Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES

Religions > Atheism > Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"George Hammond"
Date:	01 Apr 2004 09:19:21 AM
Object:	Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES

"MGodwyn" <godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:165948e8.0403311250.5d5b5927@posting.google.com...

George! You're back. How positively delightful. I wondered whether you
had been diagnosed with some illness or perhaps were having a good
long rest. I can't say your arguments look any better. Oh well.

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<Tpiac.37169$w54.250817@attbi_s01>...

"Robert McCurdy" <robertwm@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4069a5d9@news.orcon.net.nz...

I know this even though I am a die-hard atheist.
Regards Robert

[GH]
"Die hard Atheist"... boy, do I have news for you.
First of all, let me say that I am sympathetic to Atheists.
The people I'm really fed up with are "hypocrites".
That is, people who profess to beleive in God and
show all kinds of "peity" but in fact are venemous
snakes.
On the other hand, Atheists.. (in my humble opinion),
are people who are "politically forced" to say that they
do not believe in God.

I'm not politically forced to say that I'm an atheist.

[GH]
That's whyat you think. Other people know better.
and we're not about to argue with *you* about it.
A scientific proof of god is not an "argument".. it
comes under the heading of "showing", not "telling".

I cite as a prime example Sigmund

Freud who declared he was an Atheist. Now... you got to
be kidding.. who would believe that Sigmund Freud was
an Atheist. In the first place he was Jewish.

Jewishness is a cultural/ethnic/historical identifcation, not merely a
religious one. In other words, one can be Jewish, without being
theistic.

[GH]
The Jewish race is the nearest known actual personification
of the "porrige bird syndrome".... (ask

on this thread) about that.
The Jewish race is the worlds foremost example of "high
genetics and low growth" (producing extreme introversion)
and therefore are the most "san paku" people in history, and
therefore were the natural candidates to discover "God"...
which they did.
The entire psychological history of the world (called the
'class struggle') is a fight between high genetics (upper class)
and "high growth" (lower class). The Jews, having
high genetics and low growth therefore become the natural
"hostages to the lower class" in the neverending class
struggle of the world.
Because of this the "history of the Jews" forms the basis
of the Bible and is the most well known "empirical evidence"
for the existence of God.
HOWEVER, the advent of the discovery of a "scientific proof of God"
has now superceeded "Jewish history" as the primary source
of evidence for the existence of God.
BTW, as soon as the Jews recognize this fact, the "age of
anti-semitism" will quickly come to an end. Even Christianity,
which is historically based osn Jewish history, will finally
be overhauled by Science and be refounded on axdiomatic
laws of physicis which now explain and prove God.

In the second

place, he new enough about psychology to actually know
what God is! BUT... because POLITICALLY he didn't
want his theory of psychology to get a reputation as a
"Jewish religious theory", he was "politically forced" to say
he was an Atheist.
Now, I'm not saying all Atheists are Jewish people trying
to escape persecution. There are many Right Wing people
who find themselves in the same boat and are forced to
declare they are Atheists also. Probably half the Germans
in Germany under Hitler's reign were forced to declare
themselves Atheists in order to avoid getting shot or going
to a concentration camp, as many of the Catholics did for
instance. How many people in Russia under Communist
"official atheism" probably declared themselves Atheists in order
to avoid purges, job loss or persecution?
Anyway... as I see it, the advent of a scientific proof of God
is going to "liberate the atheists". People who previously
were not in a political position where it was advisable for
them, or even possible for them, to display sympathy for
religion, are about to be set free... set free by a:

1. Scientifically neutral
2. Non racially based
3. Non denominational
4. Non "faith based", but "factual"
5. rationally objective and proveable

SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION AND PROOF OF GOD!

and 6. is so full of holes you could use it to sift flour.

[GH]
I'd have to ask for your scientific credentials.

OK... I've said my piece... so please don't any "rabid atheists"
post messages saying "don't try to ingratiate yourself with us"
... blah, blah, blah.
What I have posted here is not an argument, it is an
FYI announcement. The announcement of a scientific discovery.
If you as an Atheist want to do something useful... challenge
the scientific theory..... but don't even bother trying to play
politics with me... I've got enough to worry about dealing with
the hypocrites.

Here's a gob-stopper for your theory - humans are bipeds, not
quadrapeds.

[GH]
Wrong... humans are quadrupeds balancing on their
rear legs.

Here's another: the brain is substantially lacking in functional
planar symmetry.

[GH]
The brain is anatomically CUBIC, and the so called
"brain lobes" are simply the corner octants of the
cube. (see Hammond 1994, peer reviewed literature,
copy posted on my website).

Here's another: the human body a more of less symmetrical external
appearance in one plane only, but lacks external symmetry in other
planes and has a notable lack of internal symmetry even bileterally,
so far as vital organs go. (Drawing planes on a picture of a head
doesn't mean that the brain or the head is symmetrical in 3 planes.
The brain shows highly approximate symmetry in one plane only. )

[GH]
Wrong again (yawn)... please look at FIGURE 6 located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/indpage2.html
here you will see the actual, physical, anatomical, 3-orthogonal
planes of symmetry in the vertibrate body (all vertibrates including
man).

Here's another: the human body is not designed to move in three planes
- it is designed to move forwards, with horizontal rotation effecting
horizontal change in forward direction, and has relatively little
effective functional capacity to travel vertically or laterally.

