On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:52:55 -0400, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Hybrid Angel/Messenger" <X>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:fb5lv3tb9qr8h5fvudlk9qlhk2rboreepo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:23:32 -0400, the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by "KING_FOLP" <KING_FOLP@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>
>>>Revenue and Technology of Clandestine Organizations
>>
>> Thanks, but the stuff you want is known as lithium
>> carbonate.
>
>You're great at giving out 'Scripts'........
>
>"Wanna **** with me? Show your **** at *MY* newsgroup.
>rec.aviation.piloting...."
> (Dan <danmc61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>)
>
>So I did, for you Bob.......show your ****....bull......
What about the fact that Dan and I are two different people
is confusing you?
<snip blather>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>So nothing is right.....
What is confusing you about the quote by McCoy? He's an
idiot, which should be obvious from the quote, and rejects
evidence regarding science, particularly evolution, in favor
of his pet beliefs. Sound familiar?
>Therefore you can snip everything and make a dumbass
>comment. Drug induced.....
I only snip irrelevant garbage, whether said garbage was
drug induced or merely the product of the sort of mind that
rejects reality and substitutes wishful thinking.
>- McNameless
>
>No it's not. It has your name on it.....
Not hardly; I accept evidence sup****ting conjectures as
tending to confirm the conjectures, unlike McCoy
(McNameless). Note that that's *evidence*, not further
assertions and conjectures. Apparently this concept gives
you trouble.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
