Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.skeptic > #109693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mur@. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 468 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.skeptic
www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love mur@. - 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Seymore4Head <Seymore4Head@Hotmail.invalid> - 2016-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-20 10:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:30 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:55 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:54 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 12:19 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:34 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:27 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "wagner" <wagner@dont-email.me> - 2016-04-01 03:52 +0200
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-01 02:42 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-03 20:52 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-04 02:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-09 10:23 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-02-28 16:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 18:58 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:22 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:35 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 08:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 15:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 21:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:24 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-05 02:21 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:52 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 14:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:18 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 16:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 20:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 19:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 18:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 04:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 00:14 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 09:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:13 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 09:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:24 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:58 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-05 13:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:55 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 14:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:07 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 16:15 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 21:03 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:23 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:46 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 12:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 01:04 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 19:10 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 17:59 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 00:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 14:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:27 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 12:35 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:48 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 00:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-03-03 18:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 00:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 01:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:55 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 01:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-24 17:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-24 11:12 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-24 15:10 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-25 21:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-27 23:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 17:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:19 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 21:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:04 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:41 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:57 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:13 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800
Page 1 of 24 [1] 2 3 … 24 Next page →
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500 |
| Subject | www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <l3ms6b1ea6g9ifp8bcdus0mb5cl0lck8oe@4ax.com> |
You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take into consideration.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <n4o0s2$pa5$20@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109693 |
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run > by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that > challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his > cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I > defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies > ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you > people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly > hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied > and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond > what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take > into consideration. You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <i1j07b1qed56ast265hu58kqne7cdp4jq9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109694 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >> into consideration. >You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome. And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-) -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <n4suh0$rni$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109695 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: > >>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > >>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, >>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>> into consideration. > >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? > > That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE > (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome. > > And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-) I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <15s57bde3reaagkf4ji45aljea47vh8j37@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109697 |
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:10:08 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >> >>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, >>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>> into consideration. >> >>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >> >> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE >> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome. >> >> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-) > >I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them. Point... ;-) -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9av57b5kka04ipn2lcqhk0l2deav1oau62@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109697 |
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:10:08 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >> >>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, >>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>> into consideration. >> >>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >> >> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE >> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome. >> >> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-) > >I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them. That got boring very quickly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seymore4Head <Seymore4Head@Hotmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-23 12:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <tc9nhbdj2n2fiikvjtufgpfq3kkgmpj5im@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109697 |
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:10:08 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>: >> >>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >> >>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, >>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>> into consideration. >> >>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >> >> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE >> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome. >> >> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-) > >I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them. https://youtu.be/VkSpR9INXlM?t=541
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <sv5qcb1to7dm9prva06e2u0rbhvks6ch3t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109695 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
. . .
>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>
>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>> into consideration.
. . .
>killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-)
LOL!!! Spoken like a true coward...LOL...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <37k07b563uk2phmepgg6vmndq73sr0quj8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109694 |
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > >> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >> into consideration. How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a non-event, even strong atheism. "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no UFOs". "no psychics", etc. And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion is obvious. >You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which they imagine is undeserved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddfdblFth71U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109696 |