[GH]
Wrong.
The "3-axes of motion" of the human (cartesian body) of man
are well attested to by the 3-SEMICIRCULAR CANALS
of the middle ear which measure "pitch, roll and yaw" which
IN FACT are the rotations about the 3-Cartesian axes
of real space; X,Y nd Z.

Perhaps the biggest problems with your account is that it is based on
ad hoc appeal to some supposed causal relations based on mere
dimensional similarities.

[GH]
Wrong again. Look... consider the following statement (copied
from a letter to a world famous physicist who was trying to
tell me the same thing):
" I notice you did not say anything about this
matter, mentioned in my last letter:
You have said that I have merely made an
"analogy" between certain structures in
Psychometry and structures in Relativity.
I suppose you are referring to my statement
that "ENPg are caused by XYZt". To call such
a causal link an "analogy" is like saying
that a brick, wheel, screw and ball bearing
are "analogies" to the Cartesian, Polar,
Cylindrical and Spherical coordinate systems
of Euclidean space. With all due respect,
the former are mechanical realizations of
the latter, not "analogies". Likewise, ENP
and g are physical manifestations of XYZ
and, not "analogies" to them."
(to Prof. Chris Iham, Theoretical
Physics Group, Imperial College
Kensington UK, 3-10-04)
He never answered the objection... maybe you
might have some remarks about it.

Psychological - neorological; theological -
physical; spatial - physiological. Yes, if you choose the right
description and ignore the patent lack of symmetry you can describe
several things in dimensionally similar terms, using similar metrics,
but that does not show that any one caused any one of the others.

[GH]
The "causal link" is clearly pointed out above.
PS: I greatly appreciate your factual, logical, rational,
and entirely non-ad hominum discussion of my theory.
Very refreshing!

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================

User: "MG"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	01 Apr 2004 11:44:35 PM

George Hammond wrote:

"MGodwyn" <godwyn@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:165948e8.0403311250.5d5b5927@posting.google.com...

news:<Tpiac.37169$w54.250817@attbi_s01>...

"Robert McCurdy" <robertwm@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4069a5d9@news.orcon.net.nz...

I know this even though I am a die-hard atheist.
Regards Robert

I'm not politically forced to say that I'm an atheist.

[GH]
That's whyat you think.

I know it.
Other people know better.
No they don't. Though, of course, you or others may believe that.

and we're not about to argue with *you* about it.

"we"? I know that a couple of people in the newsgroups have expressed a
certain sympathy with your views and speculations - is that who you're
talking about?
I don't intend to argue with you about that either.

A scientific proof of god is not an "argument".

Proof proceeds by argument. Proof is a form of argument.
.. it

comes under the heading of "showing", not "telling".

You have premises, some of which are true, and you make (generally, in
my professional opinion, very bad) inferences. That's argument - call it
"showing" or "proof", as you wish, that does not stop it being an argument.

I cite as a prime example Sigmund

Freud who declared he was an Atheist. Now... you got to
be kidding.. who would believe that Sigmund Freud was
an Atheist. In the first place he was Jewish.

Jewishness is a cultural/ethnic/historical identifcation, not merely a
religious one. In other words, one can be Jewish, without being
theistic.

[GH]
The Jewish race is the nearest known actual personification
of the "porrige bird syndrome".... (ask

Firstly, I'm delighted to see that you've not lost your touch for
completely ignoring the point: one can be Jewish (in the secular sense)
and atheistic.
Secondly, I disagree with almost everything you say above: it is either
mistaken, unfounded, conceptually confused, or based upon invalid inference.

In the second

and 6. is so full of holes you could use it to sift flour.

[GH]
I'd have to ask for your scientific credentials.

Arguments don't need credentials. They stand or fall on their own terms,
whosoever makes them and whatsoever the authors' "scientific
credentials" may be. Would it matter one jot if my "scientific
credentials" were no greater than that of a patent clerk? (You know who
I mean) - clearly not. *If* my claims were attempts at arguments from my
authority, *then* you'd have some cause to ask for my credentials, but
they are not arguments from my authority, so you don't. My arguments and
reasons stand for themselves and on their own authority - ultimately,
the authority of reason.
I've pointed out the flaws and confusions in your "SPOG" before, and in
great detail as well. There are too many of them to go over them all
again in detail. Below I listed just a few of the problems that sprang
to mind from memory.

Here's a gob-stopper for your theory - humans are bipeds, not
quadrapeds.

[GH]
Wrong... humans are quadrupeds balancing on their
rear legs.

Wrong. I can't speak for your anatomy, but I have only two feet - yep,
just checked, there they are - two of them, and *only* two of them,
attached to my ankles. These things dangling from my wrists - they are
*hands* - they are not feet. If you call them "feet" you've made a
mistake. Try walking on them - you'll see exactly why they are not feet.
Granted, they are homomorphic to structures that *were* feet for our
very distant biological ancesters. But that, as they say, was a *very
long time ago* and a different species. Now, in human beings, they are
*hands*, not feet. A foot is, at a minimum, something whose normal
function is to support a body and/or to facilitate movement on or over a
surface. These things dangling from by wrists (yes, *wrists*, not
ankles) simply don't have that biological function, even though
homomorphic ancestors of them in my biological ancestors did have that
function, therefore they *are not* feet.

