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 14 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 24 Next page →
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97bj26.gqo.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110126 |
Alex W. wrote: > On 04/03/2016 22:09, Ted&Alice Street wrote: > > Bob Casanova wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following > > > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > > > <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > > > > > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > > > > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > > > > > > > Beliefs need no proof. > > > > > > > Assertions do. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > > > > > > > > > > No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > > > > > > > > Isn't it also a "tenant"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > > > > > anyone else to have the same belief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or the same "tenant", right? > > > > > > The first time you posted that I assumed it was an > > > intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so > > > sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for > > > the word "tenet"? > > > > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" > > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, > > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep > > trying. > > > > With a mind as shallow as his, an ant would need stilts to sink.... LOL. True. His mind is shallow but his skull is thick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <p2amdb5q61pu2uk86spp3pd77nrticcbi2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110067 |
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> > >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. >> >> >> Assertions do. >> >> > >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >> >> >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >> > >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? >> > >> >> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >> >> anyone else to have the same belief. >> >> >> > >> > Or the same "tenant", right? >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >> the word "tenet"? > >Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate expression becomes more "optional". /end rant/ -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97c16a.tod.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110135 |
Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > > > Bob Casanova wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following > >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > >> > >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. > >> >> >> Assertions do. > >> >> > > >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > >> >> > >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > >> > > >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? > >> > > >> >> > >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > >> >> anyone else to have the same belief. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Or the same "tenant", right? > >> > >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an > >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so > >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for > >> the word "tenet"? > > > > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" > > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, > > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep > > trying. > > OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the > same error (along with many others - breech/breach, > brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently > in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only > get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate > expression becomes more "optional". > > /end rant/ I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "%" <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97ce58.9ar.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110143 |
Ted&Alice Street wrote: > Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>> >>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>>> >>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>>> the word "tenet"? >>> >>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" >>> when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, >>> he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep >>> trying. >> >> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >> same error (along with many others - breech/breach, >> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >> expression becomes more "optional". >> >> /end rant/ > > I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck. i certainly don't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <49rodbtmci81opvdaa0neqqtek0odklkv2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110143 |
On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 19:22:17 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >Bob Casanova wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >> > Bob Casanova wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >> >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. >> >> >> >> Assertions do. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >> >> > >> >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >> >> >> anyone else to have the same belief. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Or the same "tenant", right? >> >> >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >> >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >> >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >> >> the word "tenet"? >> > >> > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" >> > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, >> > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep >> > trying. >> >> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >> same error (along with many others - breech/breach, >> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >> expression becomes more "optional". >> >> /end rant/ > >I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck. I primarily blame an education system which has abdicated responsibility for education in favor of "feel good" and "self actualization". And, of course, tweeting. ;-) -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97ei2e.i3u.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110179 |
Bob Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 19:22:17 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > > > Bob Casanova wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following > >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > >> > >> > Bob Casanova wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following > >> >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > >> >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > >> >> > >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> >> >> > Robert Duncan wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. > >> >> >> >> Beliefs need no proof. > >> >> >> >> Assertions do. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. > >> >> > > >> >> > Isn't it also a "tenant"? > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or > >> >> >> anyone else to have the same belief. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Or the same "tenant", right? > >> >> > >> >> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an > >> >> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so > >> >> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for > >> >> the word "tenet"? > >> > > >> > Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" > >> > when he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, > >> > he hasn't given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep > >> > trying. > >> > >> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the > >> same error (along with many others - breech/breach, > >> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently > >> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only > >> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate > >> expression becomes more "optional". > >> > >> /end rant/ > > > > I sympathize with your rant. Too few people seem to give a fuck. > > I primarily blame an education system which has abdicated > responsibility for education in favor of "feel good" and > "self actualization". And, of course, tweeting. ;-) So I've heard. How stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <dk2j3nFijllU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110135 |
