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 23 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 Next page →
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 15:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-5557D7.15100624022016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109751 |
In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote: > > > >>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote: > >> > >>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, > >>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that > >>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his > >>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I > >>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies > >>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you > >>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly > >>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied > >>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond > >>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take > >>> into consideration. > >> > >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? > > > > Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten as > > much as he > > wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the > > leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I > > wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The lies, > > the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist > > position, What "atheist position" are you talking about? -- JD "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 21:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nanq3d$r5l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:10:06 -0800, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >> >> >> >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >> > >> > Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten as >> > much as he >> > wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >> > leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I >> > wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The >> > lies, >> > the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >> > position, > > What "atheist position" are you talking about? Similar to the missionary position, but without the "Oh God!" at the end. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 16:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <96rr5a.t32.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109757 |
Smiler wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:10:06 -0800, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. > >> >> > >> >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? > >> > > >> > Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's > eaten as >> > much as he > >> > wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves > the >> > leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as > much as I >> > wanted of the same stupid things over and over and > over again. The >> > lies, > >> > the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid > atheist >> > position, > > > > What "atheist position" are you talking about? > > Similar to the missionary position, but without the "Oh God!" at the > end. LOL! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <oejvcb5sa52fn0gjiim0pga4dv6aa7eo5f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:10:06 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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.
>> >>
>> >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>> >
>> > Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten as
>> > much as he
>> > wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the
>> > leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I
>> > wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The lies,
>> > the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist
>> > position,
>
>What "atheist position" are you talking about?
There are at least two. Have you learned what either of them are yet? Here's
a clue for you in case you ever want to try to learn:
stong atheism
weak atheism
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <jidsdbtr9gnmajipil94cfs34968rfu9jm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109760 |
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:00:40 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:10:06 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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.
>>> >>
>>> >>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>>> >
>>> > Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten as
>>> > much as he
>>> > wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the
>>> > leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I
>>> > wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The lies,
>>> > the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist
>>> > position,
>>
>>What "atheist position" are you talking about?
>
> There are at least two. Have you learned what either of them are yet? Here's
>a clue for you in case you ever want to try to learn:
>
>stong atheism
>weak atheism
LOL!!! You people suck so badly at this you don't have any idea at all what
you think you're trying to talk about. Proven consistently by every one of you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 08:56 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djekfgFeo6cU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten as >>> much as he >>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I >>> wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The lies, >>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >>> position, > What "atheist position" are you talking about? > 'no god(s)'. duh! -- "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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 23:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nat9qf$10nu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109771 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote: > On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten >>>> as much as he >>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I >>>> wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The >>>> lies, >>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >>>> position, >> What "atheist position" are you talking about? >> >> > 'no god(s)'. duh! I'm an atheist and that's not my position. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 17:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <qta4db5m5ecvdm6o821o2ee8r1hbji4dft@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109772 |
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:31 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote: > >> On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >>>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten >>>>> as much as he >>>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >>>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I >>>>> wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The >>>>> lies, >>>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >>>>> position, >>> What "atheist position" are you talking about? >>> >>> >> 'no god(s)'. duh! > >I'm an atheist and that's not my position. I just wish theists had the intelligence to think outside the box, where we are and where the assumptions they use to invent positions we don't have, don't even apply. And these assumptions include their god. Outside the box, it is merely one of hundreds of different deity beliefs - and somebody else's which we don't share, at that. As such, it is irrelevant and unimportant to everybody but its believers. We wouldn't even give a thought to it, if theists kept it inside their pants^H^H^H^H^Hreligion. But they can't live and let live.
[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 | <obu4db9l2nosiphi5ftb8r99kbqksenbk2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109772 |
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote:
>
>> On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smil
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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.
>>>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>>>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten
>>>>> as much as he
>>>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the
>>>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I
>>>>> wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The
>>>>> lies,
>>>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist
>>>>> position,
>>> What "atheist position" are you talking about?
>>>
>>>
>> 'no god(s)'. duh!
>
>I'm an atheist and that's not my position.
>Smiler, The godless one.
