XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:19:47 -0500, August Rode  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:59:15 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:20:40 -0500, August Rode conceded total defeat:   
   >>.   
   >>    You were easier to defeat than Chicken, though like Chicken you really   
   >>defeated youself. What I did was make it obvious to you by challenging you to   
   >>provide evidence to the contrary. You were really defeated by your own   
   >>ineptitude. All you could do was keep bringing up the same obvious fact that   
   had   
   >>no significance, and when challenged to try to explain some significance to   
   it   
   >>you found that it didn't have any. Rather than acknowledge that in a   
   respectable   
   >>way you instead chose to cowardly try to wuss away from yourself as so many   
   >>atheists end up doing. You like to think it's me you're trying to slink away   
   >>from but in reality it's your own ineptitude you wish you could escape. All   
   I've   
   >>done is confront you with it and challenge you to overcome it. It's not my   
   fault   
   >>that your own ineptitude defeated you and reduced you to a cowering wreck.   
   . . .   
   >>>>>>On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 13:45:23 -0500, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Until you acknowledge that I have never claimed that all crop circles   
   >>>>>>>were of human manufacture, there is no point talking to you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Ok, AFAIK you have never claimed that all crop circles were of human   
   >>>>>>manufacture. Unless you can quote me saying you have made that claim,   
   it's now   
   >>>>>>your turn to acknowledge that I've never claimed you have made it.   
   >   
   >Still didn't see you correct your lie.   
      
       So far it STILL appears clear that YOU lied since you couldn't provide the   
   supposed quote. Even if you eventually can, I did what you whined about several   
   posts ago:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   >>>>>>    Ok, AFAIK you have never claimed that all crop circles were of human   
   >>>>>>manufacture. Unless you can quote me saying you have made that claim,   
   it's now   
   >>>>>>your turn to acknowledge that I've never claimed you have made it.   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   but you're not the quality of person to have acknowledged it. And don't forget   
   that unless you present the quote I challenged you on it will still appear that   
   YOU are lying. I did say your position is suggesting it, but don't recall   
   saying   
   you actually had the balls to say it specifically even though you've made it   
   clear that you believe it. That sort of thing is VERY common among atheists.   
      
   >>>>>You know my condition for continuing this conversation. Nothing more   
   >>>>>until you stop twisting my words.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I already acknowledged what you've been crying about which is far more   
   than   
   >>>>you're able to do since you're not respectable enough to acknowledge what   
   it's   
   >>>>now your turn to acknowledge:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Unless you can quote me saying you have made that claim, it's now your   
   turn to   
   >>>>acknowledge that I've never claimed you have made it."   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Apparently you're also not respectable enough or mentally capable of   
   trying to   
   >>>>respond to the other challenges I've put to you. As I pointed out, you're   
   just   
   >>>>not mentally capable of having an actual conversation about this topic.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>You'll get   
   >>>>>>>nothing more from me on this subject until you acknowledge that. I'm fed   
   >>>>>>>up with your twisting my words into something I never said.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Let's try something else then. You have kept on and on about the   
   fact that   
   >>>>>>the only patterns we're able to find out the makers of have been made by   
   humans.   
   >>>>>>But you have not been able to present any significance to that fairly   
   obvious   
   >>>>>>fact. Well, it's an EXTREMELY obvious fact since it would be huge news   
   if it   
   >>>>>>were shown that some were made by dogs, or xts, or deer, or escaped   
   chimpanzees,   
   >>>>>>or even weather patterns. In fact afaik it would be huge news if they   
   were ever   
   >>>>>>shown to be made by ANYTHING other than by humans. So try to explain how   
   you   
   >>>>>>think the obvious and basic fact you keep bringing up has any   
   significance at   
   >>>>>>all in regards to the possibility that some of them were NOT made by   
   humans.   
   >>>>>>Actually it seems that I've challenged you on this before and you   
   couldn't   
   >>>>>>provide a respectable explanation, but even if that's true here's giving   
   you   
   >>>>>>another opportunity to finally provide one. IF you can that is. Of   
   course if you   
   >>>>>>can't there is still an interesting aspect to it, which is why you ever   
   bothered   
   >>>>>>to bring it up in the first place even though there appears to be no   
   >>>>>>significance to it.   
   >>>>>>. . .   
   >>>>>>>>> You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>      Can you admit that you have faith in anything at all?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>When did you stop beating your wife? When you figure out why my question   
   >>>>>>>is problematic, you'll know why yours is as well.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Your reaction clearly shows that you're ashamed of your own faith in   
   >>>>>>everything you have faith in. A pathetic though amusing position, and   
   one that I   
   >>>>>>don't believe even the majority of atheists are in. I do suspect that   
   ONLY   
   >>>>>>atheists are in that position, but quite possibly not the majority of   
   them as I   
   >>>>>>said.   
   >>>>>>. . .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop   
   circles   
   >>>>>>>>>>> would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I also know that causing property damage is a crime.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>       How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the   
   groups of people   
   >>>>>>>>>> not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>      Then you couldn't answer it because you can't comprehend it, or   
   won't admit   
   >>>>>>>> that you can.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>It's made of English words but it's so oddly worded that I can't   
   >>>>>>>comprehend it. I notice that you didn't bother to rephrase and ask again   
   >>>>>>>as I asked you to do. Please.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>           How shall we consider the fact "that causing property damage   
   is a   
   >>>>>>crime" to be even more reason for the groups of people not to be caught   
   and   
   >>>>>>exposed "in the media that you read or watch" as the frauds they would   
   have to   
   >>>>>>be?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> and I don't want to   
   >>>>>>>>> answer a question you aren't asking.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> There's an   
   >>>>>>>>>>> incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking   
   the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> law.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)