| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Li Mu Bai" |
| Date: |
04 Dec 2003 10:06:58 PM |
| Object: |
Question for angelicusrex |
Show me evidence that angels exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 02:35:33 AM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 02:04:37 PM |
|
|
Li Mu Bai wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
I have posted the proof that your requested showing that atheism is absurd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:00:27 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:04:37 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
Li Mu Bai wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
I have posted the proof that your requested showing that atheism is absurd.
The above doesn't parse.
(Just thought you'd like to know)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:33:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Li Mu Bai wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
I have posted the proof that your requested showing that atheism is absurd.
No, you posted gibberish based on your own conceptions not reality.
Thanks for playing.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:52:58 PM |
|
|
AngryJohn wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Li Mu Bai wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
I have posted the proof that your requested showing that atheism is
absurd.
No, you posted gibberish based on your own conceptions not reality.
Again, I'm supposed to just sit here and accept your blind assertion without
you even bothering to show why you believe it to be so, right? I'm supposed
to sit here fuming at you for dissing what I assert without you even putting
a single brain cell into gear in order to show why you believe it to be
wrong, misguided or just plain "*****", right?
Well, I don't play stupid games with idiots. Far be it from me to give even
a passing concern that you feel it necessary to confirm that you cannot
think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 06:24:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:52:58 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
AngryJohn wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:04:37 -0800 (PST), "TehGhodTrole"
<nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
Li Mu Bai wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:IjvQvROVt4lX6D6F78E4SBaql6EajRv6@justdeliciousscotch.com...
I can read.
There is no evidence for that claim.
Atheism is incoherent.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.
It is not rational.
Your assertion is not evidence.
I have posted the proof that your requested showing that atheism is
absurd.
No, you posted gibberish based on your own conceptions not reality.
Again, I'm supposed to just sit here and accept your blind assertion without
you even bothering to show why you believe it to be so, right? I'm supposed
to sit here fuming at you for dissing what I assert without you even putting
a single brain cell into gear in order to show why you believe it to be
wrong, misguided or just plain "*****", right?
Your assumption concerning atheism is your own construct. You are
just playing with yourself. Go away.
Well, I don't play stupid games with idiots.
You are playing with yourself.
Far be it from me to give even
a passing concern that you feel it necessary to confirm that you cannot
think.
When you can come up with an arguement that is valid feel free to come
back. Until then have fun.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 07:45:38 AM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:43:52 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:46:51 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
zayton wrote:
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02ni$265k24$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make
you right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal
discussion that the person offering a proposal is the one required
to prove it right.
Not if the position of the person asking for proof can be shown to be
incohrent or inconsistent. You would do well to remember that the
burden then becomes the asker's to show consistency and coherency.
Apparently you're having trouble with that reading thing. I'll repost
what he wrote:
[Snip]
I can read. Atheism is incoherent. It is not rational. Please show that
atheism is logically rational.
What's illogical about rejecting unsupported propositions?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 03:00:58 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
What's illogical about rejecting unsupported propositions?
Unsupported, eh? based on the following, please show that atheism is not
prima facie absurd;
I will proceed from the agnostic point.
Definitions - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Agnosticism \Ag*nos"ti*cism\, n.
That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts
nor denies. Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the
existence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be
neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits
of the human mind (as sometimes charged upon Hamilton and
Mansel), or because of the insufficiency of the evidence
furnished by physical and physical data, to warrant a
positive conclusion (as taught by the school of Herbert
Spencer); -- opposed alike dogmatic skepticism and to
dogmatic theism.
Incoherent \In`co*her"ent\, a. [Pref. in- not + coherent: cf. F.
incoh['e]rent.]
1. Wanting coherence or agreement; incongruous; inconsistent;
having no dependence of one part on another; logically
disconnected. ``The same rambling, incoherent manner.''
Inconsistent \In`con*sist"ent\, a. [Pref. in- not + consistent:
cf. F. inconsistant.]
1. Not consistent; showing inconsistency; irreconcilable;
discordant; at variance, esp. as regards character,
sentiment, or action; incompatible; incongruous;
contradictory.
Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.
2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.
Syn: Absurd; foolish; preposterous; unreasonable; senseless.
See Absurd.
Prove \Prove\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Proved; p. pr. & vb. n.