LOL! HILARIOUS!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 17:19 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djfhvaFlapjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109779 |
On 28-February-2016 3:38 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote: >> >>> On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smil >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >>>>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>>>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten >>>>>> as much as he >>>>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >>>>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as I >>>>>> wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. The >>>>>> lies, >>>>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >>>>>> position, >>>> What "atheist position" are you talking about? >>>> >>>> >>> 'no god(s)'. duh! >> I'm an atheist and that's not my position. >> Smiler, The godless one. > LOL! HILARIOUS!!! LOL!! -- "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 | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 19:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <navgpb$8ug$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109779 |
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:38:00 -0500, mur wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote: > >>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote: >> >>> On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smil wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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. >>>>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now? >>>>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten >>>>>> as much as he >>>>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the >>>>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as >>>>>> I wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again. >>>>>> The lies, >>>>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist >>>>>> position, >>>> What "atheist position" are you talking about? >>>> >>>> >>> 'no god(s)'. duh! >> >>I'm an atheist and that's not my position. > >>Smiler, The godless one. > > LOL! HILARIOUS!!! Godless, in that I don't have one, not that there aren't any. Or does homeless mean that there are no homes in your world? But we know that you are senseless. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <3cf7dbpeid8dt9u338h4leitldk9se70u3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109794 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:11:39 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:38:00 -0500, mur wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:00:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:56:19 +1100, felix wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25-February-2016 10:10 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article <naknjk$1o1m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Smil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:39:54 -0500, mur 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.
>>>>>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>>>>>>> Like a person "runs away" from a plate of food when he's eaten
>>>>>>> as much as he
>>>>>>> wants of it. Sometimes the person "runs away" from it but saves the
>>>>>>> leftovers to eat later. In the case here I certainly got as much as
>>>>>>> I wanted of the same stupid things over and over and over again.
>>>>>>> The lies,
>>>>>>> the insults, the lies, the inability to support the stupid atheist
>>>>>>> position,
>>>>> What "atheist position" are you talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 'no god(s)'. duh!
>>>
>>>I'm an atheist and that's not my position.
>>
>>>Smiler, The godless one.
>>
>> LOL! HILARIOUS!!!
>
>Godless, in that I don't have one,
How would you like people to think you yourself could have one?
>not that there aren't any.
How would you like people to think that if there are any, you could prevent
any from having you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 21:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-1C5682.21334128022016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109805 |
The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone else claims!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 23:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb0irk$p12$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109814 |
On 2/28/2016 11:33 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than > no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone > else claims! > Why should that even bother you, someone who supposedly claims they do not believe that any gods exist? For me, that makes absolutely no sense at all. It's like you don't know what you don't believe. It's like you're more agnostic than you are atheist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <q81adb50056gfp6dgtmfs3qcglkp0fep9d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109814 |
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than >no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone >else claims! 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9701lp.gq1.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109831 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > >> The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than >> no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone >> else claims! > > 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all > who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what > they call him or what they think about him. > Assertion without evidence. See the Post hoc fallacy. -- 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 | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:04 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djlbdfF5vl4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109831 |
On 01-March-2016 1:57 PM, mur@. wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: > >> The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than >> no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone >> else claims! > 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all > who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what > they call him or what they think about him. what was number 1? is there a number 3? 4,5,6, etc., -- "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 | mur@. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 21:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <usjcdbt00q4e7vmkvh1j08k4qg4ftj442k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109849 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:04:29 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >On 01-March-2016 1:57 PM, mur@. wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >> >>> The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than >>> no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone >>> else claims! >> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >> they call him or what they think about him. > >what was number 1? is there a number 3? 4,5,6, etc., 1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien. 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what they call him or what they think about him. 3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do would be natural for them. 4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he could not provide proof of his existence because doing so would change things too much. 5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those particular characteristics to God if he exists. 6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist he or she is, or is not. 7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does. 8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2. 9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a necessary part of being a strong atheist. 10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often. 11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically. 12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically. 13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became gods. 14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him" in most if not all canonical texts.) 