XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: bruces42@hotmail.com   
      
   On 09/17/2014 11:28 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:41:10 -0600, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS :   
   >   
   >> On 09/16/2014 11:07 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>> On 17-September-2014 5:39 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 09/16/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:06:20 +1000, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 16-September-2014 12:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 15-September-2014 3:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:18:11 +1000, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 14-September-2014 4:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:48 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:38:03 -0700, Bob Casanova continued   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask for   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence:   
   >>>>>>>>> well duh! it aint called 'religious faith' for no reason. you either   
   >>>>>>>>> accept what evidence there is eg. the biblical record, testimony,   
   >>>>>>>>> etc.,   
   >>>>>>>>> or you don't   
   >>>>>>>> Once more, followups set appropriately, to those groups   
   >>>>>>>> which accept subjective evidence.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> listen you f*n wanker.. I'm REPLYING in a THREAD, that YOU are posting   
   >>>>>>> to in alt.agnosticsm. if you don't like it then just suck it up. YOU   
   >>>>>>> don't get to tell me where I can post or not! but what *IS* your   
   >>>>>>> problem?? you are discussing with mur who is replying in sci.sceptic,   
   >>>>>>> so why single me out to demand I do not reply? I will reply in any   
   >>>>>>> thread as it appears in alt.agnosticism and not make any adjustments   
   >>>>>>> just to suit your pathetic sensitivities! so go screw yerself yer   
   >>>>>>> wanker!! it's not my fault that you can't handle the truth!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> that reply was somewhat emotional so let me explain it all to you   
   >>>>>> factually.. YOU post FROM sci.skeptic in a thread that appears in   
   >>>>>> alt.agnosticism. I post in alt.agnosticism, therefore I see what you   
   >>>>>> post here. by demanding that I do not include the ng sci.skeptic in a   
   >>>>>> reply to anything that you post in alt.agnosticism is effectively   
   >>>>>> denying me a right of reply to your comments, since if I were to reply   
   >>>>>> only to the other groups in the thread, you would not see my reply.   
   >>>>>> this   
   >>>>>> is what you want of course- to have your say but deny me mine. it is   
   >>>>>> cowardly behaviour, and it indicates that you lack confidence in your   
   >>>>>> ability to rebut any arguments I have or might put forward. it is in in   
   >>>>>> fact an endorsement of the veracity of my remarks, since you are   
   >>>>>> 'running scared' from them.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I don't give a diddly-shit if I see your reply or not. *You*   
   >>>>> are posting in sci.skeptic (regardless of who added it),   
   >>>>> sci.skeptic is where I read it, and *I* did not start the   
   >>>>> thread. If you wish to have your interpretation of the   
   >>>>> meaning of "evidence" be restricted to other than objective,   
   >>>>> simply *don't post in a sci newsgroup*. If you continue to   
   >>>>> post in sci.skeptic, I will continue to ask for evidence   
   >>>>> acceptable to science. It's just as simple as that. And if   
   >>>>> you remove sci.skeptic from your reply (if any) to this post   
   >>>>> it will be of no importance to me. HANL.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Now I'm a bit curious whether the people in alt.agnosticism really   
   >>>> don't care about evidence.   
   >>>   
   >>> we care a hell of a lot more about it than atheists do becuase we accept   
   >>> what evidence exists and deal with it, unlike your mob you want to limit   
   >>> what may be considered evidence to suit yourselves   
   >>   
   >> In your system, everything is "evidence", which makes the term useless   
   >> in terms of any real effort to find truth.  We have evidence for dragons   
   >> and elves, according to your definition.   
   >   
   > Correct. When opinions and written testimony are considered   
   > evidence,*nothing* can be excluded other than by claiming   
   > "Well, I don't believe that, I believe *this*". Duelling   
   > beliefs, as it were.   
   >   
   >>>> I would think evidence would be one of their more serious points of   
   >>>> interest. Oh well, maybe mysticism and superstition have become all   
   >>>> the rage over there. The point stands though, that Bob keeps resetting   
   >>>> followups to avoid the group with a definite interest in evidence   
   >>>> (actual *objective* evidence, not just "I want to believe"), and Felix   
   >>>> keeps adding it back. Felix, if you'd just leave the group list   
   >>>> correctly set, then you'd get the last word in those "I like fairy   
   >>>> stories and have no clue what science is" groups. Isn't that all for   
   >>>> the best?   
   >>>   
   >>> well you have it all wrong. *I* 'leave the group list correctly set' as   
   >>> it always has been. the thread is crossposted. It has been running in   
   >>> alt.agnosticism AND alt.atheism, alt.christnet,   
   >>> talk.philosophy.humanism, and ski.skeptic since 20th August, and Bob   
   >>> Wankanover has been happily posting and discussing in it with the   
   >>> headers unchanged, with no cause for concern apparently, UNTIL I posted   
   >>> a comment on the 14th. September,   
   >   
   >> Was that the comment where you said you had no interest in any   
   >> scientific approach,   
   >   
   > Yes, it was.   
   >   
   >> and that your conversation therefore had no place   
   >> in sci.skeptic?   
   >   
   > Actually, that was me.   
      
   D'oh!  Of course, the rational deduction based on the evidence had to   
   come from outside the magical-thinking crowd.  My bad.   
      
   >>> at which point it suddenly became   
   >>> important to him that my comments do not appear in sci.skeptic, and he   
   >>> demanded that I remove 'his' ng from my replies.   
   >>   
   >> Except that Bob actually did the removing.  All you needed to do was   
   >> simply not add the group back in.  But you went to the extra effort to   
   >> add it back in anyway.   
   >>   
   >>> I replied and stated   
   >>> that I have merely posted in the thread as it appears in my newsreader,   
   >>> and I do not intend to make adjustment and restrict where my replies   
   >>> appear simply because HE does not like what I have to say.   
   >>   
   >> But you're happy to "make adjustments" to make sure your anti-scientific   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)