Proving.] [OE. prover, F. prouver, fr. L. probare to try,
approve, prove, fr. probus good, proper. Cf. Probable,
Proof, Probe.]
1. To try or to ascertain by an experiment, or by a test or
standard; to test; as, to prove the strength of gunpowder
or of ordnance; to prove the contents of a vessel by a
standard measure.
2. To evince, establish, or ascertain, as truth, reality, or
fact, by argument, testimony, or other evidence.
Syn: To verify; justify; confirm; establish; evince;
manifest; show; demonstrate.
PROPOSITION: The existence of any deity, or of an unseen or metaphysical
world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved.
ASSUMPTION 1: The atheist position is based on, and is described by, "God
does not exist because X".
ASSUMPTION 2: The human brain can encode sequences of numbers and can
computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode the syntactic notions
of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the
set of numbers that encode sentences (the syntactic notions of "formula",
"sentence", "proof") that are provable from the given axioms:
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs that use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is
definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle) s is either true or false:
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
"This sentence is unprovable" is provably equivalent to the sentence;
CON:
"There is no < s > with both < s > and < not s > in
PROVABLE".
CON is the formal statement that atheism is consistent.
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are
equivalent, CON is not provable...
SO...
In any consistent axiomatisable theory that can encode sequences of numbers,
and consequently the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence", "proof,"
consistency is not provable.
Thus the statement "God does not exist because X" is both imprecise and
inconsistent.
CONCLUSION: Atheism is prima facie absurd since it is inconsistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:00:00 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:00:58 -0800 didst Kadaitcha Man speak
thusly:
ASSUMPTION 1: The atheist position is based on, and is described by, "God
does not exist because X".
False. Hence your alleged argument is utterly irrelevant.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 03:23:32 PM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms,
How do you computably generate axioms? Inquiring minds want to know.
You start with axioms and computably generate theorems from those. You
don't compute axioms.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 03:49:57 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms,
How do you computably generate axioms? Inquiring minds want to know.
You start with axioms
Which are described how exactly? Do you suppose that the axiom for X simply
just exists to the extent that it need not be described with words?
The statement merely means that the brain can express axioms as sentences.
Here is an axiom expressed in such a way;
This is a reply to a usenet post.
In any consistent axiomatisable theory (axiomatisable means the axioms can
be computably generated, viz a viz broken down to sentences) which can
encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of "formula",
"sentence", "proof") the consistency of the system in not provable in the
system.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that we are dealing with things
like the theories of real numbers, complex numbers or even Euclidean
geometry. Whilst they do have complete axiomatisations, they DO NOT have any
true but unprovable sentences. They cannot encode and computably deal with
such finite sequences.
Allow me to restate that in another way. We are dealing with syntactically
encoded sentences that can and do have true but unprovable axioms. We are
not dealing number systems.
Here is an absurd and provably absurd syntactically encoded sentence;
"God does not exist because X"
Thus atheism is prima facie absurd.
HTH and HAND.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 03:40:31 PM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
What's illogical about rejecting unsupported propositions?
Unsupported, eh? based on the following, please show that atheism is not
prima facie absurd;
Ducky, we showed that you misapplied Godel's Theorem the last time you
tried it. If Godel's theorem applied to natural language the way you
seem to think it does you couldn't even talk.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 03:58:57 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
What's illogical about rejecting unsupported propositions?
Unsupported, eh? based on the following, please show that atheism is
not prima facie absurd;
Ducky, we showed that you misapplied Godel's Theorem the last time you
tried it. If Godel's theorem applied to natural language the way you
seem to think it does you couldn't even talk.
Of course, K-man is just going to take your word for that right? And
everyone else is just going to sit there and nod agreement with you, right?
All you have shown is that you will dispute any and all arguments without
arguing against them in the same manner or by the same standard that you
demand the propenents of those arguments use when making them in the first
place. In fact, the standard you apply is "That's rubbish", and there you
leave it.
And all the while, you scurry about in your irrationality yelling "That's
rubbish" at every turn, not realising that your failure to comprehend is
your problem alone, and not realising just how much it confirms your
irrationality. Running around yelling "that's rubbish", which 99.9999% of
you do, is symptomatic of the crazy balancing act that your mind must
undertake in order to rationalise its irrationality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 04:32:38 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:31:59 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make you
right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Back attcha *****.
