes
the mixing that a global flood would have inevitably caused Can you
refute this? Support your answer.
41. There are no mammals found in the Permian or earlier, and no
beetles, either, not even in Liverpool. How is this possible if a
global flood occurred? Were all mammals, even the sloths, capable of
out-thinking and out-running every single one of the dinosaurs? Were
all the beetles able to fly so that not a single one of them became
trapped in
the massive mud slides caused by 40 days of ridiculously torrential
rain? This refutes the mixing that a global flood would have
inevitably caused Can you refute this? Support your answer.
42. There are no apes found before the Miocene. How is this possible
if a global flood occurred? Was every ape the king of the swingers,
while not a single one of the pterosaurs could fly their way to the
highest hills? This refutes the mixing that a global flood would have
inevitably caused Can you refute this? Support your answer.
43. The Earth's geological history is well mapped out from the
earliest times to the recent. Why doesn't the global flood depicted in
genesis, which took place (according to Bible chronology) only 4.5K
years ago show up in the **GEOLOGIC** and fossil record?
44. In order to claim how fast the water was rising, you would first
have to establish that there actually was a flood. This you've failed
to do. In fact you've admitted that there is *no evidence* for one, so
how can you possibly claim what rate the water was rising at? Where is
your evidence to support this statement?
45. The kind of flood we're talking about, that the Bible relates,
tells of continuous rain for 40 days and 40 nights. To cover the
mountains would require five miles of water. That volume delivered by
rain in 40 days is over 27 feet of rain per hour. This is *not* slowly
rising water according to the Bible story.
46. What is your evidence that Earth's surface was flat or near flat
during the flood?
47. If the Earth's surface so flat, how come the Bible insists that so
much rain was needed to cover it?
48. Why aren't these geologic upheavals mentioned in the Bible? Why
doesn't it say that Earth's surface became flattened for the flood and
mountainous afterwards when it gives us so many other details about the
flood?
49. How did the Earth's land area manage to become replenished with
soil so quickly, given that raising up of the mountains would have
flushed existing soil into the bottom of the oceans?
50. When are you going to overcome your lies, cowardice, and hypocrisy
and actually respond intelligently to these questions?
And the 16 lies:
1. In the thread, "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
(http://tinyurl.com/3srfy) on September 18th, Puke lied, "No, as I told
you so many times now, no one knows if there was a literal biblical
flood or not." This is a lie because we know there was not a literal
flood as described in Genesis. The laws of physics do not permit it
and there is absolutely zero evidence (as Puke himself has admitted) to
show there ever was one. There could not have been a flood of that
extent without some evidence, somewhere, proving it. There is,
however, abundant evidence of widespread but local flooding in the
Middle East in or near Biblical times. Clearly this is where the
exaggerated Bible story came from - not from the mouth of any god, and
not from a real world-wide flood.
2. In that same thread, "Duke: Global Flood Challenge", in the opening
message on September 16th, I offered 11 points of evidence from the
geologic record which demonstrated that it was not laid down by a
global flood, and also demonstrated that the geologic record offers no
support to claims of a literal Noahic flood - in fact, it refutes them.
These 11 points were subsequently expanded to 14. These are just a
few of the available refutations of the Noahic flood. Puke claimed I
presented no evidence. Obviously he lied.
3. Puke claims he has not run away from the evidence I presented (this
claim alone refutes his claim above: if I presented no evidence, why
would he need to claim he hasn't run away from it?!!): On September
11th in thread, "Questions That Duke Can't Answer"
(http://tinyurl.com/6dzy4), I asked him ten simple questions relating
to demonstrating some sort of evidence for the reality of Puke's
apparently blind belief system. They turned out to be questions that
Duke can't answer. He ran away. There are six unanswered messages
from me to him in that thread. He lied.