On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following > appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" > <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: > >> Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>> >>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>> >>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>> >>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>> >>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>> the word "tenet"? >> >> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. > > OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the > same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, > brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently > in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only > get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate > expression becomes more "optional". > > /end rant/ > Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot. :-) It goes beyond education, IMO. The media (in particular print) are under strong pressure to control costs. So one editor will be asked to do the job of two or three. Proof-readers will be replaced by spellchecking software. Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation software and feed their articles directly into the system. This means that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience. Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking pettifoggery. Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong. Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <54sodbpimaiha5et51kc8f19p2qa1bgd26@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110174 |
On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >> >>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>> >>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>>> >>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>>> the word "tenet"? >>> >>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. >> >> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, >> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >> expression becomes more "optional". >> >> /end rant/ >> > >Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot. > >:-) Oooh! A threefer! ;-) >It goes beyond education, IMO. The media (in particular print) are >under strong pressure to control costs. So one editor will be asked to >do the job of two or three. Proof-readers will be replaced by >spellchecking software. Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation >software and feed their articles directly into the system. This means >that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience. Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly. >Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking >pettifoggery. Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks >of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that >they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong. > >Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who >will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in >flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the >vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage. That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as good as anyone's!" -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <dk59feF9fvnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110183 |
On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: > >> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>> >>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>>> >>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>>>> >>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>>>> the word "tenet"? >>>> >>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. >>> >>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, >>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >>> expression becomes more "optional". >>> >>> /end rant/ >>> >> >> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot. >> >> :-) > > Oooh! A threefer! ;-) I have my moments. :-) > >> It goes beyond education, IMO. The media (in particular print) are >> under strong pressure to control costs. So one editor will be asked to >> do the job of two or three. Proof-readers will be replaced by >> spellchecking software. Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation >> software and feed their articles directly into the system. This means >> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience. > > Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless > for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly. That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt font ... English is a language replete with homonyms. That alone should require a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these. > >> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking >> pettifoggery. Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks >> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that >> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong. >> >> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who >> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in >> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the >> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage. > > That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as > good as anyone's!" > The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <g9irdblg4ci2uctpjiu4h2a8ungu2106v1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110186 |
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:11:25 +0000, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >> >>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>> >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>>>>> >>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>>>>> the word "tenet"? >>>>> >>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. >>>> >>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, >>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >>>> expression becomes more "optional". >>>> >>>> /end rant/ >>>> >>> >>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot. >>> >>> :-) >> >> Oooh! A threefer! ;-) > >I have my moments. >:-) > > >> >>> It goes beyond education, IMO. The media (in particular print) are >>> under strong pressure to control costs. So one editor will be asked to >>> do the job of two or three. Proof-readers will be replaced by >>> spellchecking software. Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation >>> software and feed their articles directly into the system. This means >>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience. >> >> Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless >> for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly. > >That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt >font ... > >English is a language replete with homonyms. That alone should require >a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these. That would seem to apply more to voice-input applications than to typed input, since spellcheck only determines if a particular word is valid, not that it's used correctly; I assume (never having used voice input, and probably erroneously) that potential homonym issues are flagged in the printout. And it would be advantageous if the "trained human eye" were also more than semi-literate. >>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking >>> pettifoggery. Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks >>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that >>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong. >>> >>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who >>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in >>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the >>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage. >> >> That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as >> good as anyone's!" >> > >The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they >are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not >nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas. Too true... -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97h85n.8ap.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110186 |
Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/03/2016 18:05, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:37:27 +0000, the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>: >> >>> On 05/03/2016 18:45, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>> >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 02:23:23 +0000 (UTC), the following >>>>>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ted&Alice Street" >>>>>> <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:24 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My claim is that I believe the book is the Word of God. >>>>>>>>>> Beliefs need no proof. >>>>>>>>>> Assertions do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your basic assertion is that book is the word of God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you're wrong. It's a belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't it also a "tenant"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not an assertion, because I'm not trying to get you or >>>>>>>> anyone else to have the same belief. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or the same "tenant", right? >>>>>> >>>>>> The first time you posted that I assumed it was an >>>>>> intentional joke and responded accordingly; now I'm not so >>>>>> sure. Is it possible you're serious, and are grasping for >>>>>> the word "tenet"? >>>>> >>>>> Neither. The illiterate christer fuckwit Robert writes "tenants" when >>>>> he means "tenets" and I'm trying to educate him. But so far, he hasn't >>>>> given me any indication that it's sunk in, so I keep trying. >>>> >>>> OK. You might want to give it up as a bad job, since the >>>> same error (along with *many* others - breech/breach, >>>> brooch/broach, led/lead, etc. ad nauseum - occur frequently >>>> in newspapers and books, and on websites. And it can only >>>> get worse as education becomes further degraded and accurate >>>> expression becomes more "optional". >>>> >>>> /end rant/ >>>> >>> >>> Irregardless of anything else, I like your sediments allot. >>> >>> :-) >> >> Oooh! A threefer! ;-) > > I have my moments. > :-) > > >> >>> It goes beyond education, IMO. The media (in particular print) are >>> under strong pressure to control costs. So one editor will be asked to >>> do the job of two or three. Proof-readers will be replaced by >>> spellchecking software. Journalists will be encouraged to use dictation >>> software and feed their articles directly into the system. This means >>> that mistakes will not be caught before they hit the audience. >> >> Agreed. And, as you note, spellcheck is essentially useless >> for this sort of thing even *if* it works correctly. > > That "if" deserves to be capitalised, underlined and printed in a 36pt > font ... > > English is a language replete with homonyms. That alone should require > a trained human eye because no computer can ever properly decypher these. > > >> >>> Plus, of course, there seems to be a general disdain for such nitpicking >>> pettifoggery. Complain about typos, and you will likely receive looks >>> of pity or even scorn from people who are so used to these errors that >>> they do not even perceive them anymore as wrong. >>> >>> Not to mention that there will always be at least one smart aleck who >>> will trot out the old line that "English is always changing, always in >>> flux, so this is only natural evolution" .... and so gloss over the >>> vital difference between natural change in a language and simple bad usage. >> >> That seems to have become fairly common: "My opinion is as >> good as anyone's!" >> > > The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they > are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not > nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas. Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next opinion. The saddest thing to happen is the start of eye witness new. This happens when a camera and mic get put into the face of someone on the street for an report... Which might not even be factual. -- 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 | 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aqdsdb9i4j1pof33ua0ftqj9m5i72clp5v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110188 |
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next
>opinion.
Like yours for example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <97im3a.g2d.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110191 |
<mur@.> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Nor should every persons opinion be giving the same weight as the next >> opinion. > > Like yours for example. > How ever my opinion is qualified with date and evidence. Your opinion is hear-say and faulty logic. -- 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 | 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <3qdsdbd1hd3j5ob89p1mc6jogjuc10o8ef@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #110186 |
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:11:25 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >The aphorism that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they >are not entitled to their own facts" (attributed to DP Moynihan) is not >nearly as widely known let alone appreciated as it should be, alas. The opinion of the strong atheist is no more fact based than that of any other religious belief but instead is completely dependant on the faith of the atheist that his or her opinion happens to be correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djrgp6Foe55U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109941 |
On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>> >>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>> >>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>> >>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>> >>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>> >>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>> >>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>> talking about. >> >> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... > > And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? > > You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and > distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two > thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty > of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". Argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually DID is quite another.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nba5u3$uv3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109956 |
