| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 03:15:17 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
SETI know that there MIGHT BE ETs because there is no proof there aren't.
That kind of argument is argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy.
The default presumption at SETI Argus (the hypothesis being tested) is the
null, "There is no extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)."
That presumption (not conclusion, presumption, like the presumption of "No
guilt" in criminal court) stands unless knocked down by conclusive evidence of
ETI. See http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 03:52:57 PM |
|
|
Deep Thought wrote:
Virgil wrote:
SETI know that there MIGHT BE ETs because there is no proof there aren't.
That kind of argument is argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical
fallacy.
Oh, look -- it's "Deep Thought" again. Deep Thought, do you know DotSix?
The default presumption at SETI Argus (the hypothesis being tested) is
the null, "There is no extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)."
That presumption (not conclusion, presumption, like the presumption of
"No guilt" in criminal court) stands unless knocked down by conclusive
evidence of ETI. See http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
That's how science works, all right. If I were attempting to establish
whether God existed, I'd do the same thing (of course, I'm not trying to
do that; I think God is much more unlikely than ETs, so I'm not going to
waste time trying to establish his existence). Note that the null
hypothesis is, well, a hypothesis, DotSix. Disproving it would prove
the existence of ETs, but NOT disproving it does not eliminate the
possiblity that ETs exist. If it did, we'd be in the awkward position
of asserting that today, ETs do not exist (since the null hypothesis has
not been disproven); but tomorrow, if the null hypothesis IS disproven,
they will exist. You may wish to posit some sort of Schroedinger's Cat
status for the ET's; but that would be very complicated, and I doubt
you're up to the math.
By the way, the experimental positing of a null hypothesis has nothing
at all to do with the presumption of guilt in a criminal case. You're
confusing law and science again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 07:03:21 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... If I were attempting to establish
whether God existed ...
Yes, I understand that you will never make any attempt to support your
hypothesis with evidence because you have none to present, you will
just continue to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible God because there is no proof that hypothesis is false, which
is famous typical textbook theist logical fallacy as Copi points out:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 09:29:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1132535001.638746.127250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... If I were attempting to establish
whether God existed ...
Yes, I understand ...
Good for you , Simple Septic, old Secret Theist!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 09:13:30 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
... If I were attempting to establish
whether God existed ...
Yes, I understand
No, you don't.
that there might be an
invisible God because there is no proof that hypothesis is false,
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic; again>
Evidently you cannot address the following argument, previously
presented:
Premise: Anything anyone believes might be false.
Premise: Some people believe "there is no God".
Conclusion: There might be a God.
No reference to atheism per se; no appeal to lack of proof of false.
Deal.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 03:49:26 PM |
|
|
In article <XNydnbiDjZr7eh3enZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
SETI know that there MIGHT BE ETs because there is no proof there aren't.
That kind of argument is argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy.
The default presumption at SETI Argus (the hypothesis being tested) is the
null, "There is no extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)."
The working presumption, without which SETI certainly could not get
funded, is that there MIGHT BE ETs.
If Simple Septic the Secret Theist thinks otherwise, I know of a lovely
bridge for sale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 03:55:50 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <XNydnbiDjZr7eh3enZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Deep Thought <deepthought@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
SETI know that there MIGHT BE ETs because there is no proof there aren't.
That kind of argument is argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy.
The default presumption at SETI Argus (the hypothesis being tested) is the
null, "There is no extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)."
The working presumption, without which SETI certainly could not get
funded, is that there MIGHT BE ETs.
If Simple Septic the Secret Theist thinks otherwise, I know of a lovely
bridge for sale.
Yup. Scientists might adopt the null hypothesis as a starting point for
experimentation; but if they don't think that's it's possible for what
they're investigating to exist, they would be investigating in the first
place. Add "null hypothesis" to the list of terms Septic doesn't
understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 03:57:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:55:50 GMT, Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Yup. Scientists might adopt the null hypothesis as a starting point for
experimentation; but if they don't think that's it's possible for what
they're investigating to exist, they would be investigating in the first
place. Add "null hypothesis" to the list of terms Septic doesn't
understand.
To the list of what he misrepresents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 04:58:10 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:55:50 GMT, Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Yup. Scientists might adopt the null hypothesis as a starting point for
experimentation; but if they don't think that's it's possible for what
they're investigating to exist, they would be investigating in the first
place. Add "null hypothesis" to the list of terms Septic doesn't
understand.
To the list of what he misrepresents.
Well, yeah. I was being polite; but I suspect that DotSix does
deliberately misrepresent much of what he posts.