On September 16th, at Puke's own request, I opened thread, "Duke:
Global Flood Challenge" (http://tinyurl.com/52pbv) and presented
evidence that the Genesis flood story was a myth that made no sense as
written, that the geology of Earth refutes the Noahic flood, and that
such a flood defies the laws of physics. Because Puke continually ran
away from actually responding to the questions I asked, I was forced to
assemble and number them just to keep track of what he was fleeing
from. There were some 14 points of geologic and other evidence
refuting a world-wide flood, and a similar number of Bible issues. It
turns out that Puke was out of his depth in the Noahic flood. He lied.
There is more than a dozen unanswered messages from me to Puke in that
thread.
On September 27th, again in response to something Puke said, I opened
thread, "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
(http://tinyurl.com/4ok8a). He lied. I ran scriptural circles around
him. There are four unanswered messages
from me to him in that thread.
On October 27th in thread, "Why Puke is Such a Pathological,
Unregenerate, Cowardly, Lying, Hypocritical *****"
(http://tinyurl.com/3sld9), I asked, "Why is Puke such a pathological,
unregenerate, cowardly, lying, hypocritical *****?" It was hilarious
when Puke decided to actually post in that thread, but once again, when
it came down to the serious challenges, he ran away! He lied! He
proved himself to be a pathological, unregenerate, cowardly, lying,
hypocritical *****! There are some 20 unanswered messages from me to
him in that thread.
So we see just in these four threads we have over 40 messages he ran
away from. He lied!
4. Puke lied about responding to 7-9 (or was it "ten or so"? or was
it "7-11", Puke?) of the points of evidence I presented in thread
""Duke: Global Flood Challenge" on September 16th. He made this claim
here http://tinyurl.com/5ygf5, but he has never offered the URL to
where he supposedly gave these supported responses to any of the 11
evidential points I made. That's because he lied. I've tracked his
responses and he's never made a supported rebuttal. In fact, all he's
done is made blind empty assertions and run away when I've challenged
those. The fact that he will not even offer a URL is proof that he
lied.
5. Puke lied that he would discuss the flood if I opened a thread
about it. I did, he ran away! He has no more idea of what "discuss"
means than he does what "evidence" means.
6. Puke lied that I said the Earth is 6,000 years old in thread
"Evidence That Duke Can't Refute" on September 26th: "Bud is all wet.
She insists the earth is only 6000 years old" and elsewhere. I never
said that and I don't believe it. I've repeatedly demonstrated that
this is what is implicit in Genesis and far from rebutting it, Puke has
agreed with it! In other words, he lied! It's a pretty pathetic lie,
too, but he's been so hog-tied by all these questions he cannot
answer that he's desperately throwing out every single strawman he can
imagine to try and deflect attention from his chronic impotence.
7. Puke lied that the Genesis flood could have occurred any time in
the last 4.5 billion years. I have brought this to his attention on
several occasions, reminding him that the Bible story takes place
during a time of human civilization, considerable ship-building skills,
and viniculure, meaning it had to have happened (I'd better add this
caveat: "according to the Bible" before Puke starts a thread accusing
me of conceding the Bible flood) within the last 10,000 years at the
outside. Unsurprisingly, Puke has never supported his 4.5 billion
years assertion. In other words, he lied.
8. Puke lied that the Bible dates the flood to 6K years ago when it is
(using Bible chronology) some 4.5k years ago. Actually this is less of
a deliberate lie than it is a classic example of Puke not paying the
slightest bit of attention to what the message he's supposedly
"responding" to actually said! And so, like a lousy golfer, he ends up
with a bad lie.
In thread "Evidence That Duke Can't Refute" on October 8th this year,
Dave Oldridge, clearly (especially in context), referring to the flood,
said, "The Ussher chronology, placing this event at around 4500 years
ago is not, however, supported by any archaeological or geologic
evidence." and Puke blindly and cluelessly responded "Actually 6000
years adding the 2000 after Jesus." (http://tinyurl.com/4oj7k).
