XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 19-September-2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 10:38:21 -0700, 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.   
   >      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.   
      
   he effectively has you blocked since he's removed sci.skeptic (where he   
   posts from) from the headers   
      
   --   
   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)