Here's another: the brain is substantially lacking in functional
planar symmetry.

[GH]
The brain is anatomically CUBIC,

Again, I can't speak for the peculiarities of your brain, but no it
isn't. Just look at it. No elaborate scientific experiments required for
that one - it is anatomically *nothing* like a cube.
and the so called

"brain lobes" are simply the corner octants of the
cube. (see Hammond 1994, peer reviewed literature,
copy posted on my website).

I've read it. That hypothesis that the brain is anatomically cubic is
manifestly wrong. (And no, being "peer reviewed" in that journal - a
journal that seeks new and *controversial* views on psychology - does
*not* mean that the "peers" thought it to be substantially right.)

[GH]
Wrong again (yawn)... please look at FIGURE 6 located at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/indpage2.html

I have. Your drawings cannot change the obvious biological facts
mentioned above. Neither do your drawings give anyone any reason to
think that anything I said above is mistaken.

here you will see the actual, physical, anatomical, 3-orthogonal
planes of symmetry in the vertibrate body (all vertibrates including
man).

Your drawings are not scientific evidence - they illustrate your claims,
but do not justify them. If we want to see whether the human body has
any actual planes of symmetry, we look at the human body (not your
drawings). That's basic science: if you want to know about X, then the
first and pre-eminent choice for a source of scientific data is to *take
a look at X*.
So what do we see when we look at a human? We see one plane of close
(but not perfect) *external* symmetry - bi-lateral - and that's the only
plane of symmetry for the human body. Internally, this symmetry is much
more mixed (hearts, and liver are key examples of a lack of bi-lateral
symmetry). There is no symmetry in any other plane at all. Take the
horizontal plane - your feet look NOTHING like your head and you lower
body does not map onto your upper body (unless you abstract away from
almost every anatomical feature); most people's penises (I expect) looks
nothing like their arses. End of story. Pretty pictures with planes
drawn on them don't count for diddly squat in the face of what we see
when we open our eyes and simply *look* at the evidence from human
bodies. Take you drawing of a head with three planes drawn on it. Apart
from bi-lateral symmetry, there is no symmetry in the other two planes.
There is no nose, mouth, eye-like structures on the back of a head, and
no trachea (etc) coming out of the top of the head. No symmetry there.
And if you intend to talk about the *brain* rather than thead, then you
should draw a brain, not a head, In which case, you'd see that there
are, at a purely morphological level that abstracts away from all
functionally relevant features of the brain, one bi-lateral plane of
symmetry, and, to a certain degree of approximation and only if we
ignore the fact that the spinal cord attaches close to the back of hte
brain, a rough front-back planar symmetry. There is no top-bottom planar
symmetry.
But gross *morphological* symmetries aside, such as they are, ignore
significant functional and often morphological assymtries in the brain.
Take Broca's area - almost always found on the left side of the brain.
There is no funcionally equivalent structure on the right side of the brain.

[GH]
Wrong. The "3-axes of motion" of the human (cartesian body) of man
are well attested to by the 3-SEMICIRCULAR CANALS
of the middle ear which measure "pitch, roll and yaw" which
IN FACT are the rotations about the 3-Cartesian axes
of real space; X,Y nd Z.

There's one of the bad inferences I was talking about. Yes, we need to
process information about our orientation and movement, and that
movement takes place in three spatial dimensions - and that's why we
have the semi-circular canals. This does *not*, however, show that we
are *designed* to move in three planes. The semi-circular canals are
designed to help us determine our orientation and movement in three
planes. The primary function is to help us keep our balance. But we are
designed to move (in the main) forward, rather than sideways (ever tried
running sideways? It's not very efficient) or up and down. This is not
to say that we cannot move in three dimensions - of course we can. And
often we *do* move in three dimensions, but that is achieved by
adjusting orientation (various rotations about various axes) and moving
(mostly) forward.

Perhaps the biggest problems with your account is that it is based on
ad hoc appeal to some supposed causal relations based on mere
dimensional similarities.

[GH]
Wrong again. Look... consider the following statement (copied
from a letter to a world famous physicist who was trying to
tell me the same thing):

" I notice you did not say anything about this
matter, mentioned in my last letter:
You have said that I have merely made an
"analogy" between certain structures in
Psychometry and structures in Relativity.
I suppose you are referring to my statement
that "ENPg are caused by XYZt". To call such
a causal link an "analogy" is like saying
that a brick, wheel, screw and ball bearing
are "analogies" to the Cartesian, Polar,
Cylindrical and Spherical coordinate systems
of Euclidean space. With all due respect,
the former are mechanical realizations of
the latter, not "analogies". Likewise, ENP
and g are physical manifestations of XYZ
and, not "analogies" to them."
(to Prof. Chris Iham, Theoretical
Physics Group, Imperial College
Kensington UK, 3-10-04)

He never answered the objection... maybe you
might have some remarks about it.