This would make the flood date 6K years ago. Puke really needs to
learn to comprehend before hitting "send". But the real embarrassment
for Puke here is that he is acknowledging that the Noahic flood took
place, by Biblical chronology, some 4.5K yrs ago! In other words, it
should be recorded in the geologic record! Of course, it isn't,
therefore it never occurred and all of Puke's blather about "it could
have taken place any time on the last 4.5 billion years" is exposed
for the cheap ruse that it is: nothing but a pathetic and transparent
attempt to deflect attention once again from his loser belief system.
9. Puke lied in his claim that the Bible does not indicate that the
Earth is only 6,000 years old. His exact words were: "No, and the
bible makes no such claim." (http://tinyurl.com/4k963). No one was
trying to claim that the Bible specifically says, "The Earth is 6,000
years old". The issue is whether the Bible indicates such a time
period by genealogies and years passing. As has been made abundantly
clear to Puke time and again, the truth is that it does indicate
strongly that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He admits as much as
revealed in the previous item.
10. Puke lied about "Mike Painter"'s SCUBA comment. Puke said that
Mike had stated that "...there could not have been a biblical flood
because you went scuba diving...I remember very distinctly you making
that very comment."
What "Mike Painter" actually said is this:
(http://tinyurl.com/5rq4m)
"SCUBA diving is not science. For those curious one of the reasons
such a flood could not have happened is introduced in most SCUBA
classes. Ten year olds understand the argument. I'm not sure Earl
ever did."
So quite clearly, he did *not* say, as you claim, that there could not
have been a flood *because* he went SCUBA diving, but that *one of the
reasons there could not have been a flood is **INTRODUCED** in most
SCUBA classes."
Another Puke lie.
11. On this same kind of theme, in thread "Why There Isn't a God -
Parts 1-5 " on August 25th, I said, "The
fact is that I've forgotten more about god than you seem to have ever
grasped." (http://tinyurl.com/55rcp). On September 21st, in a thread
Puke surreptitiously began without even telling me "Budikka runs away"
(http://tinyurl.com/6yz7a), Puke regurgitated this as "Your claims of
forgetting more about the bible than I know was a stupid statement on
your part all along, and that's certainly a falsity that starting to
embarrass you." In other words, even Puke's accusations of falsity are
lies! In that thread, Puke was posting accusations about my not
entering into
"discussion" even while he was running awya form my messages in other
threads. This dishonesty and duplicity has recently arisen again and
is equally false (see item 16).
12. In the thread, "Questions that Duke Can't Answer"
(http://tinyurl.com/3np5a), which I opened on September 11th, Puke lied
that there were 75 questions when in fact there were only ten
questions, numbered 1 through 10. This was reepatedly pointed out to
Puke but he continued to lie about it. Of course, there are fifty now
since I consolidated all the questions he ran away from under one
thread - which he ran away from! So maybe Duke's lie will be somewhat
ameliorated in a few more weeks as the number of questons from which he
ran does actually rise to 75....
13. Puke claimed he would participate in discussion (not that he knows
any better what "discussion" entails than he knows what "evidence" is)
in that same thread, "Questions That Duke Can't Answer " if I reduced
the number of questions from 10 (apparently ten is too many for him to
keep track of) to two. I did this and he still ran away from them.
Clearly he lied. There are some six messages in that thread from which
that he ran away.
14. Puke blathered that he can run scriptural circles around me
(http://tinyurl.com/68tr4), so I decided to test his claim by opening
thread, "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke" on September 27th
(http://tinyurl.com/4ok8a). What happened? I ran scriptural circles
around him. Puke hasn't dared go into that thread since October 8th
because he has five open messages that he cannot handle. He lied.
15. Puke claimed he could offer evidence demonstrating the existence
of his god. When he finally got around to posting it
(http://tinyurl.com/5mk5m) it turned out that his "evidence" was
nothing more than his blind beliefs, which he later admitted to
(http://tinyurl.com/3opsq). In other words, he lied.
