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: Robibnikoff on 7 May 2007 11:50 "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> snip > > Much as many loonies do not accept reality. Well, you'd know, wouldn't you. Let us know when you decide to accept reality. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 7 May 2007 16:59 Kent Wills wrote: > As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 12:32:04 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez > _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: > >> Kent Wills wrote: >>> As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" >>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote in message >>>> news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >>>>> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> You've accused people of not offering you proofs of the >>>>>> non-existance of gods. >>>>> If someone makes that claim, is it unreasonable to ask them for >>>>> proof? >>>> >>>> He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means >>>> when they acutally did) .. not of asking for it >>> >>> I've asked MANY times. >>> >>>> >>>>>> You've >>>>>> claimed that agnostics are not atheists (when they do clearly >>>>>> lack belief in any gods). >>>>> Agnosticism and atheism are different, so there can be an argument >>>>> that they are different. >>>> >>>> He didn't say they were not different. >>>> >>>> However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are >>>> Agnostics. >>>> >>> >>> I think you have that backwards. >> >> "Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world >> over ceases inhaling and exhaling. >> There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon >> monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid." >> -- Kent Wills >> > > Do I need to ask, again, why you refuse to post the follow-up > I made, within an hour, pointing out that I confused the two? Let's see, you confused CO with CO2, carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide ...? And called the other person "stupid" ? Are you smarter than a 5th grader Kent? > Meh, there's no point. You'll never acknowledge the post > since, as you've proved, you can't be honest ever, about anything. > And since you can't be honest, I'm just going to let you keep > posting your lies without any interference from me. Post whatsoever > you want. "And still I am superior to you." -- Kent Wills "I'm still better than you in all ways. I will admit when I'm wrong. You just run away." -- Kent Wills
From: Kent Wills on 7 May 2007 19:43 As I understand it, on 7 May 2007 03:34:46 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 7, 6:30 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 12:32:04 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez >> >> _" <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote: >> >Kent Wills wrote: >> >> As I understand it, on Sun, 6 May 2007 22:53:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" >> >> <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>> "Larry" <x...(a)y.com> wrote in message >> >>>news:x-BF313D.12514405052007(a)news.west.earthlink.net... >> >>>> In article <1178383438.823684.52...(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> You've accused people of not offering you proofs of the >> >>>>> non-existance of gods. >> >>>> If someone makes that claim, is it unreasonable to ask them for >> >>>> proof? >> >> >>> He said accusing people of not offering it (I asusme that means when >> >>> they acutally did) .. not of asking for it >> >> >> I've asked MANY times. > >And many times you were answered. No. Many times people used avoidance. >Either you have a selective memory I have a phenomenal, though not perfect, memory. >or you were unable to understand what was said to you. I understood. Clearly better than you. Avoidance tactics don't work with me. > >> >>>>> You've >> >>>>> claimed that agnostics are not atheists (when they do clearly lack >> >>>>> belief in any gods). >> >>>> Agnosticism and atheism are different, so there can be an argument >> >>>> that they are different. >> >> >>> He didn't say they were not different. >> >> >>> However, all Agnostics are atheists .. but not all atheists are >> >>> Agnostics. >> >> >> I think you have that backwards. >> >> >"Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world >> >over ceases inhaling and exhaling. >> >There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon >> >monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid." >> > -- Kent Wills >> >> Do I need to ask, again, why you refuse to post the follow-up >> I made, within an hour, pointing out that I confused the two? >> Meh, there's no point. You'll never acknowledge the post >> since, as you've proved, you can't be honest ever, about anything. >> And since you can't be honest, I'm just going to let you keep >> posting your lies without any interference from me. Post whatsoever >> you want. > >Why can't you just admit that you are an idiot when it has been proven >to all? > When has this been proved? Please be specific, since you are the only one who seems to be able to see it. -- Kent Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon.
From: Kent Wills on 7 May 2007 19:45 As I understand it, on 7 May 2007 03:51:04 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 7, 6:22 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 18:56:35 -0700, Martin Phipps >> >> <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Why do you deny it? >> >> >> You've offered no proof to convince anyone of your claim. >> >> >Why do you godbots always have to lie? >> >> Why do *you* have to lie? > >I don't. OK. Why do you CHOOSE to lie? >And don't accuse me of lying without proof. I haven't. The proof is widely available. >If I were in >the US right now I would consider suing you for libel. Feel free. I await your arrival in the U.S. and the certified letter from your attorney. Time to put up or shut up. Since there is a possibility of legal action, or you were simply blowing hot air, I see no reason for us to continue conversing until all legal matters have been resolved in court. -- Kent "I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all you need to know, gov!" - Shouting George
From: Kent Wills on 7 May 2007 19:54
As I understand it, on 7 May 2007 03:51:04 -0700, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 7, 6:22 pm, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As I understand it, on 6 May 2007 18:56:35 -0700, Martin Phipps >> >> <martinphip...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Why do you deny it? >> >> >> You've offered no proof to convince anyone of your claim. >> >> >Why do you godbots always have to lie? >> >> Why do *you* have to lie? > >I don't. OK. Why do you CHOOSE to lie? >And don't accuse me of lying without proof. I haven't. The proof is widely available. >If I were in >the US right now I would consider suing you for libel. Feel free. I await your arrival in the U.S. and the certified letter from your attorney. Time to put up or shut up. Since there is a possibility of legal action, or you were simply blowing hot air, I see no reason for us to continue conversing until all legal matters have been resolved in court. -- Kent "I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all you need to know, gov!" - Shouting George |