Yes I do have some remarks.
1) that is not an objection to the charge (which I echo) that structural
parallels between theories in different domains are no indication
whatsoever of a *causal* relation between them. Your response above is
not an objection to the charge because it is essentially presupposes
that there is a causal link between them: for example, "To call such a
causal link ...".
2) Your analogy between co-ordinate systems and various kinds of
physical objects that "realize" those co-ordinate systems is a very bad
analogy, because "realizations" are not *caused* by co-ordinate systems.
Consider: Minkowski's geometry does not *cause* special relativitic
effects. In fact, co-ordinate systems (except in a very special sense
mentioned below) don't *cause* anything - they are simply metrics for
describing things. Now, this is not to say that that the *actual* 3-d
metric of space does not *constrain* what material structures can
actually exist, but that is not *causing* anything to have a certain
possible structure over some other possible structure. For example, the
3-d structure of space means that any object can have, at most, three
orthogonal planes of spatial symmetry. But were something to have three
such planes, it is no explanation of that fact to say "that's because
space is 3-d". The limited sense in which the actual metric of space
"causes" anything, is that it "causes" all objects to have, at most,
three orthogonal planes of spatial symmetry.
3) But the question is this: what evidence is there that the structural
similarities between the theories in different fields are due to
*causal* relations between the respective structural elements of the
theories? And the above does not address that.

[GH]
The "causal link" is clearly pointed out above.

No it isn't. You simply state that there is a causal link, give an
analogy that presupposes a link between the strucutures, but you've
given no *evidence* for that claim. You apparently simply *suppose* that
because two theories are structurally similar, that there must be a
causal connection between them. Where's the evidence?

PS: I greatly appreciate your factual, logical, rational,
and entirely non-ad hominum discussion of my theory.
Very refreshing!

Oh .... you're most welcome. I've seen some of the abuse you get. It's
very unfortunate but, I think, rather to be expected in an unmoderated
newsgroup given many of the things that you say.
MG
.

User: ""
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	02 Apr 2004 07:58:12 AM

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>

I've pointed out the flaws and confusions in your "SPOG" before, and in
great detail as well. There are too many of them to go over them all
again in detail. Below I listed just a few of the problems that sprang
to mind from memory.

<snip>
See, kate, that's how one challenges something.
BW
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	02 Apr 2004 12:22:54 PM

<barbara@bookpro.com> wrote in message
news:106qsb7os5asg55@corp.supernews.com...

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

BW

[GH]
OK here's a prime example of the problem BW... this guy
is capable of editing 500 issues of "Popular mechanics"
but "Physics" is over his head.... and he has enough energy
and ill motivated aggrevation to type a 4 page NG posting
about it all... but I will WAGER that 10 years of argument
and instruction by the world's best will NOT BE ABLE
to explain to him that the statement "why does the porridge
bird lay his eggs in the air" is NOT a literal zoological statement
but a "psychological metaphor" epitimizing the entire Class
Struggle, human sexual modus operendi, and practically the
entire theory of God. IOW, the guy is an idiot. And his idiocy
extends not only to a TOTAL obliviousness of the existence
of God..... but includes a total obliviousness of the existence
of theoretical physics.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	03 Apr 2004 09:09:55 AM

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:12 -0500,

wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

Sorry.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	03 Apr 2004 10:53:56 AM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ptkt60pod8r8t5fg628o5i0drkifh25n58@4ax.com...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:12 -0500,

wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

[GH]
"philosophicus" or whomever posted this is at
least rational and educated (compared to the rest
of the white trash on this thread). However, he has
some notable liabilities which make his commentary
rather dubious:
1. He is ready willing and able to argue forever that
humans are not "quadrupeds" because they walk on
their hind legs.
Obviously this is a "pedantic" meaningless argument
to try and use against the statement:
"4 is the minium number of legs
for any animal that has legs."
i.e., there is no 3-legged animal.
(Hammond)
2. I believe this is the same poster who stated that
he "didn't believe in Einstein's Theory". This immediately
ranks him among the dozens of kooks on
sci.physicis.relativity who are trying to
"disprove Einstein".
So... while the guy "sounds good" and "looks good"...
I have to suspect he's actually just another aggrevated
nut.

Sorry.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"

User: "TimC"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	04 Apr 2004 12:46:36 AM

George Hammond (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ptkt60pod8r8t5fg628o5i0drkifh25n58@4ax.com...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:12 -0500,

wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

[GH]
"philosophicus" or whomever posted this is at
least rational and educated (compared to the rest
of the white trash on this thread). However, he has

Oy! Stop calling Kevin's Wilson white trash! He's Japanese!
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"The lights went out in his eyes for absolutely the very last time
ever." -- DNA (Mar 11, 1952 - May 11, 2001)
.

User: "MG"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	06 Apr 2004 06:16:45 PM

George Hammond wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ptkt60pod8r8t5fg628o5i0drkifh25n58@4ax.com...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:12 -0500,

wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

"hind" is redundent in the case of humans since humans have only two
legs. Arms are not legs, George - we don't, with very rare exceoptions,
walk using our arms.

Obviously this is a "pedantic" meaningless argument
to try and use against the statement:

"4 is the minium number of legs
for any animal that has legs."
i.e., there is no 3-legged animal.
(Hammond)

Well, the claim that humans are bipeds does have the merit of being
grounded in an obvious biological fact. A fact testified to by
biologists the world over and obvious to everyone who has seen humans
walking. (I've given references before.) I'm happy that you call my
claim "pedantic" - I'm a pedant when it comes to the facts. Humans are
2-legged animals. Your question-begging statements to the contrary are
not counter-evidence to that claim. Evidence, Goerge, evidence. What is
your evidence that no animal with legs can have fewer than 4? But
"meaningless"? Well, I think the evidence of observation is quite
meaningful when it comes to scientific claims, don't you?