16. Puke accused me of plagiarism in a desperate lie which served no
other purpose than as a pathetic attempt to cover his profound
impotence in both providing evidence for , and rebutting my evidence
against the Genesis flood. How pathetic is that? A professing
Christian telling what he knows full well is a lie. He knows this
because I explained it to him in great detail (example:
http://tinyurl.com/44lxd "I didn't grow these questions out of nowhere.
They are every one of them arisen from claims you yourself have made
in the last few months"). He has no evidence whatsoever to support his
case, a fact he proved when I invited him to submit his evidence to
three plagiarism reporting sites:
http://www.turnitin.com/static/home.html
http://www.mydropbox.com/
http://www.canexus.com/eve/
I challenged him to prove me a plagiarist and gave my word to abide by
the majority decision of those three sites. Puke declined, proving
himself to be a liar and this to be yet another in an endless list of
unsupported blind assertions he compulsively makes to hide his
overwhelming inadequacy.
I made those questions up using information from the public domain and
the hard work of scientists over the last couple of hundred years. Rest
assured, the text is all mine. You won't find those questions in any
book, pamplet, flyer, email, web site, journal or magazine. I cannot
pretend to have originated the geologic record, however, from
which many of the questions were derived.
Puke's colossal blunder was born of desperation as he tried to squeeze
non-existent mileage not out of any fact or evidence he had to hand,
but out of a casual comment "I cannot claim to be the first person to
ask these questions." I made to "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" in thread "Why
Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate,..." on October 24th this
year (http://tinyurl.com/6omou), knowing he had the smarts and maturity
to understand what I meant.
It was not addressed to Puke. If it had been, I would have
painstakingly spelled out every little nuance in terms comprehensible
to a two-year-old to be sure it got through to him and he didn't
misunderstand it. Clearly he fell into that one, also. Hilariously,
Puke's immediate knee-jerk reponse was the unsupported, "We all know
you didn't originate them.". It wasn't until later that his lethargic
excuse for a mind happened upon the plagiarism ruse. We all know it's
a lie, but I want to nail him to it so that I can slam his face back
smack up against his appalling inadequacy when it comes to supporting
his god.
I tried to save him from his own rank stupidity more than once
(http://tinyurl.com/3kljb), but Puke will not listen, will not learn,
and is incapable of recognizing his own limitations. One day he will
shoot of his stupid mouth at someone who does care what Puke says, and
Puke will find himself on the stinking end of a lawsuit.
And assorted threads from which you fled:
Another Problem for Creation IDiots
http://tinyurl.com/3px9j
Human aspect of Jesus
http://tinyurl.com/4w488
Jesus's three days sacrifice
http://tinyurl.com/3jhop
Which is the real God???
http://tinyurl.com/6bnoo
God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
http://tinyurl.com/7xjux
Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
http://tinyurl.com/2qmyz
Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
http://tinyurl.com/47gr2
The Inquisition
http://tinyurl.com/4pokf
Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
http://tinyurl.com/4v759
Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
http://tinyurl.com/5gevm
Why is duke Such a Coward?
http://tinyurl.com/5p3qt
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 06:50:16 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:08:03 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1113654681.083163.110590
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
PUKE LIED:
Let's face facts, plonkers are admitting that they
can't participate in a public discussion.
Another pathetic and baseless lie. And how hypocritical. Here's
the
moron who can't participate in a discussion and doesn't even grasp
that
himself, having the ridiculous gall to accuse others of
non-participation when all *they* want to do is be free of idiots
like
him!
What a momumental piece of nothing he truly is.
Budikka
I am sure he is referring to me. I recently plonked him when I
realized
that he is a pathological liar or a troll or both.
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
PLONK!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 09:32:05 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 16:50:16 -0700, wrote:
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
PLONK!
Oh, nooooooooo. Not again. Old bluskie just can't hang in a public discussion.
