[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Oops! My bad.

Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.

I asked Santa to get you a life.
He said some things only God can heal.

Who brought you a shiny new sense of humor? The Easter Bunny, maybe?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 24, 1:29*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 24, 10:52*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

Oops! My bad.

Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.

*I asked Santa to get you a life.
He said some things only God can heal.

Who brought you a shiny new sense of humor? The Easter Bunny, maybe?

*It must really suck for you to be an atheist.

Why?

*Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention.

An interesting dilemma, 2pid.

Would I rather have no hope, or would I rather have somebody who can
live with your stupidity care for me? They must not be terribly bright
either or they'd have gone insane long ago.

I'd wish you a Merry Xmas but you're beyond wishes
and even prayers. *A ritual sacrifice is your
best hope. *In your behalf, I paused briefly this morning
and said, "For George", then I flushed.

So you do your 2pids in the morning too. At least we have that going
for us, which is good.

It has to be an act. There is no way somebody could really be as
stupid as 2pid is and survive.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:


the flip side:


*It must really suck for you to be religious.
*Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
who cares for you is a nonexistent mythical creature and you long for
divine intervention that will never come

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 25, 9:52*am, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

Did you get a new dictionary? If anybody really cared for you they
would've gotten you one.

Maybe they don't 'love' you. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.
After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 25, 11:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.
After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

"Some things are just not knowable." --Donald Rumsfeld.

"I am a imbecile." --2pid

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Dec, 12:25, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.
After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

"Some things are just not knowable." --Donald Rumsfeld.


there are things you know that you know you know
there are things you know that you don't know you know.
there are things that you don't know that know you don't know
and there are things thet you don't know that you don't know you don't
know - Donald Rumsfeld

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 11:17*am, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.

*Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
Is is necessary for you?

Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.

After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.

Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid. Read
your bible and use the new dictionary that you hopefully got for
Christmas. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another flooby-dusting JEE-zus freak comes out of his Holy Closet of
Blessed Fairy Tales.

After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.

I'm willing to wait to find out.

I suppose this shouldn't surprise anybody. A moron who signs up for
instruction in having "faith" is almost certainly too stupid to see through
what's obviously a huge crock of ****.

Scooter, one question: Does your jeebus dogma protect you from getting
ripped off in hifi salons?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 11:52*am, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:20*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.

*The things you don't know and don't know you don't know
grows.

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

Do tell. LoL.

After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.

*I'm willing to wait to find out.

I already know that answer, 2pid. If there is a heaven and hell, you
do not meet the entrance requirements spelled out oin the bible. If
there isn't a heaven and hell, it doesn't matter.

We can safely conclude that you're out either way. LoL.

Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid.

* LoL. *So you poll watch just in case it will help you
get into heaven. *I don't think heaven is for hypocrites.

Why, we agree! LoL.

Read your bible

*No mention of poll watching as sure way to save your
soul. *

There is much written about serving though, 2pid.

My poll watching really upset you. I note that Minnesota does not have
professional election judges, as apparently your state does. Either
way, I note that you (once again) refuse to serve and merely whine
from the sidelines. LoL.

Sorry.

There's no need to apologize, 2pid. It's not me that is harboring
false and forlorn hopes. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 12:17, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.

*Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
Is is necessary for you?


then you believe in floobydust.


After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?



you beleive in floobydust
that's fine, as long as you can admit it

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 12:55, George M. Middius wrote:



Scooter, one question: Does your jeebus dogma protect you from getting
ripped off in hifi salons?


Apparantly, it grants "at least" a partial immunity to floobydust.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 12:54*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:02*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 26, 11:52*am, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 9:20*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.

*The things you don't know and don't know you don't know
grows.

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

There's one I can discard out-of-hand, 2pid.

Do tell. LoL.

After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.

*I'm willing to wait to find out.

I already know that answer, 2pid. If there is a heaven and hell, you
do not meet the entrance requirements spelled out oin the bible.

* So you believe in the bible now and usenet tells you all
you need to know. *LoL.

*If
there isn't a heaven and hell, it doesn't matter.

*What an odd conclusion. *I think it does matter if
there isn't. *Why do you think your fate is shared
by others? * Another rather arrogant presumption
on your part.

Learn to read, 2pid.

We can safely conclude that you're out either way. LoL.

Hmmm. *No I don't think the bible says making such presumptions
is safe for you.