2. I believe this is the same poster who stated that
he "didn't believe in Einstein's Theory".

Your belief is wrong. That wasn't me.
This immediately

ranks him among the dozens of kooks on
sci.physicis.relativity who are trying to
"disprove Einstein".

So... while the guy "sounds good" and "looks good"...
I have to suspect he's actually just another aggrevated
nut.

And that's the limit of your objection? A begging-the-question quote
from yourself and a suspecion of an ad hominiem dismissal of my
arguments as those of an "aggrevated nut"? Thats not very effective
argument.
Come on George, you can do better than that. You used to be much more
fun in the old days - back then you at least *tried* to put up a fight.
MG
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	06 Apr 2004 06:36:22 PM

"MG" <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4vdot$h7v$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...

George Hammond wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ptkt60pod8r8t5fg628o5i0drkifh25n58@4ax.com...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:58:12 -0500,

wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:44:35 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

I've pointed out the flaws and confusions in your "SPOG" before, and

great detail as well. There are too many of them to go over them all
again in detail. Below I listed just a few of the problems that sprang
to mind from memory.

<snip>

See, kate, that's how one challenges something.

"hind" is redundent in the case of humans since humans have only two
legs. Arms are not legs, George - we don't, with very rare exceoptions,
walk using our arms.

Obviously this is a "pedantic" meaningless argument
to try and use against the statement:

"4 is the minium number of legs
for any animal that has legs."
i.e., there is no 3-legged animal.
(Hammond)

snip

What is
your evidence that no animal with legs can have fewer than 4?

[GH]
Simple... there's no such thing as a 3 legged animal.
There is also no such thing as a 2 legged animal.
And there is no 1 legged animal.
Ergo (great pedant word btw), 4 is the minimum number.
Physicists of course, know that this is not only an "empirical"
fact, it is an "axiomatic" fact... because of the Cartesian Geometry
(Cartesian body plan) of all multicellular animals.
This of course is over your head since you have no degrees
in Physics.

Come on George, you can do better than that. You used to be much more
fun in the old days - back then you at least *tried* to put up a fight.
MG

[GH]
Fight with a moron like you? Na, I just troll argumentative
sham rage kooks like you with elementary stuff like
"why there is no 3 legged animal". The subject of God,
like theoretical physics, is far, far over your head.
You're just a footsoldier for the academic vipers that
control world education... your job is to harrass intellectuals
making new discoveries, when they appear on the internet.
I'm now investigating the possibility that the Christian Science
church in Boston will undertake to evaluate my discovery.
They have thousands of scientists in their membership,
and they all know something about God. The average line
professional physicist doesn't know beans about it and
is useless.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
.

User: "Kevin Anthoney"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	07 Apr 2004 01:12:25 PM

George Hammond wrote:

"MG" <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4vdot$h7v$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...

What is
your evidence that no animal with legs can have fewer than 4?

Whales have only two limbs, having lost the back ones completely during
evolution. Of course, you could say those are flippers rather than legs,
but if you rule out flippers you'd probably have to rule out wings. In
that case, the whole bird population comes to mind.
Some extinct birds (the Giant Moa for example) had even lost their wings
altogether, and were truly two legged animals. For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some remote
jungle somewhere.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	07 Apr 2004 01:25:49 PM

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:12:25 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some remote
jungle somewhere.

Uh, hello? Anyone home at the Institute of Duh?
If the species of bird was extant, then you wouldn't see any of them
knocking around, now would you? Extant doesn't mean there are one or
two or even a dozen still hanging around. It means extant--gone,
vanished, eradicated, wiped out, decimated, pining for the fiords,
etc.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	07 Apr 2004 02:59:23 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8ph870hdn4mud3c38lru1htecq4rnfi4qe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:12:25 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some remote
jungle somewhere.

Unless extant meant the opposite of extinct. Which it does.
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	07 Apr 2004 03:09:57 PM

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:59:23 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8ph870hdn4mud3c38lru1htecq4rnfi4qe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:12:25 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some remote
jungle somewhere.

Unless extant meant the opposite of extinct. Which it does.

Unless extant and extinct are synonymous. Which they are.
PS: You will now post a dictionary definition to try to refute my
claim. Don't bother if that's your best appeal to authority. How can
you consider a dictionaries credible if they don't even contain the
word "gullible"? Which they don't.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "George Hammond"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 10:26:48 AM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote >

PS: You will now post a dictionary definition to try to refute my
claim. Don't bother if that's your best appeal to authority. How can
you consider a dictionaries credible if they don't even contain the
word "gullible"? Which they don't.

[GH]
YEP:
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
WEBSTER'S IDEAL DICTIONARY
copyright 1961 by G. & C. Merriam co.
page 288:
gul'li.ble adj. Easily gulled, or deceived - gullibility n.-
gullibly adv.
also VARIANT spelling.... "gullable":
gullable, gullability, gullably Variants of GULLIBLE
what the f--k's wrong with you, can't you read a dictionary?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology

User: "Glenn Knickerbocker"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 11:28:24 AM

George Hammond wrote:

WEBSTER'S IDEAL DICTIONARY

Well, yeah, sure, in an IDEAL dictionary. How about a REAL dictionary?
�R
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 12:14:10 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:rsn870537807b470r9gbe6h1oi8mcfc1on@4ax.com...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:59:23 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8ph870hdn4mud3c38lru1htecq4rnfi4qe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:12:25 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some

remote

jungle somewhere.

