XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 17-September-2014 11:41 PM, BruceS wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >>> 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, and that your conversation therefore had no place   
   > in sci.skeptic?   
      
   no that was the comment where I pointed out the FACT that religious   
   beliefs are not based on scientific evidence, and therefore it is wrong   
   to demand that religious beliefs be supported by proof   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   yes, because I was replying to HIM   
      
   >   
   >> 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 rants are kept on a science newsgroup?   
      
   care to list my 'anti-scientific rants'? and why are you not asking Bob   
   why he is posting outside of his scientific ng if he is only interested   
   in scientific facts? and another point that you FAIL to appreciate is   
   that mur and I have the SAME position re evidence for religious beliefs,   
   but mur was not asked to f'off was he? as I have already said.. Bob has   
   been happily discussing with him since the 20th. August. so you might   
   like to ask yourself (and him!) why what is good for the goose in not   
   good for the gander!   
      
   >   
   >> I do not   
   >> accept dictates about where I may post or not in a public forum from   
   >> anyone. He does not 'own' sci.skeptic. how do I know that there are not   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)