XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 19-September-2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
      
   > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:39:47 -0600, 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.  I would think evidence would be one of their more   
   >> serious points of interest.   
   >      I'm very interested in what you people think you think you're trying to   
   talk   
   > about when you demand evidence, and when I began challenging you people   
   about it   
   > expected to get at least some sort of attempt to explain what some of you   
   think   
   > it should be. However, every one of you has shown consistently that NONE OF   
   YOU   
   > have the slightest clue what you think you're trying to talk about when you   
   > demand evidence. Here's a chance for you to finally be the first to try   
   > pretending you have some idea what you think it should be:   
   >   
   > Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you   
   > think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for   
   him   
   > to provide us with it if he exists.   
      
   they won't / don't accept what evidence exists, but demand evidence they   
   can't explain. duh!   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg   
   “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough   
   men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)