Your personal spewage is *NOT* the default position which I must "disprove."
You make *your case *yourself and do *your *own homework or...
Shove it up your *****.
Shrug.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 09:13:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make you
right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Back attcha *****.
Very erudite. I'm sure you made your point, Baggins.
Shove it up your *****.
Wonderful command of the English. Kiss your mother with that mouth, do you,
Bilbo?
Saint
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 10:59:43 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:13:39 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make you
right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Back attcha *****.
Very erudite. I'm sure you made your point, Baggins.
Your proposition, you do your own homework.
Shove it up your *****.
Wonderful command of the English. Kiss your mother with that mouth, do you,
Bilbo?
Are you under some impression that I'm embarrassed by my Anglo-Saxon
heritage? Whatreya, French?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 04:55:49 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:31:59 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make
you right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Back attcha *****.
Your personal spewage is *NOT* the default position which I must
"disprove."
You make *your case *yourself and do *your *own homework or...
Shove it up your *****.
Shrug.
Shame on you, Mr Bilbo. Shame on you. Please address this issue, which I
have with one of the statements made by you in this thread:
angelicusrex: "I find atheism highly irrational. It proposes that lack of
evidencesome how proves God does not exist."
Mark K. Bilbo: "Wrong. But thanks for playing!"
Let us first dispense with this statement:
angelicusrex: "It proposes that lack of evidencesome how proves God does not
exist."
It is an over-generalisation, but it is not false in the case of ALL
atheists. Don't ask for evidence because you know as well as I do that it is
true. But if you insist, I'll enjoy ramming it down your atheist neck.
Now, let us deal with this:
angelicusrex: "I find atheism highly irrational."
Like belief, an opinion is something that is accepted as true or false and
is not required to be substantiated by evidence or proof of any kind.
Consequently it is not possible for an opinion to "wrong", though it may be
"misguided." It is an opinion on the grounds that it clearly states "I
find". It does not state a reference to any evidence and clearly relies on
personal empiricism. Thus it is an opinion and requires no proof or
supporting evidence for it to be held.
Here is the root of the issue:
It has been shown that the statement was at least applicable to some of the
set of atheists, but the statement was expressed as an opinion. However, you
seem to
have made an assertion rather than expressing an opinion. Here is your
assertion:
"Wrong."
Please show, by way of logical argument and by the provision of supporting
evidence and references how the expressed opinion is wrong in its totality,
as declared by your assertion.
To assist you with your research:
assertion
1. An expression which, if false, indicates an
error. Assertions are used for debugging by catching
can't happen errors.
2. In logic programming, a new fact or rule added to the
database by the program at run time. This is an
extralogical or impure feature of logic programming
languages.
(1997-06-30)
assertion
n 1: a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting
evidence were necessary) [syn: averment, asseveration]
2: the act of affirming or asserting or stating something [syn:
affirmation, statement]
Assertion \As*ser"tion\, n. [L. assertio, fr. asserere.]
1. The act of asserting, or that which is asserted; positive
declaration or averment; affirmation; statement asserted;
position advanced.
There is a difference between assertion and
demonstration. --Macaulay.
2. Maintenance; vindication; as, the assertion of one's
rights or prerogatives.
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with anticipation. Thank
you for playing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 06:38:48 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with anticipation. Thank
you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "zayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 10:13:23 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.08.00.38.47.518745@sig.below...
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with anticipation.
Thank
you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
--
I think It's a sock for tehbhadspelur.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 09:16:16 PM |
|
|
Evidently this guy is someone who actually has a higher IQ than you and
seems to understand the basics of logical argumentation! I say Bravo! And
backatcha, Bilbo!
Saint
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.08.00.38.47.518745@sig.below...
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with anticipation.
Thank
you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 01:35:48 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br0qdi$28hgf0$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Evidently this guy is someone who actually has a higher IQ than you
and
seems to understand the basics of logical argumentation!
Perhaps in your fantasy world, but not in reality. Do you understand
the difference?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 11:01:05 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:16:16 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
Evidently this guy is someone who actually has a higher IQ than you and
seems to understand the basics of logical argumentation! I say Bravo! And
backatcha, Bilbo!
The basic rules of logic are quite plain that it's up to the one who makes
the assertion to provide support for same.