On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >> >>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>> into consideration. > How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a > non-event, even strong atheism. > > "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > UFOs". "no psychics", etc. those are all beliefs > > And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the > missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion > is obvious. you're confusing evidence with proof > >> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? > Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats > creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which > they imagine is undeserved? -- rgds, Pete ------- Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White, Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide! http://thereligionofpeace.com http://pamelageller.com/ http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg "No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?" "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith" -Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <j5s57bda360g4263juvvasq410e4qdh86q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109698 |
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>> >>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>> into consideration. >> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >> non-event, even strong atheism. >> >> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >those are all beliefs > >> >> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >> is obvious. > > >you're confusing evidence with proof No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with anecdote. >>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >> Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats >> creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which >> they imagine is undeserved? -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <egs57b1sh88u3gi2gngv14dmvso6rrbb3f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109700 |
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:29:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: When this psycho crawl back out of the woodwork? >>On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>> >>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>> into consideration. >>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>> >>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >> >>those are all beliefs Only to the stupid. It's the frustrated and falsifiable response to morons who can't keep their beliefs where they belong. Which the dishonest, pathetic, lying little shit has had explained ove and over again. >>> >>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>> is obvious. >> >>you're confusing evidence with proof And Unger can't stop lying. >No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with >anecdote. These morons don't understand "put up or shut up", or the falsifiable conclusion pending the evidence they never provide. >>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>> Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats >>> creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which >>> they imagine is undeserved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddh2q5Fch2pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109701 |
On 18-December-2015 4:38 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:29:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > When this psycho crawl back out of the woodwork? > >>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>> into consideration. >>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>> >>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>> those are all beliefs > Only to the stupid. 'there are no ghosts' is a belief that a person has. same for the others. > > It's the frustrated and falsifiable response to morons who can't keep > their beliefs where they belong. > > Which the dishonest, pathetic, lying little shit that would be you >>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>> is obvious. >>> you're confusing evidence with proof > And Unger can't stop lying. prove it > >> No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with >> anecdote. > These morons don't understand "put up or shut up", you can't understand that these are discussion groups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddh2gfFcf2aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109700 |
On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>> >>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>> into consideration. >>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>> >>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >> those are all beliefs >> >>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>> is obvious. >> >> you're confusing evidence with proof > No, he's not. yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. evidence that will create proof http://ausnet.info/evidence > But *you* are confusing evidence with > anecdote. > -- rgds, Pete ------- Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White, Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide! http://thereligionofpeace.com http://pamelageller.com/ http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg "No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?" "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith" -Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <u8j87bt3q6e2c9irdmnb9og9vvl6m3uqit@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109703 |
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >> >>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>> into consideration. >>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>> >>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>> those are all beliefs >>> >>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>> is obvious. >>> >>> you're confusing evidence with proof >> No, he's not. >yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >evidence that will create proof Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* evidence which explains the data at least as well, and preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no such evidence has been presented. >http://ausnet.info/evidence Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the same way, "theory" means something completely different, and much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn something about the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >> But *you* are confusing evidence with >> anecdote. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <6al87bteanbpmt8pnd8h5l9bko3mfrlmig@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109705 |
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>> >>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>> >>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>> those are all beliefs A stupid lie. A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to treat ridiculous claims. These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to Christians. >>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>> is obvious. >>>> >>>> you're confusing evidence with proof Another stupid lie. >>> No, he's not. > >>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>evidence that will create proof So provide some of it, liar. These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list that has been debunked over and over again. >Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >such evidence has been presented. The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out over and over again. >>http://ausnet.info/evidence > >Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >"reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >something about the subject: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence > >>> But *you* are confusing evidence with >>> anecdote. It's a theist doing what theists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddjnvbF2gcuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109706 |
On 19-December-2015 5:55 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >> >>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> those are all beliefs > A stupid lie. "there is no (whatever)" is an assertion, a statement of belief that something is true. idiot! > > A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to > treat ridiculous claims. > > These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any > other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to > Christians. I can > >>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>> is obvious. >>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof > Another stupid lie. > >>>> No, he's not. >>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>> evidence that will create proof > So provide some of it, I don't need to because I don't claim there is any > liar. yes, you are! > > These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. > > They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list > that has been debunked over and over again. oh yes, very logical.. the evidence that doesn't exist can be debunked. how does that work exactly? > >> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >> such evidence has been presented. > The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out > over and over again. see my reply to BobC. oh, that's right you can't. because you have me blocked. but that doesn't stop you from commenting on what I say, but without having to address any rebuttal. guess what that makes you.. a fuckwit! > >>> http://ausnet.info/evidence >> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >> something about the subject: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >> >>>> But *you* are confusing evidence with >>>> anecdote. > It's a theist doing what theists do. it's an atheist doing what atheists do.. hate! might I suggest that you stick with the abuse and insults because you suck at logic and reason!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | youngblood2949@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 23:12 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <06aaa77e-4a9f-4dec-a85e-bdb5a24e3b88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109708 |