Unless extant meant the opposite of extinct. Which it does.

In some cases the word "ignoramus" suffices. Like this one.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho

You are soooo lucky that "tech" got in there before "writer", otherwise you
might have fallen short of an expectation or two.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: ""
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 12:26:45 PM

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:14:10 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:rsn870537807b470r9gbe6h1oi8mcfc1on@4ax.com...

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:59:23 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8ph870hdn4mud3c38lru1htecq4rnfi4qe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 19:12:25 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:

For all I know, there might
even be an extant species of wingless bird knocking around in some

remote

jungle somewhere.

Unless extant meant the opposite of extinct. Which it does.

In some cases the word "ignoramus" suffices. Like this one.

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock? So hard
to tell!
BW
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 04:39:18 PM

<barbara@bookpro.com> wrote in message
news:107b2qdd2qiu78d@corp.supernews.com...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:14:10 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

In some cases the word "ignoramus" suffices. Like this one.

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock? So hard
to tell!

Then you must grow smarter.
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 01:09:49 PM

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:26:45 -0400,

wrote:

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock?

That would be the latter, Bob.
Which word should I make him look up next?
I heard big-time spammer Scott Richter say "clitorious" on The Daily
Show the other night. Maybe I'll make him look that one up.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 04:41:48 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:895b70l22ddc20b89hojeafosr7tdnu756@4ax.com...

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:26:45 -0400,

wrote:

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock?

That would be the latter, Bob.

Don't get all envious just 'cos you don't even *have* a rock.

Which word should I make him look up next?

You haven't yet produced a word that I would have to look up. And you
couldn't without a dictionary in your hand.

I heard big-time spammer Scott Richter say "clitorious" on The Daily
Show the other night. Maybe I'll make him look that one up.

Maybe you'll look up your own.
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 04:55:14 PM

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:41:48 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:895b70l22ddc20b89hojeafosr7tdnu756@4ax.com...

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:26:45 -0400,

wrote:

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock?

That would be the latter, Bob.

Don't get all envious just 'cos you don't even *have* a rock.

Ah, now don't be a meany-head, Mark, just because I trolled you into
looking up words for me.

Which word should I make him look up next?

You haven't yet produced a word that I would have to look up. And you
couldn't without a dictionary in your hand.

Actually, I think it's you who is standing there with a dic in his
hand.

I heard big-time spammer Scott Richter say "clitorious" on The Daily
Show the other night. Maybe I'll make him look that one up.

Maybe you'll look up your own.

Up to this point, I thought only big-time spammer Scott Richter
believed there is a body part known as the "clitorious."
Would one of the ARK chyx help young Mark out here? Use ASCII art if a
visual aid would help.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 05:47:34 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ubib70d882a61im2etq1bjdo6e26dooahj@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:41:48 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:895b70l22ddc20b89hojeafosr7tdnu756@4ax.com...

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:26:45 -0400,

wrote:

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock?

That would be the latter, Bob.

Don't get all envious just 'cos you don't even *have* a rock.

Ah, now don't be a meany-head, Mark, just because I trolled you into
looking up words for me.

Pretending that you were trolling when you were just being too dumb to get
it right is pretty lame, even in ARK.

Which word should I make him look up next?

You haven't yet produced a word that I would have to look up. And you
couldn't without a dictionary in your hand.

Actually, I think it's you who is standing there with a dic in his
hand.

I even have a chair at my computer. God but you're deprived.

I heard big-time spammer Scott Richter say "clitorious" on The Daily
Show the other night. Maybe I'll make him look that one up.

Maybe you'll look up your own.

Up to this point, I thought only big-time spammer Scott Richter
believed there is a body part known as the "clitorious."

What you think at any point is of but little interest, and that only to
yourself. Allegedly.

Would one of the ARK chyx help young Mark out here? Use ASCII art if a
visual aid would help.

Calling chyxx in to help to clean up your mistakes. You think you're the
president or something?
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	08 Apr 2004 05:58:38 PM

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 00:47:34 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ubib70d882a61im2etq1bjdo6e26dooahj@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:41:48 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:895b70l22ddc20b89hojeafosr7tdnu756@4ax.com...

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:26:45 -0400,

wrote:

Reverse-trolling or amazing evidence of living under a rock?

That would be the latter, Bob.

Don't get all envious just 'cos you don't even *have* a rock.

Ah, now don't be a meany-head, Mark, just because I trolled you into
looking up words for me.

Pretending that you were trolling when you were just being too dumb to get
it right is pretty lame, even in ARK.

Son, I assure you that I know the difference between "extinct" and
"extant." I get paid for knowing such things.
You can trust me, as well, when I say you have been well and truly
trolled, you have lost, and you should have a nice day. The icing on
the cake was this part:

Don't bother if that's your best appeal to authority. How can
you consider a dictionaries credible if they don't even contain the
word "gullible"? Which they don't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible

Did you stop to think, "Hmmm, why would someone make such an absurd
statement?"

Which word should I make him look up next?

You haven't yet produced a word that I would have to look up. And you
couldn't without a dictionary in your hand.

