From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 25/02/2026 4:33 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:11:01 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 25/02/2026 12:52 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >    
   >>> Is the evidence sufficiently complex, substantial, and unresolved to   
   >>> support legitimate arguments for both traditional supporters of the   
   >>> Jolly Green Giant, and those heretics who claim he never goes "Ho, ho,   
   >>> ho"?   
   >>>   
   >>>> 2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid,   
   >>>> ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."   
   >>>> (Dawkins)   
   >>>   
   >>> As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it." However, I really   
   >>> might allow for "emotionally clouded sincerely mistaken" as well.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I've no problem with people who strongly disagree with me - most of   
   >> discussion here is in that category. We've both been around TO for a   
   >> long time, and I suggest we both know that when someone adopts position   
   >> 2, it almost always kills interesting dialogue.   
   >   
   > Suit yourself.   No one's forcing you to be here.   
   >   
   >> I maintain that reality is either theism or not ("not" being   
   >> materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc).   
   >   
   > Both deism and pantheism are forms of theism.   
   >   
   >> You seem to reject theism   
   >> as a *possibility* - why is that?   
   >   
   > You seem to reject the possibility of the Jolly Green Giant as a   
   > viable hypothesis for the origin of edible plants.  Why is that?   
   >   
      
   The irony. Your response demonstrates my point. I'm actually laughing   
   typing this.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)