On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: > On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> A: I'm a monotheist. >>>>> >>>>> No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >>>>> way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >>>>> though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >>>>> existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >>>> >>>> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >>>> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >>>> >>>> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >>>> >>>> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" >>>> >>>> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >>>> >>>> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >>>> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >>>> wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were >>>> talking about. >>> >>> If you believe in the biblical god, you are effectively a polytheist. >>> Because judging by your own scripture, your god is either suffering from >>> Multiple Personality Disorder, or he is in fact several gods. Even >>> disregarding the theological contortions of trinitarianism, your Old >>> Testament god is a vengeful, spiteful, violent deity who likes to smite >>> and strike down and kill people on a global scale for any and all >>> infractions (when he is not busy "testing" the faithful in inventive and >>> cruel ways) ... and then he magically turns into the lovely-dovey god of >>> infinite love, forgiveness and benevolence in the sequel. There's >>> precious little "mono" about your theism, in other words.... >> >> And I'll bet you wish you knew what you are talking about, don't you? >> >> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". > > Argumentum ad populum. > Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, > nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. No, you're wrong. I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case. > As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is > capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of > the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or > the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually > DID is quite another. Well, all you're doing is merely pronouncing judgement on God, according to your moral standards. But if you want to make it stick, make it count for something, then you have to prove that God did something contrary to his nature, something contrary to his moral standards, not yours. See how that works? Good luck. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <7ughdbl0dciqr0vq0691bp42j1lq38l632@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109970 |
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:16:57 -0500, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: snip >> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >> DID is quite another. > >Well, all you're doing is merely pronouncing judgement on God, according >to your moral standards. > >But if you want to make it stick, make it count for something, then you >have to prove that God did something contrary to his nature, something >contrary to his moral standards, not yours. > >See how that works? > >Good luck. > ><smirk> A God of love would not create people just destroy them. I wonder if you think God enjoys damning people to hell, as in, for example saying, "I think I'll leave this person here as an unregenerate; boy,will it be fun to watch him burn in hell!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbaic9$fu0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109980 |
On 3/3/2016 6:14 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote: > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:16:57 -0500, Robert Duncan > <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > snip > >>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >>> DID is quite another. >> >> Well, all you're doing is merely pronouncing judgement on God, according >> to your moral standards. >> >> But if you want to make it stick, make it count for something, then you >> have to prove that God did something contrary to his nature, something >> contrary to his moral standards, not yours. >> >> See how that works? >> >> Good luck. >> >> <smirk> > > A God of love would not create people just destroy them. Unsupported assertion noted and dismissed as irrelevant. > I wonder if you think God enjoys damning people to hell, as in, for > example saying, "I think I'll leave this person here as an > unregenerate; boy,will it be fun to watch him burn in hell!" You're only revealing how very little you actually know about what you're pretending to know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Apollo <nowhere@def.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nowhere-5DAFB9.22363803032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109982 |
In article <nbaic9$fu0$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 6:14 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:16:57 -0500, Robert Duncan > > <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > >>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is > >>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of > >>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or > >>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually > >>> DID is quite another. > >> > >> Well, all you're doing is merely pronouncing judgement on God, according > >> to your moral standards. > >> > >> But if you want to make it stick, make it count for something, then you > >> have to prove that God did something contrary to his nature, something > >> contrary to his moral standards, not yours. > >> > >> See how that works? > >> > >> Good luck. > >> > >> <smirk> > > > > A God of love would not create people just destroy them. > > Unsupported assertion noted and dismissed as irrelevant. > > > I wonder if you think God enjoys damning people to hell, as in, for > > example saying, "I think I'll leave this person here as an > > unregenerate; boy,will it be fun to watch him burn in hell!" > > You're only revealing how very little you actually know about > what you're pretending to know. The issue is whether anyone can actually know what you theists all claim to know, particularly when your claims are in direct conflict with the claims of so many other theists having other gods. You claim them damned and they claim you damned. Maybe both groups are right!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbbtoc$uo7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110020 |
On 3/4/2016 12:36 AM, Apollo wrote: > In article <nbaic9$fu0$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/3/2016 6:14 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:16:57 -0500, Robert Duncan >>> <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> snip >>> >>>>> As for omnipotence, I was speaking not about what your god claims he is >>>>> capable of but of his actions. Omnipotence is immaterial in the face of >>>>> the actual track record. What your god could have done with Abraham or >>>>> the people of Jericho or humanity itself is one thing, what he actually >>>>> DID is quite another. >>>> >>>> Well, all you're doing is merely pronouncing judgement on God, according >>>> to your moral standards. >>>> >>>> But if you want to make it stick, make it count for something, then you >>>> have to prove that God did something contrary to his nature, something >>>> contrary to his moral standards, not yours. >>>> >>>> See how that works? >>>> >>>> Good luck. >>>> >>>> <smirk> >>> >>> A God of love would not create people just destroy them. >> >> Unsupported assertion noted and dismissed as irrelevant. >> >>> I wonder if you think God enjoys damning people to hell, as in, for >>> example saying, "I think I'll leave this person here as an >>> unregenerate; boy,will it be fun to watch him burn in hell!" >> >> You're only revealing how very little you actually know about >> what you're pretending to know. > > The issue is whether anyone can actually know what you theists all claim > to know, particularly when your claims are in direct conflict with the > claims of so many other theists having other gods. You claim them damned > and they claim you damned. Maybe both groups are right! I seriously doubt that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web