Thank you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
17 Apr 2005 11:57:00 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 16:50:16 -0700, wrote:
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
PLONK!
Oh, nooooooooo. Not again. Old bluskie just can't hang in a public
discussion.
Thank you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
But he was polite enough to tell you that you were plonked (ploinked?).
Thanks wild!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
19 Apr 2005 05:03:11 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2005 21:57:00 -0700, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 16:50:16 -0700, wrote:
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
PLONK!
Oh, nooooooooo. Not again. Old bluskie just can't hang in a public
discussion.
Thank you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
But he was polite enough to tell you that you were plonked (ploinked?).
Thanks wild!
Yes, he was polite enough to tell me that he can't hang in a public discussion.
But I can.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
20 Apr 2005 06:16:25 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Yes, he was polite enough to tell me that he can't hang in a public
discussion.
But I can.
Another lie. This from the monumental coward and hypocrite who's run
**FROM EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION IN WHICH I'VE ENGAGED HIM**. The
evidence is all over Usenet.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
19 Apr 2005 09:06:15 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 17 Apr 2005 21:57:00 -0700, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
duke wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 16:50:16 -0700, wrote:
Hey, come back when you have something to discuss, raja.
duke
*****
PLONK!
Oh, nooooooooo. Not again. Old bluskie just can't hang in a
public
discussion.
Thank you.
duke
But he was polite enough to tell you that you were plonked
(ploinked?).
Thanks wild!
Yes, he was polite enough to tell me that he can't hang in a public
discussion.
But I can.
duke
*****
who said I was discussing anything? I was just going for a *****, Ooops
here comes another one...
PLONK!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
16 Apr 2005 12:23:27 PM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 05:31:21 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
PUKE LIED:
Let's face facts, plonkers are admitting that they
can't participate in a public discussion.
Another pathetic and baseless lie. And how hypocritical.
You think plonkers leave because they stand on solid ground? Do be so stupid,
bud.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
18 Apr 2005 04:48:51 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
You think plonkers leave because they stand
on solid ground?
Thanks for finally admitting why **YOU** consistently run away from
every thread in which someone opposes you.
I've been charging you with cowardice for months and you've lied about
it. Now your pathetic hypocrisy once again catches you out. Even your
god is laughing at you by now.
Duck ***** will out. Usually by the nearest door.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
19 Apr 2005 05:16:32 AM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2005 02:48:51 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
PUKE LIED:
You think plonkers leave because they stand
on solid ground?
Here I wait for a decent discussion from you.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Etiquette |
20 Apr 2005 03:35:52 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
You think plonkers leave because they stand
on solid ground?
Here I wait for a decent discussion from you.
This itself is a lie! Every time I've (or others) offered you a
discussion, you've run away with your limp tail between your legs. You
don't even know what a discussion is.
The plagiarism thread in which I convincingly demosntrated what a liar
you are is a case in point. You were given every opportunity to
discuss your libel and apologize for it (or even come up with evidence
to support your claim), but you did not even attempt to discuss. Nor
could you produce even a shred of evidence. Instead, you did what you
do best. **YOU RAN AWAY**, thereby proving my case. Theeby proving
you *are* indeed a liar, despite your lie that you don't lie!
The "Why there isn't a god - Duck ***** Edition was an ideal place to
discuss your own "evidences" of god, which I and others trashed up the
wazoo, but did you discuss them? No - you posted one cowardly message
and then did what you do best **YOU RAN AWAY**!!!
Have you *ever* even attmepted a discussion? Have you attempted to
discuss even one of the 100+ issues I raised as to why the idea that
there's a god is fundamentally flawed? No - you ran away from them as
you always do!
Case proven. You don't want a discussion. You can't handle a
discussion. You don't even understand what a discussion is. So
please, no more pathetic lies about you wanting a discussion. Your lie
is exposed and long has been.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
