Turning around in neighbor's driveway
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Would Consumer Reports say this is a shady practice?
Next: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 09:41 As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:56:37 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> So, Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever, why do you have such a >> compelling NEED to be dishonest? Why can't you be honest about >> anything, ever? > >The pathological liar and the honest man both claim to tell the truth. The difference is that the pathological liar (in this case, Vox/Ultra/Jonez/whatever) is lying when he claims to the telling the truth. > >Kent, we know you aren't an honest man. So that makes you the >pathological liar. Please cite one lie from me. Just one is all I ask. I have crickets on stand-by. -- Kent Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 09:42 As I understand it, on 4 May 2007 22:54:34 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 5, 7:42 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do TRY and be honest. This will be VERY difficult for you, >> I'm sure. But try. With each occurrence of honesty, you'll find it >> easier and easier. Soon it will be very natural. > >How would you know? > I know more about psychology than the average person on the street. It comes from a combination of being married to a Psychologist and reading her books when my insomnia kicks in. -- Kent Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 09:47 As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 19:09:32 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: [snips for brevity] >> That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY >> definition. > >There's no such thing as a "primary" or "secondary" definition. Modern dictionaries would disagree with you. [...] >>> >>> Want more? >>> >> >> Naw - you'll just selectively ignore primary definitions. > >Whereas you make up things like "primary definitions". He listed which dictionary you can use for verification. > >But, let me guess, you think that "dog ear" isn't a folded corner of a >page in a book for placemarking purposes. > Dog-ear (the noun) means that, yes. What of the transitive verb or adjective? [...] -- Kent Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 09:49 As I understand it, on Sat, 5 May 2007 13:12:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:80fn33htcpv4ar4e8nqpoa8397u3635qa3(a)4ax.com... >> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 10:37:06 +1000, "Jeckyl" >> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>"Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:hatk331kpodcvs6mel0a1gmeklc6rq8qo8(a)4ax.com... >>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 03:14:47 +1000, "Jeckyl" >>>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque >>>>>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is >>>>>>>> utterly false. >>>>> >>>>>Please present this proof. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've been asking for proof that atheism is correct for a very >>>> long time. >>> >>>Easy .. >>> >>>The theist position is to know that god exists >> >> To claim to KNOW is to claim to have proof. No sane person >> would claim to KNOW there is a god. > >I wasn't talking about sane people, I was talking about theists Some of the most sane people you'll find. There are exceptions, of course. > >> I do believe, but freely admit I can't prove that God exists. >>>The atheist position is to not know that god exists >> That's an agnostic's position. > >Agnostics are atheists, not all atheits are agnostic though Agnostics simply state they don't know. > >>>There is no proof that god exists >> Exactly. It's a belief. > >Mor particularly, it is a belief without evidence / proof If there was proof, they wouldn't believe, but rather, they would know. > >>>We cannot conclude that god exists or does not exist >>>Gods existance is unknown >>>The atheist position is correct >> >> That's not the atheist position. You've done a GREAT job of >> explaining the agnostic position. > >Which is also the atheist position .. you are confusing atheist with the >subset "strong-atheist", who not only have a lack of theism (ie no belief in >gods) but also a belief that gods to not exists. > Perhaps I have. -- Kent Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
From: Kent Wills on 5 May 2007 09:50
As I understand it, on Fri, 04 May 2007 23:14:29 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote: >� Shanghai Lil � wrote: > >> Gods do not exist. Not a "belief", it's a fact. >> > > >So you're an atheist - that's cool with me - don't feel ashamed about >it, just don't try to distort facts and call others atheists who are not. >But of course such protests help prove my point that you are just as >religious as all the others who DO believe in God(s). He does believe. He hates the Christian God too much not to believe He doesn't exist. -- Kent Take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you'll never get back |