A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"THIS is my Letter to the World!"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 7th 12, 12:58 AM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
Fred Hall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default "THIS is my Letter to the World!"

Uncle Steve wrote on 1/6/2012 in :

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:58:36PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:35:14PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative

propositions.
Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very

well, do you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar

probes and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology,
and then ask you to disprove my assertions. Your question
amounts to the same thing. No sane person is going to allow you
to make that kind of set-up and then get down to work to disprove
your idiot assertions.

I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no

proof and that you're basing it on 'faith'.


There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.


Nonsense.


To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.


Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?

One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions.


No, I'm just asking for your PROOF of what you have asserted. Failing
that, I await your admission that you have none other than 'faith'.

Bull****. You're shilling for faith because you're a brainwashed
moron. And that's your problem. No one else is responsible for your
committal to religious ideology. Just you.


No, I'm am 'shilling' AGAINST faith as an argument, including YOUR
faith. That's why I keep asking you for PROOF of your assertions.
Thanks for the fine example of how you religious fundamentalists are
unable to think outside your own hidebound dogmas.

Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.


Poppycock. Apparently your only 'defense' of your assertion is to
constitute twisting and outright lies. So be it.

You're only going to convince morons that a projection of your own
rhetorical shortcomings magically absolves you of the responsibility
of your own ideological convictions. It must suck to be so weak that
you can't even stand behind your own thoughts and opinions.


What are you gibbering about now? YOU are the one making assertions
and then proving unable to offer any proof for them. Just like every
other religious zealot.

Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.


My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.

Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you.


This appears to be the outcome in this case, presumably stemming from
the poor quality of the person disagreeing with me.

If you had a clue you wouldn't be sitting on your fat ass pretending
to be arguing your position when in fact you are engaging in PR spin-
doctoring. Again, it must suck to be so weak as to make one unable to
handle the real world as it is.


What really sucks is to be a religious zealot like you, who, when
called on his assertions devolves into insult as his only tactic.

Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.


Which "PR bull****" would that be?

So, can you PROVE your claim or not? Yes or no?

I'm sure all the morons on Usenet are impress with your rhetorical
prowess.


Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I

thought you might make some sort of pointless excursion
towards illustrating how or why religious people claim to know
certain things as contrasted to the way I use the verb 'know',
as in my previous message above.

You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm

still waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same

as evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.

You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.


And your dog is apparently stuffed.

Can you offer any proof for your assertion? Yes or no?

As much as you might find it amusing to insist that your opponents are
required to address and answer stupid questions, those of us with more
than half a brain are not so encumbered. If I were you, I wouldn't be
asking someone to prove that 'god' doesn't exist as it is a
meaningless question as stated. For one thing, it assumes that there
is some reason to presuppose that 'god' exists, and does so without
one shred of evidence.


Nonsense. It's pathetic that this is the only 'argument' you can come
up with. YOU made specific claims. YOU act as if you're not the same
as other folks making claims based on faith. So where's your proof?


It is much better to ask what people mean when they use the term 'god'
in speech or writing. So, Fred, what do you mean when you use the
term 'god' and 'exists' in the same sentence?


That would rather depend on the remainder of the sentence, now
wouldn't it?


I recognize the
futility of imagining that you'll supply an honest response to this
question. As we know, religious people behave very differently when
someone is watching, as opposed to times when you feel you are not
observed.


Hell, you won't even answer a simple yes/no question and now you're
bawling your eyes out from all the smoke you're trying to raise over
the whichness of the why?


The real problem here, which you seem desperate to conceal, is that
'god' in colloquial use is a word without a proper definition. That
is, when people use the term they may be making reference to any of
several distinct and contradictory meanings, but invariably they fall
back on the 'supreme being' definition when called on it. This
follows from the idea that some people hold that their calling in life
is to manifest 'god's' will on Earth through the mechanics of their
actions and faith. In doing so, they recapitulate the agency of their
will to a fictional concept and deny personal responsibility for
their actions. Never mind people who have a 'god complex', such as
doctors with an inflated sense of their own importance.

This is not to say some stupid and credulous individuals don't believe
in a supreme deity owing to their inability to conceive natural
phenomenon in rational terms. But the point to be made here is that
'god' isn't the simple concept you right-tards make it out to be, and
your insistence in proof of non-existence is merely one way that you
confuse the issues. I imagine you think that all the distortion and
misdirection is helpful in brainwashing your children so they will be
largely unable to think clearly about religion and its real-world
costs.

So declare yourself the 'winner' of the discussion and move on to the
next sucker.