Of course, there's no evidence that he understands it, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 05:01:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:58:10 GMT, Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:55:50 GMT, Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Yup. Scientists might adopt the null hypothesis as a starting point for
experimentation; but if they don't think that's it's possible for what
they're investigating to exist, they would be investigating in the first
place. Add "null hypothesis" to the list of terms Septic doesn't
understand.
To the list of what he misrepresents.
Well, yeah. I was being polite; but I suspect that DotSix does
deliberately misrepresent much of what he posts.
Of course, there's no evidence that he understands it, either.
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 05:22:43 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
He's only picked on Russell once in this thread, in order to miscontrue
R's example of the teacup. Watch -- he's likely to repost the entire
exchange, now that I've mentioned it. His point appears to be that it's
reasonable to believe in a perfectly-formed teaset orbitting the sun
directly opposite the Earth, since teasets are known to exist. Or
something like that.
Mostly, though, he seems to be picking on poor Irving Copi these days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 05:24:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:22:43 GMT, Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
He's only picked on Russell once in this thread, in order to miscontrue
R's example of the teacup. Watch -- he's likely to repost the entire
exchange, now that I've mentioned it. His point appears to be that it's
reasonable to believe in a perfectly-formed teaset orbitting the sun
directly opposite the Earth, since teasets are known to exist. Or
something like that.
Mostly, though, he seems to be picking on poor Irving Copi these days.
He's been doing that for years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 06:53:52 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<re: quoting Copi, _Introduction to Logic_>
He's been doing that for years.
Pointing out theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ for years? Only theists
would take exception to that, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 09:15:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1132534432.007332.312300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<re: quoting Copi, _Introduction to Logic_>
He's been doing that for years.
Pointing out theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ for years?
Which theist Argumentum ad Ignorantiam does Simple Septic the Secret
Theistrefer to?
Theists argue that their god(s) actually exist.
No theist ever argued for less that actual existence.
Agnostics and some atheist are quite happy to concede that, as far as
anyone knows some god(s) might exist. They are just not willing to
concede that any are actually known to exist.
Only theists
would take exception to that, right?
Wrong! A usual!
Theists would never take exception to Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
badmouthing of honest agnostics and atheists in the name of his false
"TRUE ATHEISM". It probably amuses them no end.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 07:08:03 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
<re: quoting Copi, _Introduction to Logic_>
He's been doing that for years.
Pointing out theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ for years? Only theists
would take exception to that, right?
Of course! Only a theist would object to being called a theist!
And if she weighs the same as a duck... SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 06:57:25 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
It is easy to make such allegations without having to establish a
basis in fact. Got proof, sonny?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 09:28:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1132534645.095554.290460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
It is easy to make such allegations without having to establish a
basis in fact. Got proof, sonny?
Simple Septic the Secret Theist has too often misrepresented what
Russell said to hide the evidence, but it does require tracking him back
through a whole bunch of aliases.
That is Simple Septic the Secret Theist's SOP, to change aliases often
enough to make tracking down his lies difficult. And to thwart all those
more reasonable viewers who try to keep him killfiled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 07:12:21 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
It is easy to make such allegations without having to establish a
basis in fact. Got proof, sonny?
It may disappoint you to know this, DotSix -- but nobody who's been
reading your dishonest posts for even a few days is inclined to ask for
proof. You've shown yourself to be exactly the sort of lying troll who
would do what Count Dracula here alleges you did; so everybody here is
inclined to believe him. We're not in a court of law, so you don't any
presumption of innocence.
But since you're the one who's claiming you MIGHT not have faked a quote
from Betrand Russell, since Mr. Lee can't disprove your claim that you
didn't, you've committed the fallacy of Argumentum ad FakeCopium. Do
you repent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 09:00:04 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
I got sucked in once when he generated a Russell "quote" out of two
different occasions and used that as "argument" from authority for
something the fake quote didn't even say.
It is easy to make such allegations without having to establish a
basis in fact. Got proof, sonny?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/129e272a9f60d6bc
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
20 Nov 2005 11:06:13 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
See the term, 'hypothesis' in the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ you
are championing?
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means theist conjecture, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
Of course, DotSix refuses to address the fact the hypothesis in question
concerns invisible crystal on the moon, and is assumed and then used in
support of another conclusion -- the essence of the argument from
ignorance. Of course, his inability to parse an argument is legendary
by now, so we shouldn't expect more from him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
19 Nov 2005 05:18:56 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Do theists regard their things as hypothetical?
Yes indeed. See the term 'hypothesis' in the following famous example
of theist logical fallacy?