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 4:50:54 PM UTC-8, felix_unger wrote: > On 19-December-2015 5:55 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared > >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >> > >>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared > >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: > >>>> > >>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run > >>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that > >>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his > >>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I > >>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies > >>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you > >>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly > >>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied > >>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond > >>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take > >>>>>>>> into consideration. > >>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a > >>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >>>>> those are all beliefs > > A stupid lie. > > "there is no (whatever)" is an assertion, a statement of belief that > something is true. idiot! > Actually it's a rejection. It's saying that I don't believe something is true. It's not a belief, it's non-belief. > > > > A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to > > treat ridiculous claims. > > > > These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any > > other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to > > Christians. > > I can > > > > >>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the > >>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion > >>>>>> is obvious. > >>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof > > Another stupid lie. > > > >>>> No, he's not. > >>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already > >>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. > >>> evidence that will create proof > > So provide some of it, > > I don't need to because I don't claim there is any > > > liar. > > yes, you are! > > > > > These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. > > > > They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list > > that has been debunked over and over again. > > oh yes, very logical.. the evidence that doesn't exist can be debunked. > how does that work exactly? > Something is presented as evidence and then debunked. Then we throw the supposed evidence on the trash heap and it becomes more of the evidence that doesn't exist. I surprised you didn't know that. It's in all the atheist brochures. > > > >> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; > >> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes > >> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* > >> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and > >> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no > >> such evidence has been presented. > > The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out > > over and over again. > > see my reply to BobC. oh, that's right you can't. because you have me > blocked. but that doesn't stop you from commenting on what I say, but > without having to address any rebuttal. guess what that makes you.. a > fuckwit! > Based on this kind of comment I would say it makes him somebody who doesn't want to expose himself to any more of you than he can possibly prevent. > > > >>> http://ausnet.info/evidence > >> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the > >> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and > >> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of > >> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn > >> something about the subject: > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence > >> > >>>> But *you* are confusing evidence with > >>>> anecdote. > > It's a theist doing what theists do. > > it's an atheist doing what atheists do.. hate! > What hate? Unless you mean how hateful trolling theists attack us for our beliefs and reliance on science and logic instead of faith. Or the fact that it never seems to end and it's the same [people all the time posting things they know will be attacked because they are all bullshit. Finding one fringe scientist who thinks the earth is flat or that chem trails are real, does not mean that his view is correct or even part of the mainstream. > might I suggest that you stick with the abuse and insults because you > suck at logic and reason! How would you know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <5c6b7bd2et2uq9pcbtbkeg8o7f0tgj4ajd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109706 |
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:41 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >> >>>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>> >>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> those are all beliefs > >A stupid lie. > >A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to >treat ridiculous claims. > >These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any >other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to >Christians. > >>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>> is obvious. >>>>> >>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof > >Another stupid lie. > >>>> No, he's not. >> >>>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>evidence that will create proof > >So provide some of it, liar. > >These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. > >They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list >that has been debunked over and over again. > >>Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >>preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >>such evidence has been presented. > >The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out >over and over again. > >>>http://ausnet.info/evidence >> >>Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >>same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >>much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >>"reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >>something about the subject: >> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >> >>>> But *you* are confusing evidence with >>>> anecdote. >It's a theist doing what theists do. Not all theists are like him. I've known many who accept science in scientific fields while still believing in a deity, but they're rational enough to not usually post their beliefs in Usenet, at least not in groups dedicated to scientific investigation such as sci.skeptic. They know that science doesn't deal with unsupported belief regarding things which are inherently not susceptible to scientific investigation. It's a self-selective process, and the losers (multiple meanings) post here. -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddm3q8FkougU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109709 |
On 20-December-2015 5:01 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:41 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>> >>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run >>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that >>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his >>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I >>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies >>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you >>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly >>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied >>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond >>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take >>>>>>>>> into consideration. >>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a >>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>>> those are all beliefs >> A stupid lie. >> >> A falsifiable conclusion is not a belief - it's the only way to >> treat ridiculous claims. >> >> These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any >> other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to >> Christians. >> >>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the >>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion >>>>>>> is obvious. >>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof >> Another stupid lie. >> >>>>> No, he's not. >>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already >>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. >>>> evidence that will create proof >> So provide some of it, liar. >> >> These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence. >> >> They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list >> that has been debunked over and over again. >> >>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof"; >>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes >>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable* >>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and >>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no >>> such evidence has been presented. >> The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out >> over and over again. >> >>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence >>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the >>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and >>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of >>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn >>> something about the subject: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence >>> >>>>> But *you* are confusing evidence with >>>>> anecdote. >> It's a theist doing what theists do. > Not all theists are like him. you don't know what I am > I've known many who accept > science in scientific fields while still believing in a > deity, but they're rational enough to not usually post their > beliefs in Usenet, at least not in groups dedicated to > scientific investigation such as sci.skeptic. I replied to a post by YOU in alt.agnosticism. so one might just as well ask why are you posting your scientific stuff in alt.agnosticism? > They know that > science doesn't deal with unsupported belief regarding > things which are inherently not susceptible to scientific > investigation. It's a self-selective process, and the losers > (multiple meanings) post here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 24 [1] 2 3 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web