Now that you've raved away through all that, I'll simply point out
that I tend to use the word "deities" when I ask the question, not
'god' as you try to misdirect things.

Might I suggest you learn to read and then buy yourself a nice
dictionary?

But you keep stroking yourself, Stevie. I'm sure SOMEONE must be
convinced...


I know what the problem is. You're hoping to get your very own entry
in my active killfile. Nice try, but it won't work. The killfile is
for people who deserve killfiling. You're just an annoying git who
tries too hard to be an annoying git.


PKB noted and giggled at.

What a ********



Regards,

Uncle Steve


Regards,

Uncle Fred

--

  #72  
Old January 7th 12, 04:05 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Uncle Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default "THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to
provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to
try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no
question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion.

He's just another unthinking religious zealot.


I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument.
My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character
assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons.

Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and
insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of
psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses.

Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you
abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be
a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and
Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

  #73  
Old January 7th 12, 10:31 PM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Uncle Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default "THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to
provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to
try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no
question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion.

He's just another unthinking religious zealot.


I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument.


And yet you go on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on.....


My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character
assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons.


I have yet to see any evidence of character on your part, Stevie.
There is a difference between having character and being one.


It rather looks like you're the one imposing your prejudices and being
an unreasonable bumbler.

You made the assertion. You refuse to even answer whether or not you
have any proof, much less produce any. And yet you object to it being
pointed out that you are precisely like every other religious zealot
on the planet; expostulating things based purely on your own faith and
then attacking people based on your own delusional stereotypes when
they point that out.


I can't imagine why you think your rhetorical style is at all
respectable. You sound like a petulant spoiled child who will do
nearly anything for attention. Grow the **** up.

Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and
insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of
psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses.


Typical of religious zealots is a tendency to be unable to think
outside their own religious dogma and stereotypes. This leads to them
misunderstanding, well, virtually everyone.


If you find the company of infantile egos comforting that have at it.
Expecting intelligent people to accommodate themselves to your desired
level of stupid is, well, infantile.

Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you
abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be
a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and
Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby.


Stevie, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you
abandon your religious zeal in Fundamentalist AtheistLand. While it
may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run.
Oh, and Stevie, you would certainly know by now how people feel about
a cry-baby.


You idiots keep breeding them, winding them up, and sending them out,
so, yeah, I've seen lots of cry-babies.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

  #74  
Old January 8th 12, 01:40 AM posted to sci.military.naval,sci.space.policy,rec.arts.poems
Uncle Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default "THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 03:26:27PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to
provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to
try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no
question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion.

He's just another unthinking religious zealot.

I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument.


And yet you go on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And
on.....


My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character
assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons.


I have yet to see any evidence of character on your part, Stevie.
There is a difference between having character and being one.


It rather looks like you're the one imposing your prejudices and being
an unreasonable bumbler.


Fortunately I don't fee responsible for how things look to raving
idiots like you.

You made the assertion. You refuse to even answer whether or not you
have any proof, much less produce any. And yet you object to it being
pointed out that you are precisely like every other religious zealot
on the planet; expostulating things based purely on your own faith and
then attacking people based on your own delusional stereotypes when
they point that out.


I can't imagine why you think your rhetorical style is at all
respectable. You sound like a petulant spoiled child who will do
nearly anything for attention. Grow the **** up.


You're the one who has found it necessary to devolve into profanity
and insults while steadfastly avoiding the original issue.

Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and
insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of
psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses.


Typical of religious zealots is a tendency to be unable to think
outside their own religious dogma and stereotypes. This leads to them
misunderstanding, well, virtually everyone.


If you find the company of infantile egos comforting that have at it.


No thanks. I don't care for your company.


Expecting intelligent people to accommodate themselves to your desired
level of stupid is, well, infantile.


Keep raving, assclown. Perhaps someone should point out to you that
when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should consider
doing is STOP DIGGING.

Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you
abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be
a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and
Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby.

Stevie, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you
abandon your religious zeal in Fundamentalist AtheistLand. While it
may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run.
Oh, and Stevie, you would certainly know by now how people feel about
a cry-baby.


You idiots keep breeding them, winding them up, and sending them out,
so, yeah, I've seen lots of cry-babies.


What are you gibbering on about now? Which collective 'you' do you
think you're referring to?


Your rhetorical style puts you in the same class as those who breed
morons. To simple for ya?


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" Michael Gray Misc 0 April 18th 06 04:18 AM
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" Michael Gray Misc 0 April 17th 06 11:58 AM
On inroads by the right's "ID" and creationism: Open letter to AAAS president Omenn [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 February 22nd 06 06:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.