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 20 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <kqhjdbljdf6550468ft3d23mrbvjpggvde@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109951 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:35:20 -0600, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:05:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan >>>>>><rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip down to the meat of the matter> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", we >>>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, >>>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We, of course, have a different one. >>>>>> >>>>>>What others *know* about what they believe and what they >>>>>>mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they >>>>>>mean. >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's just that simple. No more, and no less. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, it's just that simple. >>>>>> >>>>>>>You're welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>>For what? Your restatement of your error? >>>>> >>>>>His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we >>>>>"really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. >>>> >>>>Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... >>> >>>If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, >>>they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. >> >>I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major >>religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam >>has a much worse continuing track record of violent >>intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why >>single out Christianity? > >I don't - they do that, they do it themselves when they crash >alt.atheism, when they make religiously partisan decisions in the >Supreme Court, when they try get creationism and its even more >dishonest siblic ID taught in schools, etc. OK. I feel the same way about Islamics who moved here to get away from the violence of Sharia law, then refuse to assimilate and insist on setting up the same "culture" here; as I understand it, it's even worse in parts of Europe. >>>But if they could understand others in the first place, they would >>>accept that we know what is in our own minds, even if they don't >>>understand it, so it wouldn't even get to that stage. >> >>Granted. -- 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 | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-AF8F98.17382204032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110037 |
In article <kqhjdbljdf6550468ft3d23mrbvjpggvde@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:35:20 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > > >On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:05:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared > >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> > >>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared > >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > >>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >>>> > >>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >>>>>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared > >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan > >>>>>><rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>><snip down to the meat of the matter> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", we > >>>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, > >>>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>We, of course, have a different one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>What others *know* about what they believe and what they > >>>>>>mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they > >>>>>>mean. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>It's just that simple. No more, and no less. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes, it's just that simple. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>You're welcome. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>For what? Your restatement of your error? > >>>>> > >>>>>His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we > >>>>>"really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. > >>>> > >>>>Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... > >>> > >>>If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, > >>>they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. > >> > >>I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major > >>religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam > >>has a much worse continuing track record of violent > >>intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why > >>single out Christianity? > > > >I don't - they do that, they do it themselves when they crash > >alt.atheism, when they make religiously partisan decisions in the > >Supreme Court, when they try get creationism and its even more > >dishonest siblic ID taught in schools, etc. > > OK. I feel the same way about Islamics who moved here to get > away from the violence of Sharia law, then refuse to > assimilate and insist on setting up the same "culture" here; > as I understand it, it's even worse in parts of Europe. Where is it happening here? Muslims in America has assimilated exactly the same as every other nationality or religion that has come here. > >>>But if they could understand others in the first place, they would > >>>accept that we know what is in our own minds, even if they don't > >>>understand it, so it wouldn't even get to that stage. > >> > >>Granted. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <3fbmdb507c3q0usiia1chqs1964u80sgs5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110092 |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:38:22 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>: >In article <kqhjdbljdf6550468ft3d23mrbvjpggvde@4ax.com>, > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:35:20 -0600, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> >On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:05:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >wrote: >> > >> >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared >> >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >>>wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared >> >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> >>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >>>> >> >>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >>>>>wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared >> >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan >> >>>>>><rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>><snip down to the meat of the matter> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", we >> >>>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, >> >>>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>We, of course, have a different one. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>What others *know* about what they believe and what they >> >>>>>>mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they >> >>>>>>mean. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>It's just that simple. No more, and no less. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Yes, it's just that simple. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>You're welcome. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>For what? Your restatement of your error? >> >>>>> >> >>>>>His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we >> >>>>>"really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. >> >>>> >> >>>>Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... >> >>> >> >>>If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, >> >>>they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. >> >> >> >>I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major >> >>religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam >> >>has a much worse continuing track record of violent >> >>intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why >> >>single out Christianity? >> > >> >I don't - they do that, they do it themselves when they crash >> >alt.atheism, when they make religiously partisan decisions in the >> >Supreme Court, when they try get creationism and its even more >> >dishonest siblic ID taught in schools, etc. >> >> OK. I feel the same way about Islamics who moved here to get >> away from the violence of Sharia law, then refuse to >> assimilate and insist on setting up the same "culture" here; >> as I understand it, it's even worse in parts of Europe. > >Where is it happening here? Muslims in America has assimilated exactly >the same as every other nationality or religion that has come here. We recently had an "honor killing" of a young adult woman by her father because she was becoming "westernized", and I've read of several similar actions for similar reasons. The only one I can discuss in some detail is the one that happened locally. The problem seems to be worse in some parts of Europe (again, not from personal knowledge); I understand that in Germany the courts have in some cases ceded authority to Sharia "justice" for members of the Islamic community, and refused to prosecute those who commit crimes in accordance with Islamic law. Such as the noted "honor killing" (which, BTW, was the father's term) I could be mistaken, but that's how I understand the situation at present. I favor the "melting pot" rather than the "salad", and have a strong belief in full assimilation. For *everyone*. -- 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 | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-F2C8F8.16255905032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110140 |
In article <3fbmdb507c3q0usiia1chqs1964u80sgs5@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:38:22 -0800, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas > <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>: > > >In article <kqhjdbljdf6550468ft3d23mrbvjpggvde@4ax.com>, > > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:35:20 -0600, the following appeared > >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> > >> >On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:05:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared > >> >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > >> >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> >> > >> >>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >> >>>wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared > >> >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > >> >>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> > >> >>>>>wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared > >> >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan > >> >>>>>><rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>><snip down to the meat of the matter> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", > >> >>>>>>>>> we > >> >>>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, > >> >>>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>We, of course, have a different one. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>What others *know* about what they believe and what they > >> >>>>>>mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they > >> >>>>>>mean. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>It's just that simple. No more, and no less. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>Yes, it's just that simple. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>You're welcome. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>For what? Your restatement of your error? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we > >> >>>>>"really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... > >> >>> > >> >>>If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, > >> >>>they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. > >> >> > >> >>I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major > >> >>religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam > >> >>has a much worse continuing track record of violent > >> >>intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why > >> >>single out Christianity? > >> > > >> >I don't - they do that, they do it themselves when they crash > >> >alt.atheism, when they make religiously partisan decisions in the > >> >Supreme Court, when they try get creationism and its even more > >> >dishonest siblic ID taught in schools, etc. > >> > >> OK. I feel the same way about Islamics who moved here to get > >> away from the violence of Sharia law, then refuse to > >> assimilate and insist on setting up the same "culture" here; > >> as I understand it, it's even worse in parts of Europe. > > > >Where is it happening here? Muslims in America has assimilated exactly > >the same as every other nationality or religion that has come here. > > We recently had an "honor killing" of a young adult woman by > her father because she was becoming "westernized", and I've > read of several similar actions for similar reasons. The > only one I can discuss in some detail is the one that > happened locally. There are several million Muslims in the US, almost all of whom are perfectly assimilated. A few outliers doesn't change that fact. And, besides, honor killing is more of a Mediterranean/Middle East custom, belonging to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It's not a big problem in the biggest Muslim country in the world--Indonesia. It happens quite regularly among Arab Christians so it seems more of a regional custom than a religious one. > The problem seems to be worse in some parts of Europe > (again, not from personal knowledge); I understand that in > Germany the courts have in some cases ceded authority to > Sharia "justice" for members of the Islamic community, and > refused to prosecute those who commit crimes in accordance > with Islamic law. Such as the noted "honor killing" (which, > BTW, was the father's term) > > I could be mistaken, but that's how I understand the > situation at present. > > I favor the "melting pot" rather than the "salad", and have > a strong belief in full assimilation. For *everyone*. Problems among immigrants almost always seem to be between the immigrant parents and their children who were born in the new country and have assimilated into their home culture. It doesn't matter what culture. By the 3rd generation, the ways of the old country seem quaint. -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <3krodbphek2tl8cjr0524ebslbe4l7s2rs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110161 |
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:26:00 -0800, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>: >In article <3fbmdb507c3q0usiia1chqs1964u80sgs5@4ax.com>, > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:38:22 -0800, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Jeanne Douglas >> <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>: >> >> >In article <kqhjdbljdf6550468ft3d23mrbvjpggvde@4ax.com>, >> > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:35:20 -0600, the following appeared >> >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:05:16 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >> >wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared >> >> >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> >> >><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >> >>>wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared >> >> >>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >> >> >>>><c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> >> >>>>>wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared >> >> >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan >> >> >>>>>><rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>><snip down to the meat of the matter> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", >> >> >>>>>>>>> we >> >> >>>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, >> >> >>>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>We, of course, have a different one. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>What others *know* about what they believe and what they >> >> >>>>>>mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they >> >> >>>>>>mean. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>It's just that simple. No more, and no less. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>Yes, it's just that simple. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>You're welcome. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>For what? Your restatement of your error? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we >> >> >>>>>"really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... >> >> >>> >> >> >>>If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, >> >> >>>they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. >> >> >> >> >> >>I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major >> >> >>religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam >> >> >>has a much worse continuing track record of violent >> >> >>intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why >> >> >>single out Christianity? >> >> > >> >> >I don't - they do that, they do it themselves when they crash >> >> >alt.atheism, when they make religiously partisan decisions in the >> >> >Supreme Court, when they try get creationism and its even more >> >> >dishonest siblic ID taught in schools, etc. >> >> >> >> OK. I feel the same way about Islamics who moved here to get >> >> away from the violence of Sharia law, then refuse to >> >> assimilate and insist on setting up the same "culture" here; >> >> as I understand it, it's even worse in parts of Europe. >> > >> >Where is it happening here? Muslims in America has assimilated exactly >> >the same as every other nationality or religion that has come here. >> >> We recently had an "honor killing" of a young adult woman by >> her father because she was becoming "westernized", and I've >> read of several similar actions for similar reasons. The >> only one I can discuss in some detail is the one that >> happened locally. > >There are several million Muslims in the US, almost all of whom are >perfectly assimilated. I would say "many", especially with the recent influx, but OK. >A few outliers doesn't change that fact. And, besides, honor killing is >more of a Mediterranean/Middle East custom, belonging to Muslims, Jews, >and Christians. It's not a big problem in the biggest Muslim country in >the world--Indonesia. It happens quite regularly among Arab Christians >so it seems more of a regional custom than a religious one. Very probably. IIRC the local perp was from Syria. >> The problem seems to be worse in some parts of Europe >> (again, not from personal knowledge); I understand that in >> Germany the courts have in some cases ceded authority to >> Sharia "justice" for members of the Islamic community, and >> refused to prosecute those who commit crimes in accordance >> with Islamic law. Such as the noted "honor killing" (which, >> BTW, was the father's term) >> >> I could be mistaken, but that's how I understand the >> situation at present. >> >> I favor the "melting pot" rather than the "salad", and have >> a strong belief in full assimilation. For *everyone*. > >Problems among immigrants almost always seem to be between the immigrant >parents and their children who were born in the new country and have >assimilated into their home culture. It doesn't matter what culture. By >the 3rd generation, the ways of the old country seem quaint. Agreed; that's how it's happened in the past. I read a comment recently that when large groups of Italians and Irish were first here, neither could even be bothered to spit on the other unless it afforded an opportunity to insert the knife; now the only detectable difference is that one group has better food and the other has better beer, and they get along fine. My concern is the apparent recent trend to emphasize differences rather than similarities, with the consequent mini-Balkanization of society. I may be seeing it as worse than it is, but the traditional melting pot seems to be under attack in favor of the salad. I hope I'm wrong. -- 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 | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976p8l.e36.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109950 |
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:21:44 -0600, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: > >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:27:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:23:34 -0600, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>: >>> >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:38:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Robert Duncan >>>>> <rob-duncan32@outlook.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/29/2016 12:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip down to the meat of the matter> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just be aware that when you say, "I don't believe God exists.", we >>>>>>>> interpret those words as "I believe that God does not exist." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly. You *interpret* it. Your interpretation, >>>>>>> unfortunately, doesn't reflect reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, of course that's nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> We, of course, have a different one. >>>>> >>>>> What others *know* about what they believe and what they >>>>> mean trumps your opinion of what they believe and what they >>>>> mean. >>>>> >>>>>> It's just that simple. No more, and no less. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's just that simple. >>>>> >>>>>> You're welcome. >>>>> >>>>> For what? Your restatement of your error? >>>> >>>> His religion has told him what our POV "really" is, and what we >>>> "really" mean - so we have no say in the matter. >>> >>> Yep, and there's the blind spot *again*. One despairs... >> >> If Christianity hadn't made them incapable of understanding others, >> they'd know just how arrogantly nasty, this is. > > I'm curious... While in the US Christianity is the major > religion (in multiple sometimes-incompatible forms), Islam > has a much worse continuing track record of violent > intolerance, especially over the past few centuries. So why > single out Christianity? I would say because tolerance is not allowed in fundamental Islam. Even the show of tolerance being a moderate is really just a sham biding ones time to removal of the tolerance. There is no one alive today in Islam which is allowed to change the meaning of what was written by Mohamed. Their statement of faith, means there is no one every going to speak for their God again. There is the same sort of warning in the Christian works there their will no other to follow Jesus as giving words of instruction. It warns of false prophets and the writer assumes all prophets follow him would be false prophets. >> But if they could understand others in the first place, they would >> accept that we know what is in our own minds, even if they don't >> understand it, so it wouldn't even get to that stage. > > Granted. The lack of ability to understand is taught by way of indoctrination, and peer pressure of the congregations. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ddu4db5p0ad2k1390efcq14rlm4vcd21l1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109768 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:12:15 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Wuss Lee
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil
>>> 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.