That presumes the bible is an accurate representation of a
supernatural being's word. LoL.

Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid.

* LoL. *So you poll watch just in case it will help you
get into heaven. *I don't think heaven is for hypocrites.

Why, we agree! LoL.

Read your bible

*No mention of poll watching as sure way to save your
soul. *

There is much written about serving though, 2pid.

Who did you serve? *Was it God?

No, the question at hand is if you've ever served anybody but
yourself, 2pid.

My poll watching really upset you.

No, I think it's funny that you believe such trifles are
redeeming to you. * Perhaps, to you, they are.

Where did I say that, 2pid?

What an imbecile. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 13:45, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:24*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 26 Dec, 12:17, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW wrote:

the flip side:

**It must really suck for you to be religious.
**Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
*who cares for you

* bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.

*Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
Is is necessary for you?

then you believe in floobydust.

* You are too easily confused.
* Go back 2 steps and see where you
*confused God and family.


you said
" It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention. "

that is all about god vs atheism.

there is no mention of family



After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

you beleive in floobydust
that's fine, as long as you can admit it

*Do I bother to tell you my beliefs?
*No. *You just get yourself all twisted
in your presumptions.


obviously, you profess not to be an atheist.

and you infer that you believe in a supreme being.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW wrote:


So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.


here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 14:19, ScottW wrote:


* You are too easily confused.
* Go back 2 steps and see where you
*confused God and family.

you said
" It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
*Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention. "

that is all about god vs atheism.

*Not quite all.



there is no mention of family

*You really need things spelled out in
blunt fashion at times.


If you wrote better, we wouldn't
have that problem. You eveidently
said one thing, and meant another.


you said
" It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention. "


The first sentence in your paragraph criticizes
atheism. The following sentences in a paragraph
would be expected to expound about that point.
Your second sentence, saying that no one cares
about George, would be taken to mean that
"GOD" does not care, especially, when the second half of'the sentnece
refers to a
lack of possible divine intervention.








After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

That would require you to leave this
world. Are you in a rush?

you beleive in floobydust
that's fine, as long as you can admit it

*Do I bother to tell you my beliefs?
*No. *You just get yourself all twisted
in your presumptions.

obviously, you profess not to be an atheist.

*One possibility among infinite possibilities
excluded.



There are three possibilities, you are an atheist
you are an agnostic, or you believe in the'existence of some type
Supreme Being, or Beings.





and you infer that you believe in a supreme being.

Believe is not what I have inferred.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW wrote:

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

*Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
of man be sufficient to provide explanation?


apply that to the rest of your life

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 5:19*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 3:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.

*What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
"supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.

That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
will sound different. But now you find yourself believing in that
"floobydust" you rail about.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid. So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part, locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
"supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

So your argument is very flawed.

Fine. We've established a baseline for your imbecility. LoL.

*Yawn.

I agree: that *was* pretty obvious.

Not to be redundant, 2pid, but you're not heaven material. LoL.

*There you go again with your religious judgements.
For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
of preaching.

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
have, cover to cover.

And unlike you, I know and I understand what words mean. You are as
much heaven material as GOIA is. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

duh-Scottie falls down and goes BOOM!

So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.

*What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

I think Scottie's been cribbing his reverend's sermons.

Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
"supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.

That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
will sound different.

Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
Do you lack confidence in your decision?

Yapper, he was talking about you and your extremely stupid 'mind'. The
question on the table, which you've ducked twice now, is how you can
believe in miraculous, inexplicable events like the Red Sea business but
simultaneously demand that a triviality like a cable be 'tested' to death?

Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
dividing your 'mind'. On this side of the wall is everything you 'think'
you 'understand', and on the other side is everything you've sworn never to
understand or even question. You dare not peek over the wall because you're
afraid "God" will smite you.

If you weren't a moron, I'd refer you to a well-known children's book that
addressed the question of faith vs. reason in an enduringly simple way.

But now you find yourself believing in that
"floobydust" you rail about.

I prefer to rail about stardust. Most of the floobydust
railers don't know the difference between floobydust
and dirt.

Apparently, you're unable to comprehend the point. Thank you for agreeing
that you're a prize-winning moron.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Apparently, Kroologic is contagious.

Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
"supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.

That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
will sound different.

* Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
* Do you lack confidence in your decision?