Actually, I think it's you who is standing there with a dic in his
hand.

I even have a chair at my computer. God but you're deprived.

Okay, so you're sitting there comfortably with a dic in your hand.
God, but you're a stickler for detail.

I heard big-time spammer Scott Richter say "clitorious" on The Daily
Show the other night. Maybe I'll make him look that one up.

Maybe you'll look up your own.

Up to this point, I thought only big-time spammer Scott Richter
believed there is a body part known as the "clitorious."

What you think at any point is of but little interest, and that only to
yourself. Allegedly.

Would one of the ARK chyx help young Mark out here? Use ASCII art if a
visual aid would help.

Calling chyxx in to help to clean up your mistakes.

Where did I make a mistake, Mark? I thought my trolling of you was
pretty much flawless.

You think you're the
president or something?

I figure that counselling from the ARK chyx is the only way you're
going to come to understand that a woman doesn't have a clitorious.
Hell, we'll be old and infirm if we wait around for a real-life woman
to show you.
PS: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	09 Apr 2004 04:09:47 AM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8tlb70t9ilkk4eihdrsllrim6fhanhgphv@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 00:47:34 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ubib70d882a61im2etq1bjdo6e26dooahj@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:41:48 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

You can trust me, as well, when I say you have been well and truly
trolled, you have lost, and you should have a nice day. The icing on
the cake was this part:

Don't bother if that's your best appeal to authority. How can
you consider a dictionaries credible if they don't even contain the
word "gullible"? Which they don't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible

Did you stop to think, "Hmmm, why would someone make such an absurd
statement?"

Did it ever worry you that you are too stupid to keep track of correct
attributions? Because you are.
Claiming you are trolling when you are merely dumb is, well, ... you supply
the word.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	09 Apr 2004 11:14:59 AM

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:09:47 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:8tlb70t9ilkk4eihdrsllrim6fhanhgphv@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 00:47:34 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:ubib70d882a61im2etq1bjdo6e26dooahj@4ax.com...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:41:48 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

You can trust me, as well, when I say you have been well and truly
trolled, you have lost, and you should have a nice day. The icing on
the cake was this part:

Don't bother if that's your best appeal to authority. How can
you consider a dictionaries credible if they don't even contain the
word "gullible"? Which they don't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible

Did you stop to think, "Hmmm, why would someone make such an absurd
statement?"

Did it ever worry you that you are too stupid to keep track of correct
attributions? Because you are.

Worry? Do you place so much importance on your image here on the
USENET (tm) that you think something like misattribution could cause
someone to worry? That's kind of sad, don't you think? You really need
to relax.
You're right, though. I did confuse you with some other gullible bozo.
I'm sure you can understand how one could easily make that mistake.

Claiming you are trolling when you are merely dumb is, well, ... you supply
the word.

Son, you gulped the bait right down, and I set the hook, but you
aren't a good enough sport to admit it. You just had to chime in to
show off your GIANT BRANE when you mistakenly thought that I didn't
know the difference between "extant" and "extinct." Why not just cop
to the fact that you were trolled?
PS: We're not laughing with you.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	10 Apr 2004 03:30:43 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:jkid70tid4j4krku4tbrf6ph22vrddklek@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:09:47 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

Did it ever worry you that you are too stupid to keep track of correct
attributions? Because you are.

You seem prone to leap to conclusions based on questions that you are asked,
while never answering the question.
Therefore you are Condoleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzaaaa Rice and I claim my 5
dollars.

You're right, though. I did confuse you with some other gullible bozo.
I'm sure you can understand how one could easily make that mistake.

No, not a mega-expert like you who wouldn't even get bitten on the ***** by
his own spell checker.

Claiming you are trolling when you are merely dumb is, well, ... you

supply

the word.

Nice try, nice excuse, but too old. You typed too fast, and didn't check
what your spell checker did, and couldn't take a bit of heat for it.
In other words, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

PS: We're not laughing with you.

That would be right, because you are the butt of the joke. I laugh at you,
you try to claim it was a deliberate error. Fun for me, wriggling
embarrassment for you.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	10 Apr 2004 03:50:57 PM

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:30:43 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:jkid70tid4j4krku4tbrf6ph22vrddklek@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:09:47 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

Did it ever worry you that you are too stupid to keep track of correct
attributions? Because you are.

You seem prone to leap to conclusions based on questions that you are asked,
while never answering the question.

Therefore you are Condoleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzaaaa Rice and I claim my 5
dollars.

That's odd. You use an ARK meme, yet you do so in order to continue
sulking after being trolled. That's very un-ARK-like. I can't recall
any of the other ARKians sulking and stamping their little feet after
being trolled. Are you sure you belong here?

You're right, though. I did confuse you with some other gullible bozo.
I'm sure you can understand how one could easily make that mistake.

No, not a mega-expert like you who wouldn't even get bitten on the ***** by
his own spell checker.

Some of us don't need a spell checker to understand the difference
between "extinct" and "extant." Some of us don't even need a
dictionary. I'm sorry to learn that you are not one of those people.

Claiming you are trolling when you are merely dumb is, well, ... you

supply

the word.

Nice try, nice excuse, but too old. You typed too fast, and didn't check
what your spell checker did, and couldn't take a bit of heat for it.

