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 7 May 2007 19:55 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: Jeckyl on 7 May 2007 20:06 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo(a)broomstick.com> wrote in message news:5a9031F2nph1fU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message > news:bNmdnd2EGtKzgKHbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> Robibnikoff wrote: >>> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> >>> snip >>> >>>>That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY >>>>definition. >>> >>> >>> So? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Deal. >> >> >> Deal with it yourself. The accepted definition is that atheists believe >> there are no gods. Atheists do not believe there are any gods
From: Martin Phipps on 7 May 2007 23:45 On May 8, 7:43 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on 7 May 2007 03:34:46 -0700, Martin Phipps > > > > > > <martinphip...(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. Why should I have to when Jonez constantly reminds you of your past idiocy? Phenomenal memory indeed! :D Martin
From: Martin Phipps on 7 May 2007 23:49 On May 8, 7:45 am, Kent Wills <compu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, on 7 May 2007 03:51:04 -0700, Martin Phipps > > <martinphip...(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? I... don't... lie. > >And don't accuse me of lying without proof. > > I haven't. The proof is widely available. You... are... lying. > >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. Are you willing to pay my airfare so I can come to the US? You should arrange my hotel accomodation while you are at it. > Time to put up or shut up. No, it is time for you to apologize. The lack of legal recourse on my part does not change the fact that you have a moral obligation not to post lies about people. > 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. Which part of "If I were in the US right now" did you not understand? Martin
From: Fred G. Mackey on 8 May 2007 00:16
Christopher A.Lee wrote: > On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:00:44 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" > <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote: > > >>Robibnikoff wrote: >> >>>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> >>>snip >>> >>> >>>>That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY >>>>definition. >>> >>> >>>So? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Deal. >> >> >>Deal with it yourself. The accepted definition is that atheists believe >>there are no gods. > > > Accepted by pig-ignorant sociopathic and nasty theists who can't grasp > what an atheist is, in the real world outside their religion. > > In short bigots like you. I'm not religious - those who BELIEVE there are no gods are. Since that is the definition offered by most dictionaries for atheist, atheists are religious. > > But not accepted by atheists because it's the label for *U*S*. Which > has to describe *U*S* accurately. > > You don't get to tell us what our position is. And neither do > dictionaries. Look, you could call yourself a "chocolate chip cookie" if you wanted, but you're not one and claiming that only you get to define what a "chocolate chip cookie" is because you are one is just as ridiculous as your position on this issue. > > We are simply people who are absent the property of being theist. > > If you are too bigoted, stupid and nasty to accept this, you are the > problem, not the definition. > > Because the accurate definition is also in most dictionaries even > though it is ignored by idiots who don't know how dictionaries work. > > http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm > > "There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of > atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement > comes from theists � atheists themselves tend to agree on what > atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used > by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different." > > > |