Yapper, he was talking about you and your extremely stupid 'mind'.

"I personally don't believe"....words have meaning George.

Not to you, apparently. Words form sentences, and sentences form
paragraphs. You and Arnii love to pick out a few easy ones and ignore the
rest.

question on the table, which you've ducked twice now, is how you can
believe in miraculous, inexplicable events like the Red Sea business

Don't presume that I believe. I simply take a position that some
things are not known. Could the Red Sea be merely a fictitious
event?

If you mean the alleged "parting", the answer is a resounding YES. It's
impossible, it could never happen, and it did not happen.

Anybody who pretends there's some possibility that it did happen is deluded
and naive or stupid and uneducated. Or both.

Could the telling of the story have created a
significant impact on the history of mankind?

If you're positing the novel idea that religion has influenced the course
of human history, I'll have to go to the library and check on that. Don't
hold your breath waiting for a definitive answer.

Could there have been a purpose?

Do you mean a purpose served by inventing fairy tales to beguile the masses
into following the tale-tellers and giving up part of their hard-earned
cash? Another obscure question that forces me to reconsider everything I've
ever learned about human history.

Are you bound by literal interpretation?

sigh

We're talking about you and your whacked-out religious fantasies. I reject
every impossibility recounted in your precious Bible. There was no parting
of the sea, no water into wine, no trip in the belly of a big fish. The
only possibly true parts of your beloved Bible are the names of the people.
Nobody got turned into a pillar of salt, nobody restored a blind man's
sight, nobody lived 900 years.

I also reject the notion that these fairy tales have value if viewed as
gussied-up morality tales. It's nonsensical to say that right and wrong
wouldn't exist if not for "God".

You know what's evil, Witless? Evil is using up the finite resources of our
planet in a rush to line our own pockets. The victims of this evil are the
other living things on earth.

I think of all these questions only one is known.

You don't 'think' in any sense recognizable to adult humans.

Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
dividing your 'mind'.

The difference between you and me is obviously
that you have placed bricks in your brain.

As usual, it's down to the IKYABWAIs with you.

Couldn't you please get some smarts? Just a little bit? Pretty please?

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
*So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part,

*So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
physics?
You obviously don't know much about physics.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...0/7861/0033419....



I knew it!!!
Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.


locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
"supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

*Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity.
*Does that make it "supernatural"?




*There you go again with your religious judgements.
For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
of preaching.

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
have, cover to cover.

*I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
very important concepts.


SUCH AS:
the earth is 5000 years old
It was created in six days
all of the life forms other than humans were created in one day
the two original humans were created in one day
all other humans trace their origin two these two original humans
all of the life forms other than humans existed all at the same time,
on'the first day of lif'e creation.
All of the life forms ever created, including humans, lived on the
second day of the creation of life, also beiing the first day of the
creation of humans, except any life forms made extinct by the second
day.
Humans lived at the same time as did dinosaurs, unless dinosaurs lived
only one daqy and became extinct.
On the seventh day, on his day off after all that work, God took a day
off and relaxed by enjoying his audio hobby and created different
forms of cables, and made some of them them sound different to some
people, but not to others.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW wrote:

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

*Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
of man be sufficient to provide explanation?

apply that to the rest of your life-

More demands.
Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
appropriate and as I choose.
It's called freedom.

freedom to be a hypocrite

Freedom from the limits of those
with a limited perspective.

science one minute, floobydust the next
its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others

Some things are known. Some things are not known.
The trick is to know the difference.
Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
claims. *How do we know they are false?
They are about things that are known.

ScottW-

There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 10:58*am, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Dec 26, 5:19*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 3:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.

*What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
"supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.

That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
will sound different.

* Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
* Do you lack confidence in your decision?

No, I don't 2pid. I do not have one iota of doubt.

But your argument is that because some people *do* believe that cables
can sound different it is within the "continuum of possibilities". So
your arguments for the necessity of DBTs is fatally flawed.

I chose "bielieve" specifically for this reason, 2pid.

But now you find yourself believing in that
"floobydust" you rail about.

* I prefer to rail about stardust. *Most of the floobydust
railers don't know the difference between floobydust
and dirt.

And yet you're now firmly in their camp. I'm not sure they wanted the
endorsement of a well-known imbecile though.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
*So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part,

*So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
physics?
You obviously don't know much about physics.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...0/7861/0033419....

