XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet
XPost: sci.skeptic

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:07:45 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
.
>On 17-September-2014 5:39 AM, BruceS wrote:
>
>> On 09/16/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:06:20 +1000, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>
>>>> On 16-September-2014 12:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15-September-2014 3:38 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:18:11 +1000, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14-September-2014 4:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:48 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:38:03 -0700, Bob Casanova continued
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence:
>>>>>>> well duh! it aint called 'religious faith' for no reason. you either
>>>>>>> accept what evidence there is eg. the biblical record, testimony,
>>>>>>> etc.,
>>>>>>> or you don't
>>>>>> Once more, followups set appropriately, to those groups
>>>>>> which accept subjective evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> listen you f*n wanker.. I'm REPLYING in a THREAD, that YOU are posting
>>>>> to in alt.agnosticsm. if you don't like it then just suck it up. YOU
>>>>> don't get to tell me where I can post or not! but what *IS* your
>>>>> problem?? you are discussing with mur who is replying in sci.sceptic,
>>>>> so why single me out to demand I do not reply? I will reply in any
>>>>> thread as it appears in alt.agnosticism and not make any adjustments
>>>>> just to suit your pathetic sensitivities! so go screw yerself yer
>>>>> wanker!! it's not my fault that you can't handle the truth!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that reply was somewhat emotional so let me explain it all to you
>>>> factually.. YOU post FROM sci.skeptic in a thread that appears in
>>>> alt.agnosticism. I post in alt.agnosticism, therefore I see what you
>>>> post here. by demanding that I do not include the ng sci.skeptic in a
>>>> reply to anything that you post in alt.agnosticism is effectively
>>>> denying me a right of reply to your comments, since if I were to reply
>>>> only to the other groups in the thread, you would not see my reply.
>>>> this
>>>> is what you want of course- to have your say but deny me mine. it is
>>>> cowardly behaviour, and it indicates that you lack confidence in your
>>>> ability to rebut any arguments I have or might put forward. it is in in
>>>> fact an endorsement of the veracity of my remarks, since you are
>>>> 'running scared' from them.
>>>
>>> I don't give a diddly-shit if I see your reply or not. *You*
>>> are posting in sci.skeptic (regardless of who added it),
>>> sci.skeptic is where I read it, and *I* did not start the
>>> thread. If you wish to have your interpretation of the
>>> meaning of "evidence" be restricted to other than objective,
>>> simply *don't post in a sci newsgroup*. If you continue to
>>> post in sci.skeptic, I will continue to ask for evidence
>>> acceptable to science. It's just as simple as that. And if
>>> you remove sci.skeptic from your reply (if any) to this post
>>> it will be of no importance to me. HANL.
>>
>> Now I'm a bit curious whether the people in alt.agnosticism really
>> don't care about evidence.
>
>we care a hell of a lot more about it than atheists do becuase we accept
>what evidence exists and deal with it, unlike your mob you want to limit
>what may be considered evidence to suit yourselves

    Yet not one of them has the slightest clue what sort of evidence they think
there should be, or where they think it should be...LOL...or why they think it
should be there if God exists. Even after all this time just describing the
position they're in is still hilarious.

>> I would think evidence would be one of their more serious points of
>> interest. Oh well, maybe mysticism and superstition have become all
>> the rage over there. The point stands though, that Bob keeps resetting
>> followups to avoid the group with a definite interest in evidence
>> (actual *objective* evidence, not just "I want to believe"), and Felix
>> keeps adding it back. Felix, if you'd just leave the group list
>> correctly set, then you'd get the last word in those "I like fairy
>> stories and have no clue what science is" groups. Isn't that all for
>> the best?
>
>well you have it all wrong. *I* 'leave the group list correctly set' as
>it always has been. the thread is crossposted. It has been running in
>alt.agnosticism AND alt.atheism, alt.christnet,
>talk.philosophy.humanism, and ski.skeptic since 20th August, and Bob
>Wankanover has been happily posting and discussing in it with the
>headers unchanged, with no cause for concern apparently, UNTIL I posted
>a comment on the 14th. September, at which point it suddenly became
>important to him that my comments do not appear in sci.skeptic, and he
>demanded that I remove 'his' ng from my replies.

    What was it that disturbed his overly challenged little mind so much, do
you
know?

>I replied and stated
>that I have merely posted in the thread as it appears in my newsreader,
>and I do not intend to make adjustment and restrict where my replies
>appear simply because HE does not like what I have to say. I do not
>accept dictates about where I may post or not in a public forum from
>anyone. He does not 'own' sci.skeptic. how do I know that there are not
>others there who have been following the thread and may in fact be
>interested in my remarks? now if you have a problem with this, then you
>need to explain why.

    The explanation is that he's a wuss, though he's not likely to admit that
part of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)