On 26 Nov 2007 21:13:02 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>
>> On 25 Nov 2007 23:08:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:04:24 +1030, Michael Gray
>> >> <mikegray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:16:22 -0800 (PST), Olrik
<olrik666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Nov 24, 10:52 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> >> >>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:48:57 -0000, "Bill M"
<wm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >There are thousands of different God beliefs.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >If there is a real God why would it permit his flock to be so
terribly
>> >> >>> >misled?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Why are you asking this on an atheist newsgroup, moron?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do you get your rocks off starting cross-posting flame wars?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Relax, dude. Bill M has been posting for years here in a.a. He's a
>> >> >>genuine atheist. Chill out.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mr. Lee is an equal op****tunity anti-spammer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill M is known for starting cross-posts to various theist'
>> >> >newsgroups; posts that seem to me to be intentionally inflammatory.
>> >> >Chris has every right to complain about this deliberate and uncivil
>> >> >provocation.
>> >> >It is the same low gutter tactics that the criminal fundamentalists
>> >> >employ.
>> >> >
>> >> >Atheist or not, Bill is committing a social faux pas by stooping to
>> >> >their level.
>> >>
>> >> Yep.
>> >
>> >Bill is carrying out a public service
>> >since groveling to imaginary gods is a mental disease
>>
>> That may be true, but it neither negates Christopher's nor my
>> observations, nor excuses the stooping to the theists' abominably low
>> moral level.
>> Such can be executed *without* degradation.
>
>Yes but I don't see any degradation in Bill's posts.
>Other than when he gets some silly dodging and weaving reponse and then
it is a
>case of like with like.
I was referring to the degredation of his techniques, stooping to
deliberate and continuous unsolicited provocation, not his actual
arguments.
|