So they were able to take a powerful magnet and "part" about 22mm of
water.

Further, since this is a natural phenomenon, gos would have played no
part in it. Moses therefore lied attributing his magnetic smoke-and-
mirrors trick to a diety.

locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
"supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

*Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity.
*Does that make it "supernatural"?

Are you claiming it to be?

I'd say that man undertstands conductivity. Man may not understand
conductivity in all environments yet.

So your argument is very flawed.

*The flaw is in your limited intellect.

Oh, ouch!

So let me ask you this, straight up: do you believe the miracles
performed in the bible are accurate historically and reflect actual
events that really happened?

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
have, cover to cover.

*I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
very important concepts.

What, that Jesus was an advocate of the downtrodden and did not call
an inability to get healthcare "laziness"?

Another straight-up question, 2pid: Do you believe that you act in a
"good, Christian" manner?

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 13:03, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:59*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW wrote:

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

*Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
of man be sufficient to provide explanation?

apply that to the rest of your life-

More demands.
Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
appropriate and as I choose.
It's called freedom.

freedom to be a hypocrite

Freedom from the limits of those
with a limited perspective.

science one minute, floobydust the next
its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others

Some things are known. Some things are not known.
The trick is to know the difference.
Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
claims. *How do we know they are false?
They are about things that are known.

ScottW-

There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know

*Does this imply that nothing is known? *I hope not.


History has shown man as" knowing" lots of things
that were later shown to be misunderstood

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 11:07*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
duh-Scottie falls down and goes BOOM!

So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.
*What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

I think Scottie's been cribbing his reverend's sermons.

That might be it. I attribute it to 2pid eating more Chinese food
recently.

Apparently, you're unable to comprehend the point. Thank you for agreeing
that you're a prize-winning moron.

But you've got to admit that 2pid's new religious personna is a hoot.
This is far funnier than when he tries to hang with people as an
'expert' in areas he knows nothing about, such as in military matters.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 13:02, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:57*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
*So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part,

*So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
physics?
You obviously don't know much about physics.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...0/7861/0033419...

I knew it!!!
Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.

locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
"supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

*Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity..
*Does that make it "supernatural"?

*There you go again with your religious judgements.
For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
of preaching.

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible.. I
have, cover to cover.

*I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
very important concepts.

*What part of concept is confusing you?

ScottW-


well, we have already found a bunch of lies, who
knows how much of the other stuff are lies also.
50% may be lies, 50% may be truth,
and we can waste a lifetime trying to
figure out which is which.

As far as your 'important ' concepts go,
once we get past the 10 Commnandments,
most of which are self evident anyway,
and found in other writings, the rest is redundant.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 12:00*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:45*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

Apparently, Kroologic is contagious.

Do you mean a purpose served by inventing fairy tales to beguile the masses
into following the tale-tellers and giving up part of their hard-earned
cash?

* Little different than a political campaign and sssshtards devotion
to worship at the polling station.

What did I "worship", 2pid?

Let's try 2pidspeak: The unknown is such that many recognize about
others that which others say about you.

Translation: You're an imbecile and we all know it.

*Another obscure question that forces me to reconsider everything I've
ever learned about human history.

*Your welcome.

What about his welcome?

Are you bound by literal interpretation?

sigh

We're talking about you and your whacked-out religious fantasies.

*Why do you insist on such things. *Your devotion to literal
interpretation is also fantasy.

I'm sure that you meant "you're".

And as I've said, you're now an advocate of the Qu'ran, the Bagavhad
Gita, any book published by the Church of Scientology, the Book of
Mormon, and on and on. Who are you to judge which one is "true" or
"correct"? Is your god any more valid than Apollo?

Religion is 'helping' these people too.

*I reject
every impossibility recounted in your precious Bible.

*Such a closed mind.

LoL.

*There was no parting
of the sea, no water into wine, no trip in the belly of a big fish. The
only possibly true parts of your beloved Bible are the names of the people.
Nobody got turned into a pillar of salt, nobody restored a blind man's
sight, nobody lived 900 years.

I also reject the notion that these fairy tales have value if viewed as
gussied-up morality tales. It's nonsensical to say that right and wrong
wouldn't exist if not for "God".

*How about their proportions? *Do you deny religion has an influence
on many people?

Another "revelation".