15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have. 16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary method of creation. 17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 05:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <972k05.eub.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109894 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:04:29 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: > >> On 01-March-2016 1:57 PM, mur@. wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >>> >>>> The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than >>>> no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone >>>> else claims! >>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all >>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what >>> they call him or what they think about him. >> >> what was number 1? is there a number 3? 4,5,6, etc., > > 1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien. Post hoc fallacy. And False Assumption of without evidence. > 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all > who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what > they call him or what they think about him. Second false assumption without evidence. Or maybe closer to,post hoc fallacy. > 3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do > would be natural for them. Another false assumption in gods... No evidence exist to support an assumption. > 4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he > could not provide proof of his existence because doing > so would change things too much. Still another exercise in false assumptions. It's so mur has not training in application of basic logic. > 5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to > make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning > those particular characteristics to God if he exists. Yet those two terms are applied to so-call god of the Christian-Judaeo cult. > 6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a > person has that God does not exist is what determines how > strong an atheist he or she is, or is not. Sorry, using the word belief disqualifies this statement in an discussion. > 7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find > it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility > that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does. Use of the term belief assumes a priori, and thus disqualifies the line of discussion. > 8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find > it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2. Requires an false assumption on a false priori. > > 9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually try to > deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is a > necessary part of being a strong atheist. Faith is a belief in dogma. A false be If. This is a false rationalization in a belief system. Something an atheist does have. This is the falsehood theist try to create, an atheist believe in no gods. when an atheist simple doesn't have any need to have a belief at all. > > 10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have > originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often. Non sequitur > > 11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely > beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate > and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic > realistically. A Bias and false assumption in beliefs one way or an other. An atheist has no beliefs. > 12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing > the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy, > the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc > encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere > with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically. However too many people,made the simple complai radon between the canasta of one and the fans any of the other. > 13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically > advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became > gods. If is a mighty fudge word. What it means is you are not sure but afraid of the truth. > 14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any > particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out > of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him" > in most if not all canonical texts.) > The truth is you are grasping at any life.line and not finding one from any so called gods. > 15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence > over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have. > > 16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary > method of creation. > > 17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are > most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet. > You have nothing to support the empty and baseless claim of gods or a god. Pack you bags and go home. -- 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 | 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <11cfdblr4keonsrh3qsa1ulmldi3dks7fk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109898 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 05:41:55 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
><mur@.> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:04:29 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01-March-2016 1:57 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:33:41 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The trouble with those people who claim to have their own gods is than
>>>>> no two of those people ever seem to claim quite the same god as anyone
>>>>> else claims!
>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>>
>>> what was number 1? is there a number 3? 4,5,6, etc.,
>>
>> 1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
>
>Post hoc fallacy.
>And
>False Assumption of without evidence.
There is ONLY evidence of that, but I challenge you to try to pretend God
could be a native of Earth if he exists, to support you claims. I already know
in advance though that the challenge defeats you so entirely you can't even make
an attempt.
>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>> they call him or what they think about him.
>
>Second false assumption without evidence. Or maybe closer to,post hoc
>fallacy.
There is ONLY evidence of that, but I challenge you to try to pretend that
if there is a creator associated with this planet some who refer to him are
somehow actually referring to different creators, to support you claims.
>> 3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
>> would be natural for them.
>
>
>Another false assumption in gods... No evidence exist to support an
>assumption.
There's nothing to support your assumption that some things that happen are
supernatural.
>> 4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
>> could not provide proof of his existence because doing
>> so would change things too much.
>
>Still another exercise in false assumptions.
Try to support your assumption that God could provide proof of his existence
without changing things significantly.
>> 5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
>> make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
>> those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
>
>Yet those two terms are applied to so-call god of the Christian-Judaeo
>cult.
Try to explain how you'd like people to believe they are possible.
>> 6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
>> person has that God does not exist is what determines how
>> strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.
>
>Sorry, using the word belief disqualifies this statement in an discussion.
That's a blatant lie but if it were true it would also disqualifies your
objection.
>> 7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
>> it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
>> that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.
>
>Use of the term belief assumes a priori, and thus disqualifies the line of
>discussion.
That's a blatant lie but if it were true it would also disqualifies your
objection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web