On 27 Nov 2007 02:21:01 -0600, bob young <alaspectrum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>'A simple question do gods exist' is hardly unsolicited provocation. In
this day
>and age when thousands die every month in opposing religious beleifs and
cults, the
>question sits firmly in the humanist camp. IMO.
>
>Exactly what provocative statements do you have in mind?
I have always thought of you as an especially logical chap, and am
therefore surpisrised at your repeated mireading of my stance.
I have not contended that any of his "statements" are provocative.
I simply contend that his crossposts are unsolicited.
This is sup****ted by objective FACTS, and am at a loss as to why you
have repeatedly misinterpreted my assertion of the plain facts, as
sup****ted by posting logs.
Do you actually understand where I am coming from?
|