>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief.
>>
>>> "There's no God"
>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to pretend
>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it.
>>
>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>> All are entirely faith based,
>
>his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is
>staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief
>is just crazy. and of course one has faith in their belief being
>correct, or they wouldn't have the belief!
They make it clear that they're very ashamed of their belief while at the
same time trying to support it as they amusingly try to deny that's what they're
doing. Are they honestly stupid enough to be fooling themselves, or dishonestly
trying to pretend they're stupid enough to believe they are?
>> and I have no faith in any of those beliefs
>> being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no Easter Bunny or
>> Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions of people's homes in one night on
>> this planet, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there
>> are no such beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed to
>> deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more stupid position imo.
>
>of course
What prevents them from being able to comprehend? Are they just too stupid,
or is something else preventing them?
>>> 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.
>> What sort of evidence do you think there should be, where do you think it
>> should be, why do you think it should be available to humans, and when do you
>> think it should be or should have been made available, if there is a God
>> associated with Earth? Since you can't even attempt to answer, it's obvious that
>> the conclusion your guess has caused you to put your faith (that you're ashamed
>> of) in is entirely faith based and has nothing to do with any evidence that is
>> or is not available to humans on this planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djfih9FleecU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109780 |
On 28-February-2016 3:38 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:12:15 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Wuss Lee >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil >>>> 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. >>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. >>> >>>> "There's no God" >>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like to pretend >>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to support it. >>> >>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>> All are entirely faith based, >> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a belief >> is just crazy. and of course one has faith in their belief being >> correct, or they wouldn't have the belief! > They make it clear that they're very ashamed of their belief while at the > same time trying to support it as they amusingly try to deny that's what they're > doing. Are they honestly stupid enough to be fooling themselves, or dishonestly > trying to pretend they're stupid enough to believe they are? > >>> and I have no faith in any of those beliefs >>> being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no Easter Bunny or >>> Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions of people's homes in one night on >>> this planet, and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there >>> are no such beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed to >>> deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more stupid position imo. >> of course > What prevents them from being able to comprehend? Are they just too stupid, > or is something else preventing them? they believe what they want to believe -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96rrvp.8ca.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109785 |
felix wrote: > On 28-February-2016 3:38 PM, mur@. wrote: > >On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:12:15 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > > > > > On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Wuss Lee > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil > > > > > 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. > >>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. > > > > > > > > > "There's no God" > >>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like > to pretend > > > > there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to > > > > support it. > > > > > > > > > is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > > > > > UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >>> All are entirely faith based, > > > his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is > > > staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a > > > belief is just crazy. and of course one has faith in their belief > > > being correct, or they wouldn't have the belief! > > They make it clear that they're very ashamed of their belief > > while at the same time trying to support it as they amusingly try > > to deny that's what they're doing. Are they honestly stupid enough > > to be fooling themselves, or dishonestly trying to pretend they're > > stupid enough to believe they are? > > > > > > and I have no faith in any of those beliefs > > > > being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no > > > > Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions > > > > of people's homes in one night on this planet, and I'm not the > > > > least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there are no such > > > > beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed > > > > to deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more > > > > stupid position imo. > > > of course > > What prevents them from being able to comprehend? Are they just > > too stupid, or is something else preventing them? > > they believe what they want to believe I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these atheists. They seem to treat my firmly held and cherished beliefs as a mere joke. But I'd love to find someone who'd be willing to discuss them with me. Are you willing? Your beliefs and mine may vary in some minor details, but I'm sure they're otherwise very similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djl2sjF3qv5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109789 |