I am under no obligations of any kind.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 06:48:50 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with
anticipation. Thank you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
I will answer that when you manage to successfully address the outstanding
issues with your posts; issues which are clearly and succinctly laid out for
you. In the meantime, all you need to know is that you have not earned the
right to ask any questions or make any statements on matters that involve
logic, debate, discussion or argument. This is because you have not shown an
ability to distinguish your own behaviour from that of others, whom you
accuse of the same nefarious deeds of which you now stand accused by me.
Please deal with the outstanding issues. Failure to do so will be taken as
an admission of wrongdoing and of an inability to coherently argue anything
at all. If you don't like that, bad luck for you. You made your bed, and you
can lie in it. Thank you. Have a wonderful day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 07:01:15 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole
speak thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with
anticipation. Thank you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
I will answer that when you manage to successfully address the
outstanding issues with your posts; issues which are clearly and
succinctly laid out for you.
No, you missed his point. I'm sure he meant "Who the hell are you to
tell me what posts I'll answer, when, and how?"
- --
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
- -----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it
than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBP9PNVudBYuvF/qvfEQIWCwCgzIBmR66ERNuoHPbPDx8jCbuPP1gAnjaV
zne8dEg+Q9/XUnlLiIx+IH2H
=rg7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 07:33:58 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:55:49 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole
speak thusly:
I look forward to your logically laid out rebuttal with
anticipation. Thank you for playing.
Who the hell are you?
I will answer that when you manage to successfully address the
outstanding issues with your posts; issues which are clearly and
succinctly laid out for you.
No, you missed his point. I'm sure he meant "Who the hell are you to
tell me what posts I'll answer, when, and how?"
And I suggest that you miss the point, but only because you can't see it due
to the fact that your head ends in it.
He does not have to answer the post. That one states they look forward to a
reply does not mean that you are at liberty to infer a demand for a reply.
Maybe you missed that point, eh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 11:08:18 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
He does not have to answer the post.
Nobody "has" to answer any post. What of it? It was here in my "home" ng,
I replied. Don't like that? Use a killfile. Leave. Something. Don't sit
around whining.
That one states they look forward to a
reply does not mean that you are at liberty to infer a demand for a reply.
Maybe you missed that point, eh.
Here's a point for ya:
Bite me.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 02:04:30 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
He does not have to answer the post.
Nobody "has" to answer any post. What of it? It was here in my "home"
ng, I replied. Don't like that? Use a killfile. Leave. Something.
Don't sit around whining.
That one states they look forward to a
reply does not mean that you are at liberty to infer a demand for a
reply. Maybe you missed that point, eh.
Here's a point for ya:
Bite me.
Real meaning: He cannot address the outstanding issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:03:01 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:04:30 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
He does not have to answer the post.
Nobody "has" to answer any post. What of it? It was here in my "home"
ng, I replied. Don't like that? Use a killfile. Leave. Something.
Don't sit around whining.
That one states they look forward to a
reply does not mean that you are at liberty to infer a demand for a
reply. Maybe you missed that point, eh.
Here's a point for ya:
Bite me.
Real meaning: He cannot address the outstanding issues.
There are none.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 05:41:59 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:04:30 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:33:58 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
He does not have to answer the post.
Nobody "has" to answer any post. What of it? It was here in my
"home" ng, I replied. Don't like that? Use a killfile. Leave.
Something. Don't sit around whining.
That one states they look forward to a
reply does not mean that you are at liberty to infer a demand for a
reply. Maybe you missed that point, eh.
Here's a point for ya:
Bite me.
Real meaning: He cannot address the outstanding issues.
There are none.
Thus denial wins every argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 09:21:50 PM |
|
|
Perhaps Mr. Bilbo simply should be prepared to be a bit more succinct? I see
he has real trouble speaking without reverting to gutter insults. I am sure
his head is simply swimming with powerful proposals and assertions about
everyone and everything in the world. So much so that he has become tongue
tied. He seems though, to have forgotten that these are free and open forums
and it doesn't matter who is speaking. After all, he presumes to rant at me
for no reason. So one might well ask him "And whom the hell are you, Sir?"
But he won't answer with anything but impotent rage. Which is why he is now
kill-filed. And he kind of made my point about irrational atheists. I have
yet to meet a rational one.
Saint
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
