XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: askme@netins.net   
      
   "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   news:7943568.0403011937.6ea3988e@posting.google.com...   
   > "MrD Pstychologist \(retired\)"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   > > "Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   > > news:7943568.0402291255.bab363c@posting.google.com...   
   > > > "MrD Pstychologist \(retired\)"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > >   
   > > > >  oppressiveness,   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > then yes, I will continue to do so forever.  After   
   all,   
   > >  there is no   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > reason to believe that someone that has been dead   
   for   
   > >  2000   
   > >  years   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > will   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > return, except as an exhibit in a museum.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think anyone will be able to influence   
   you   
   > >  other   
   > >  than   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > Satan   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but a fictional character out of your   
   mythology   
   > >  has   
   > >  no   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > influence on me.  You have never even attempted to   
   > >  present   
   > >  objective   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > evidence that your mythology is based on fact.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > until Jesus Christ destroys the wicked by fire.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Be sure to wear your asbestos long johns.  You will   
   be   
   > >  needing them   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > more than I will.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >  That will probably get your attention.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > And yours, since according to your beliefs, you will   
   be   
   > >  burning at   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > the   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > tims.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert b. Winn   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, all you have succeeded in doing is showing   
   that   
   > >  you   
   > >  can lie,   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > call people names, insult them, and run away and   
   hide   
   > >  behind   
   > >  the   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > apron   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > strings of your personal beliefs.  Normal for you, I   
   > >  will   
   > >  admit.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > You   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > are the only one that is showing any signs of being   
   > >  feeble   
   > >  minded,   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > and   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you are pretending.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark Sebree   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > I have never claimed to be unable to tell what a child   
   is.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > No.  You have claimed that I was unable to tell waht a   
   child   
   > >  was.  A   
   > > > > > > > > > > lie.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > >  I have never killed any children.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Nobody claimed that you had.  But you have claimed that   
   I   
   > >  have   
   > >  killed   
   > > > > > > > > > > children, that I advocate killing children, and support   
   > >  killing   
   > > > > > > > > > > children.  All three are lies.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   As I understand what you are saying,   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Given your history, it is doubtful that you understand   
   > >  anything.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > you   
   > > > > > > > > > > > accuse people who are not involved in these things of   
   > >  being   
   > >  feeble   
   > > > > > > > > > > > minded.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > No, I accuse people that cannot tell reality from   
   fantasy,   
   > >  and   
   > >  that   
   > > > > > > > > > > insists on lying after being shown and told the truth to   
   be   
   > >  feeble   
   > > > > > > > > > > minded.  And that was only after you started calling me   
   > >  that.   
   > >  What's   
   > > > > > > > > > > more, you actually fit the definition (posted above),   
   since   
   > >  you   
   > >  are   
   > > > > > > > > > > showing a deficiency in intelligence, as well as a lack   
   of   
   > >  intelligent   
   > > > > > > > > > > forethought or consideration.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > So, your own posts provide evidence that you may well be   
   > >  feeble   
   > > > > > > > > > > minded.  They certainly provide enough evidence of your   
   > >  lies.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > >    I did not say that you were feeble minded.  I said   
   that   
   > >  you   
   > >  were   
   > > > > > > > > > > > pretending to be feeble minded.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > Robert b. winn   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Either way, it is still a lie.  Either statement can be   
   > >  proven   
   > >  false   
   > > > > > > > > > > by simply reading my posts.  They show an abundance of   
   > >  intelligence,   
   > > > > > > > > > > an strong will, intelligent consideration and   
   forethought,   
   > >  and a   
   > > > > > > > > > > resolute disposition.  The exact opposite of "feeble   
   > >  mindedness".   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > So, my previous statement is proven again.  All you can   
   do   
   > >  is   
   > >  lie,   
   > > > > > > > > > > call people names, and run away.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Mark Sebree   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > So what was your forethought about this secular dictionary   
   > >  definition?   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > child  n.  1.  an unborn or recently born person.   
   > > > > > > > > >                               Merriam-Webster dictionary   
   1970   
   > > > > > > > > > Robert B. winn   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > That it is not universally accepted, since it does not   
   appear in   
   > >  most   
   > > > > > > > > dictionaries of the English Language, and does not appear as   
   the   
   > >  first   
   > > > > > > > > definition (for some reason, you seem to place some   
   importance   
   > >  in   
   > >  the   
   > > > > > > > > position) in any other dictionary I have seen.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > However, the definition that I have posted on multiple   
   > >  occassions   
   > >  does   
   > > > > > > > > appear in every version of the English Language dictionaries   
   > >  that I   
   > > > > > > > > have seen so far.  Therefore, it is more universally   
   accepted,   
   > >  and   
   > >  in   
   > > > > > > > > all likelihood, is an older definition.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > The reason for this deduction is that changes to the   
   language   
   > >  (any   
   > > > > > > > > language) tend to spread outward from the area of origin, so   
   > >  older   
   > > > > > > > > definitions are more widespread than newer ones.  This   
   process   
   > >  in   
   > > > > > > > > enhanced by our modern technology, but there is still a lag   
   > >  time.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Mark Sebree   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > So how do you explain how the word child is defined in this   
   > >  scripture   
   > > > > > > > from the Bible?  Luke 2:5  To be taxed with Mary his espoused   
   > >  wife,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)