On 29-February-2016 3:15 AM, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > felix wrote: > >> On 28-February-2016 3:38 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:12:15 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Wuss Lee >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil >>>>>> 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. >>>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. >>>>> >>>>>> "There's no God" >>>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd like >> to pretend >>>>> there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence to >>>>> support it. >>>>> >>>>>> is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no >>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc. >>>>> All are entirely faith based, >>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things is >>>> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is not a >>>> belief is just crazy. and of course one has faith in their belief >>>> being correct, or they wouldn't have the belief! >>> They make it clear that they're very ashamed of their belief >>> while at the same time trying to support it as they amusingly try >>> to deny that's what they're doing. Are they honestly stupid enough >>> to be fooling themselves, or dishonestly trying to pretend they're >>> stupid enough to believe they are? >>> >>>>> and I have no faith in any of those beliefs >>>>> being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no >>>>> Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to millions >>>>> of people's homes in one night on this planet, and I'm not the >>>>> least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that there are no such >>>>> beings doing those things on Earth. In fact I'd be more ashamed >>>>> to deny my faith about it, since that would be the much more >>>>> stupid position imo. >>>> of course >>> What prevents them from being able to comprehend? Are they just >>> too stupid, or is something else preventing them? >> they believe what they want to believe > I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > atheists. They seem to treat my firmly held and cherished beliefs as a > mere joke. But I'd love to find someone who'd be willing to discuss > them with me. Are you willing? Your beliefs and mine may vary in some > minor details, but I'm sure they're otherwise very similar. > sure, happy to discuss. fire away.. :) -- "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world" -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain http://www.siotw.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9720ce.rsk.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109837 |
felix wrote: > On 29-February-2016 3:15 AM, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > felix wrote: > > > > > On 28-February-2016 3:38 PM, mur@. wrote: > >>>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:12:15 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 24-February-2016 1:40 PM, mur@. wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:47:27 -0600, Wuss Lee > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil > > > > > > > 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. > >>>>> Strong atheism is an entirely faith based belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "There's no God" > >>>>> Is undoubtedly an entirely faith based belief. If you'd > like > > > to pretend > > > > > > there's reason to doubt that fact, try presenting evidence > > > > > > to support it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no > > > > > > > UFOs". "no psychics", etc. > >>>>> All are entirely faith based, > > > > > his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things > > > > > is staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" > > > > > is not a belief is just crazy. and of course one has faith in > > > > > their belief being correct, or they wouldn't have the belief! > >>> They make it clear that they're very ashamed of their belief > > > > while at the same time trying to support it as they amusingly > > > > try to deny that's what they're doing. Are they honestly stupid > > > > enough to be fooling themselves, or dishonestly trying to > > > > pretend they're stupid enough to believe they are? > > > > > > > > > > and I have no faith in any of those beliefs > > > > > > being correct. I do have faith in the belief that there's no > > > > > > Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy going to > > > > > > millions of people's homes in one night on this planet, and > > > > > > I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit I have faith that > > > > > > there are no such beings doing those things on Earth. In > > > > > > fact I'd be more ashamed to deny my faith about it, since > > > > > > that would be the much more stupid position imo. > > > > > of course > >>> What prevents them from being able to comprehend? Are they > just > > > > too stupid, or is something else preventing them? > > > they believe what they want to believe > > I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > > atheists. They seem to treat my firmly held and cherished beliefs > > as a mere joke. But I'd love to find someone who'd be willing to > > discuss them with me. Are you willing? Your beliefs and mine may > > vary in some minor details, but I'm sure they're otherwise very > > similar. > > > > sure, happy to discuss. fire away.. :) Thanks very much, Felix, for your offer. Nice of you. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-8D61A9.18530901032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109885 |
> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > atheists. But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you theists have no adequate answers. For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims of godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <974lhb.58h.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109892 |
Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > > I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > > atheists. > > But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking > "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you theists > have no adequate answers. > > For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims of > godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our Scripture than with so-called "science".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <974n4s.ean.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109924 |
Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> >>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these >>> atheists. >> >> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking >> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you theists >> have no adequate answers. >> >> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? > > We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven > wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our Scripture > than with so-called "science". > This is where we all suppress our laughter. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9778hj.ckd.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109925 |
Bob Officer wrote: > Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > > >> > >>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > >>> atheists. > >> > >> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking > >> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you > theists >> have no adequate answers. > >> > >> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims > of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? > > > > We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven > > wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our > > Scripture than with so-called "science". > > > > This is where we all suppress our laughter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9778jt.d8r.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109925 |
Bob Officer wrote: > Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > > >> > >>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > >>> atheists. > >> > >> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking > >> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you > theists >> have no adequate answers. > >> > >> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims > of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? > > > > We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven > > wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our > > Scripture than with so-called "science". > > > > This is where we all suppress our laughter. What's so funny?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-179744.18344103032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109985 |
In article <9778jt.d8r.19.1@news.alt.net>, "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > Bob Officer wrote: > > > Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these > > >>> atheists. > > >> > > >> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking > > >> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you > > theists >> have no adequate answers. > > >> > > >> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims > > of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? > > > > > > We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven > > > wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our > > > Scripture than with so-called "science". > > > > > > > This is where we all suppress our laughter. > > What's so funny? It is even funnier when we note who it is that fails to see the humor!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977f9m.fbv.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109991 |
Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > In article <9778jt.d8r.19.1@news.alt.net>, > "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > >> Bob Officer wrote: >> >>> Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>> Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with these >>>>>> atheists. >>>>> >>>>> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking >>>>> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you >>> theists >> have no adequate answers. >>>>> >>>>> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible claims >>> of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others are wrong? >>>> >>>> We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven >>>> wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our >>>> Scripture than with so-called "science". >>>> >>> >>> This is where we all suppress our laughter. >> >> What's so funny? > > It is even funnier when we note who it is that fails to see the humor! > What was funny is how he answered. He mentioned creation and gravity. Maybe he hasn't read both of the conflicting stories in the bible and never worked with vectors in physics. It certain doesn't understand how funny he is in a tragic slapstick way. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977gci.q43.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109998 |
Bob Officer wrote: > Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > > In article <9778jt.d8r.19.1@news.alt.net>, > > "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > > > >> Bob Officer wrote: > >> > >>> Ted&Alice Street <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > >>>> Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I learned a long time ago not to waste my time arguing with > these >>>>>> atheists. > >>>>> > >>>>> But agnostics are far worse, as they keep asking > >>>>> "How do you know that?" about just those thing for which you > >>> theists >> have no adequate answers. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, "With all the varies and mutually incompatible > claims >>> of >> godly exist extant, how do you know all those others > are wrong? >>>> > >>>> We know our Scripture is right, partly because it can't be proven > >>>> wrong. Also, there are observations that agree more with our > >>>> Scripture than with so-called "science". > >>>> > >>> > >>> This is where we all suppress our laughter. > >> > >> What's so funny? > > > > It is even funnier when we note who it is that fails to see the > > humor! > > > > What was funny is how he answered. > > He mentioned creation and gravity. > > Maybe he hasn't read both of the conflicting stories in the bible and > never worked with vectors in physics. > > It certain doesn't understand how funny he is in a tragic slapstick > way. What's funny is watching you atheists deny the truths of Pastafarian Scripture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-7D13F7.23025803032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110004 |
In article <977gci.q43.19.1@news.alt.net>, "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: > What's funny is watching you atheists deny the truths of Pastafarian > Scripture. If a claim is true enough to be worth believing, it should be provable beyond all reasonable doubt, but few, if any, of the claims of any formal religions come anywhere close to being provable beyond all reasonable doubt, if for no other reason than that some other religious nut will claim it provably false beyond all reasonable doubt! For almost any claim in any religion, there is some counterclaim in some usually different religion, such that both claims cannot be simultaneously true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web