What would convince you that I checked my facts before posting
nonsense to the USENET (tm)? Because, you know, I ALWAYS check my
facts before posting to the USENET (tm).
Shall we take a poll?
Show of hands here. Who thinks Mark was trolled? Who thinks Mark has
lost? Who thinks Mark should HAND.

In other words, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

That's a catchy phrase. You make it up yourself?

PS: We're not laughing with you.

That would be right, because you are the butt of the joke. I laugh at you,
you try to claim it was a deliberate error. Fun for me, wriggling
embarrassment for you.

A deliberate error? Why in the world would anyone deliberately post
something incorrect to the USENET (tm)? What could possibly motivate
someone to do such a thing?
Whatever it is, I wish there was a name for such a phenomenom.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?"
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	11 Apr 2004 03:56:54 PM

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:c2ng70dnbpl0gqrplmo35s51iit5bung4g@4ax.com...

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:30:43 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

"Kevin S. Wilson" <rescyou@spro.net> wrote in message
news:jkid70tid4j4krku4tbrf6ph22vrddklek@4ax.com...

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:09:47 +0200, "Mark South"
<mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

Did it ever worry you that you are too stupid to keep track of correct
attributions? Because you are.

You seem prone to leap to conclusions based on questions that you are

asked,

while never answering the question.

Therefore you are Condoleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzaaaa Rice and I claim my 5
dollars.

You are mistaken about so many things. Still. I suppose that you have a
very thick skin and that must help very much with your chosen path in life.
And I'm not sulking. I'm very happy. You are the one trying to recover
your balance and self-esteem after your little goof. Strangely, if you had
merely said something along the lines of "whoops! slipped up! sorry!" you'd
be OK now.
But your struggles are quite amusing.

You're right, though. I did confuse you with some other gullible bozo.
I'm sure you can understand how one could easily make that mistake.

No, not a mega-expert like you who wouldn't even get bitten on the ***** by
his own spell checker.

Some of us don't need a spell checker to understand the difference
between "extinct" and "extant." Some of us don't even need a
dictionary. I'm sorry to learn that you are not one of those people.

I'm impressed that you are able to say that you are sorry. But you haven't
managed to say it right yet. Keep trying, the practice will stand you in
good stead, since you will need to say it a lot if you ever try interacting
positively with people.
Possibly you meant to apologise for basing a large chunk of what you seem to
mistake for a defense on the (perceived by you) fact that I had posted
something which then turned out to have been posted by someone else.

Claiming you are trolling when you are merely dumb is, well, ... you

supply

the word.

Nice try, nice excuse, but too old. You typed too fast, and didn't check
what your spell checker did, and couldn't take a bit of heat for it.

What would convince you that I checked my facts before posting
nonsense to the USENET (tm)? Because, you know, I ALWAYS check my
facts before posting to the USENET (tm).

God's teeth Kevins, the rest of the world is struggling to come to terms
with the 21st century and you haven't even made it to Socrates.

Shall we take a poll?

Oh, let's call in our friends and sock puppets to support us because we're
losing. Novel.

Show of hands here. Who thinks Mark was trolled? Who thinks Mark has
lost? Who thinks Mark should HAND.

Mark's having a Very Nice Day (TM). Mark's got Kevins to laugh at when ever
there's a dull moment.

In other words, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

That's a catchy phrase. You make it up yourself?

I didn't expect you to spot where it came from. Try a dictionary of
quotations.

PS: We're not laughing with you.

That would be right, because you are the butt of the joke. I laugh at

you,

you try to claim it was a deliberate error. Fun for me, wriggling
embarrassment for you.

A deliberate error? Why in the world would anyone deliberately post
something incorrect to the USENET (tm)? What could possibly motivate
someone to do such a thing?

It's not a question and answer session, Kevins. And your motivation for
anything is of no interest.

Whatever it is, I wish there was a name for such a phenomenom.

Rub your nearest sock puppet three times and make a wish then.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: "Bryce Utting"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	11 Apr 2004 04:58:08 PM

Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

You seem prone to leap to conclusions based on questions that you
are asked, while never answering the question.

Therefore you are Condoleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzaaaa Rice and I claim my 5
dollars.

You are mistaken about so many things. Still. I suppose that you have a
very thick skin and that must help very much with your chosen path in life.

could I ask you to put a "[NOT GH]" line above any paragraphs like the
above you post in future? just to keep things clear, y'see. I nearly
read a "[GH]" even though it wasn't there.
butting
.

User: "Mark South"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES	11 Apr 2004 07:03:04 PM

"Bryce Utting" <butting@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c5cf1g$h8h$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

Mark South <mark.south@null.invalid> wrote:

You seem prone to leap to conclusions based on questions that you
are asked, while never answering the question.

Therefore you are Condoleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzaaaa Rice and I claim my 5
dollars.

You are mistaken about so many things. Still. I suppose that you have

very thick skin and that must help very much with your chosen path in

life.

could I ask you to put a "[NOT GH]" line above any paragraphs like the
above you post in future? just to keep things clear, y'see. I nearly
read a "[GH]" even though it wasn't there.

You do understand that we are playing the GH game in this thread, don't you?
So post in GH style (like Kevin and I are doing) or go and find a more
civilised thread to play in.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
.

User: "Kevin S. Wilson"
Title: Re: GOD=G_uv, MIKE NEWDOW LOSES</