God is truly speaking through 2pid. God always chooses such strange
messengers.

You know what's evil, Witless? Evil is using up the finite resources of our
planet in a rush to line our own pockets.

*How much planetary resource does having money in your
pocket consume? *I'd suggest that saving is a good thing.
Spending and consuming unnecessarily is bad.

But to compare...how much planetary resource is consumed to
created an SL 500 vs a Chevy Malibu?

That's a really good point, 2pid, and totally shatters George's point.
A Toyota Prius only takes a few less resources than a Hummer, so it's
all good.

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

The victims of this evil are the
other living things on earth.

All living things are in competition.
Should you die so other living things do not?

So we are competing with elephants and tigers and penguins and polar
bears, and if we don't make Hummers they will eat us.

OK, got it.

I think of all these questions only one is known.

You don't 'think' in any sense recognizable to adult humans.

*LoL. *That I don't think like you is always a relief to know.

Stupidity is not something to be proud of, 2pid, unless you know first-
hand that it's part of God's special plan for you.

Since you've been so against anonymity here, 2pid, I'd like to ask you
what your parent's names are. I have a feeling there's something bad
in your past and I'd like to look into it.

Thanks!

Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
dividing your 'mind'.

* The difference between you and me is obviously
*that you have placed bricks in your brain.

As usual, it's down to the IKYABWAIs with you.

Couldn't you please get some smarts? Just a little bit? Pretty please?

*I don't think it's smart to have such a narrow minded perspective.

LoL.

OK, 2pid: physical laws were broken by God on several occasions, or
they weren't and were lied about in the bible. Where to now?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 12:02*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:57*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
*So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part,

*So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
physics?
You obviously don't know much about physics.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...0/7861/0033419...

I knew it!!!
Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.

locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
"supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

*Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity..
*Does that make it "supernatural"?

*There you go again with your religious judgements.
For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
of preaching.

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible.. I
have, cover to cover.

*I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
very important concepts.

*What part of concept is confusing you?

What parts don't you believe?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 17:02, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

apply that to homosexuality.
God, am I lucky!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

apply that to homosexuality.
God, am I lucky!

Equally applied to heterosexuality. Thank God!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

God, am I lucky!

BTW, not too long ago, when I asked you to explain your opinion that
Scooter isn't super-stupid, you ran away. Maybe now that you've gotten off
your burst of homophobia, you can summon the courage to answer. Here it is
again:


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I've been mulling this post for a bit. At first I laughed out loud (that's
LOLed for you, Scottie), then I realized Sacky might not have been joking.
On reflection, I now believe he was f#(*ing serious.

[Witless] is not stupid, but he often fails to think things through to
their logical conclusions.

That's one of the primary characteristics of a stupid person.

He has trouble
visualizing the likely unintended consequences of his proposals.

That's another one.

or, it could be he realizes them a little later but sloughs them off
because he is already publicly boxed in by his proposal, and
he feels he has to fight to defend it.

This doesn't necessarily invoke the specter of stupidity. Pigheadedness,
irrationality, hyperemotionalism -- yes, yes, and yes. But not always
stupidity. (However, refusing to give up a lost position is often the
result of stupidity.)


What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person? Mine includes the
inability to understand what others say. Scottie has that in spades.
Another attribute that's high on my list is the inability to see logical
contradictions. Also aced by Scottie. Your two attributes -- "not thinking
things through" and "trouble visualizing consequences" -- also occupy
prominent places.

So tell us, Clyde: How can somebody be stupid by your lights, yet not
exhibit those two characteristics you just tried to separate from
stupidity?



[reprinted with permission of the author]

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 27 Dec, 17:02, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

apply that to homosexuality.
God, am I lucky!

Says you! ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 18:53, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

apply that to homosexuality.
God, am I lucky!

Equally applied to heterosexuality. Thank God!

you would be lucky, only if the
draft came back.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius wrote:



What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 23:53, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

At the heart of it, there was a serious answer in there.
that is, anyone who thanks a make believe mythical
creature for causing anything to happen, or for
preventing anything form happening, is a stupid person.
But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[blah blah blah snipped]

But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[blah blah blah snipped]

But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

Hmmmm, you seem to have trouble with grasping relationships,
similarities and
differences between things, either real or conceptual., wait a
minute, that
just happens to be one of the three elements of stupidity!