Amazing. You'd almost think, from reading it, that the hypothesis below
refers to the invisible crystalline substance filling the irregularities
of the moon. But DotSix has determined that it actually refers to god.
Genius!
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this HYPOTHESIS, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
[emphasis on hypothesis added]
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
19 Nov 2005 07:05:09 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
theism is
characterized by belief that there _does_ exist (not
only that there _might_ exist) a God (or gods).
The point you are still missing
And oh, the point you snipped and forgot to address, Septic:
Making an argument (for X) is insufficient to demonstrate a
belief (that X).
I addressed your "point" in the other post, and refuted it -- doubly
so. Now you address mine above; you can start by admitting that you
were wrong to state that a person who makes a particular argument is a
theist (since argument is insufficient to prove belief). Or you can
snip/ignore it again and _demonstrate_ your sense of "fairness" for all
to see. Your response goes here:
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
19 Nov 2005 06:41:04 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
theism is
characterized by belief that there _does_ exist (not
only that there _might_ exist) a God (or gods).
The point you are still missing
I'm refuting your "point" by demonstration, not missing it atall atall,
Septic.
is that God (or god or gods or deity,
whatever you want to call it) is hypothetical
Fallacy of Petitio Principii (begging the question) from Septic then.
(The undecided question is whether gods are merely hypothetical or more
than that; to flatly state either (as you do here, Septic) is to
bald-facedly beg that question.) And theists do _not_ believe that
their God is [merely] hypothetical anyway (just ask them). So Fallacy
of Strawman from Septic as well. (Reminder to Septic: "there are
particles smaller than the atom" is also an hypothesis.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 07:03:23 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have suspected
it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for the full arsenal
of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God, son,
Tell us, dad: what, exactly, IS argument ad hominem?
Try to answer in your own words, rather than posting the relevant
section from Copi. We already know you don't understand poor Irving.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 05:00:21 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have suspected
it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for the full arsenal
of net.kookery.
He is a classic.
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery - that this wasn't
an attempt at deception because it wasnt a perfect forgery.
Can you imagine a forger arguing this way in court?
"If the court will examine the $100 dollar notes I made under a
magnifying glass it will notice a slight smudge on the third digit in
the serial number - this difference between MY $100 notes and all real
ones means that I cannot be quilty of a forgery.QED"
It's a cracker of a defence!
What a dishonest, malodorous, weasel he is.
Gives us something to talk about though.
The best advice I ever got on dealing with Skeptic (From Goldhammer)
is:
"Don't attempt talk to him (its pointless) Talk ABOUT him (it's fun!)."
Unfortunately I dont always follow this excellent advice.
8-)
Mark.
P.S. What's your home group? (when I trim the headers to alt.atheism
and alt.philosophy. debate and sci.skeptic I dont see any replies from
you).
My usual home is alt atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 06:07:52 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery
If it were an attempted forgery it would have had the same email
address, wouldn't it, moron?
Aren't you the same moron who joined Dr Sinister and Jeff Young and
Fiterman in arguing that it isn't reasonable for The Atheism Web
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html>
to say that atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
because there are plenty of gods in existence, Hirohito, for instance?
See http://tinylink.com/?Lxxrk6GtZ6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 08:38:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1132272472.177745.118430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Richo wrote:
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery
If it were an attempted forgery it would have had the same email
address, wouldn't it, moron?
Not necessarily. People like Simple Septic the Secret Theist have posted
from a plethora of different addresses under a plethora of different
aliases.
So that line of argument, like most of Simple Septic the Secret
Theist's, dosn't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 09:47:38 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132272472.177745.118430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Richo wrote:
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery
If it were an attempted forgery it would have had the same email
address, wouldn't it, moron?
Not necessarily. People like Simple Septic the Secret Theist have posted
from a plethora of different addresses under a plethora of different
aliases.
Deception is what Simple Septic the Secret Theist does
best--which ain't none too good.
So that line of argument, like most of Simple Septic the Secret
Theist's, dosn't work.
"The Lord" isn't going to be happy with his gross dishonesty.
Think about it Simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 07:02:07 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery
If it were an attempted forgery it would have had the same email
address, wouldn't it, moron?
No; not if it was an incredibly lame attempt at forgery.
Coincidentally, that's just the sort of attempt one would expect from
Septic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 10:56:06 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
He is now pushing the line that it wasn't a forgery
If it were an attempted forgery it would have had the same email
address, wouldn't it, moron?
No; not if it was an incredibly lame attempt at forgery.
Nobody on my side is that stupid. Your side? Certainly!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
