XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:45:56 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article , mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:17:35 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >> >On 18-April-2015 6:54 AM, mur wrote:   
   >> >> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:27:00 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield"    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >> >> ..   
   >> >>> "David Johnston"  wrote in message news:mg1it3$3fd$4@dont-email.me...   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>> On 4/7/2015 3:04 PM, mur wrote:   
   >> >>>>>       It means what I pointed out for you. Atheists demand evidence,   
   >> >>>> I have not demanded any.   
   >> >>> Atheists demand evidence before they will change their minds: None has   
   >> >>> been   
   >> >>> offered.   
   >> >>      You're lying,   
   >> >   
   >> >she certainly is.   
   >>   
   >>     One thing I still can't figure out is how these people feel it's somehow   
   >> better to tell an extremely stupidly blatant lie we all know is a lie like   
   >> that,   
   >> than to not tell it. Could they actually believe it could somehow become   
   true   
   >> if   
   >> they repeat it often enough?   
   >   
   >Projection is strong in this one.   
   >   
   >What "lie" are we supposed to have told?   
      
       The lie being referred to there is of course the horribly blatant lie that   
   no evidence has been offered. It seems even you shouldn't have been too stupid   
   to figure that out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)