NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 08:15:20 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172420120.718568.62810@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 24, 3:57?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:02 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>> - Refer: <2gp0u2t4so5tffncsre4jniec3mgle9...@4ax.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> ><1172327646.751362.102...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>> >>On Feb 24, 6:49?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:02:16 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >>> >On Feb 23, 7:09?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:53:52 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >>> >> >On Feb 19, 8:18?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
>> >>> >> >> > On Feb 18, 10:37?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > >rbwinnwrote:
>> >>> >> >> > > > On Feb 14, 4:44?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > > > > On 14 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >>> >> >> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >>> >> >> > > > > <1171494978.705022.208...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > > > ...
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > > > >Well, that is a myth that atheists like to tell. )ncoln said on
>> >>> >> >> > > > > >several occasions that he believed the Bible.
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > > > Source with complete context please.
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > > I can give you the original source. !lk to Abraham Lincoln after the
>> >>> >> >> > > > resurrection. % can tell you in person.
>> >>> >> >> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > I am seriously thinking of <plonking> you for the third time - what a
>> >>> >> >> > > wally- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>> >> >> > Well, here is a verse from Isaiah. / need to get irrational.
>> >>> >> >> > Isaiah 2:17
>>
>> >>> >> nd the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the
>>
>> >>> >> >> > haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be
>> >>> >> >> > exalted in that day.
>> >>> >> >> > /bert B. Winn
>>
>> >>> >> >> Nothing could be MORE irrational than quoting ad infinitum,
>> >>> >> >> verses from an old book written by one primitive out of a gaggle of
>> >>> >> >> primitives
>>
>> >>> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
>> >>> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up.
>>
>> >>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> >>> >> Every time a creationist says something like "you believe your
>> >>> >> ancestors were monkeys", the creationist is exposed as the dumbest
>> >>> >> ****ing person on the planet.
>> >>> >Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
>>
>> >>> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who has no
>> >>> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
>> >>> intelligence on the part of the complainer.
>>
>> >>> Don
>>
>> >>If you want to use profanity, go use it on someone else. t does not
>> >>impress me.
ll it says is that you want to discontinue the
>> >>conversation. o go ahead and discontinue it.
>>
>> >Why don't you learn the difference between profanity, which was not
>> >used, and vulgarity, which was, before you whine some more.
>>
>> Hey yeah, that would make a great stalling tactic.
>> I bet he actually folows your advice this once!
>
>Profanity and vulgarity are the same. They are the goal and objective
>of atheists.

You seem quite proud of your ignorance. I won't bother to help you out
of your self-inflicted morass of ignorance. Suffice it to say that you
are wrong, again, with both sentences.
--

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172419090.759680.19880@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote:
>>
>> >> ...]
>>
>> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. !lways speak for
>> >> > myself. !lways request trial by jury and then appeal the case on
>> >> > the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.
>>
>> >> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. /u
>> >> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your defeat.
>>
>> >> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for such
>> >> zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away your 6th
>> >> Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.
>>
>> >> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court decision,
>> >> _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in all 50 states for
>> >> criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors. 5ncan applied the 6th
>> >> Amendment to the states by incorporating it into the purview of the
>> >> 14th Amendment.
>>
>> >> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was denied
>> >> admission to law school in Maryland because he was black, is grossly
>> >> in error.
>>
>> >All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.
>>
>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by
>> >Thurgood Marshall.
>>
>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >It has nothing to do with his race. e was a
>> >Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that all
>> >lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their status
>> >and financial well-being.
>>
>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.

As I said, I don't believe you.

>Whether or not
>Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>denying this right is irrelevant. There were probably others before
>him, but when he did it, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>authoritative. The other members of the Supreme Court who have
>continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.

You'll have to show me the decision that supports your claim. I am not
familiar with one that does. In short, it appears that you are making
things up.

 

[jl]

On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
[...]
> > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
> > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>
> Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
> which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
> and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
U. S. 322 (1996)
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html

Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
denied Duncan a jury trial. When this case came before the Supreme
Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. The judgment was reversed
and remanded for a new trial.

Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
of the Louisiana judge.

Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana



Whether or not
> Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
> denying this right is irrelevant. There were probably others before
> him, but when he did it

Cite?

, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
> authoritative.

Cite?

The other members of the Supreme Court who have
> continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Contemplate annihilation, Robert. You have annihilated your
credibility.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 10:23:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<1172427791.307648.106500@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> [...]
>> > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>
>The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
>defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
>U. S. 322 (1996)
>See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>
>Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
>Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
>denied Duncan a jury trial. When this case came before the Supreme
>Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
>Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. The judgment was reversed
>and remanded for a new trial.
>
>Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
>or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
>of the Louisiana judge.
>
>Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
>it:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana

Also, we can go far back (CALLAN v. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540 (1888), 549):

"In our opinion, the provision is to be interpreted in the light of the
principles which, at common law, determined whether the accused, in a
given class of cases, was entitled to be tried by a jury. It is not to
be construed as relating only to felonies or offenses punishable by
confinement in the penitentiary. It embraces as well some classes of
misdemeanors, the punishment of which involves or may involve the
deprivation of the liberty of the citizen. It would be a narrow
construction of the constitution to hold that no prosecution for a
misdemeanor is a prosecution for a 'crime' within the meaning of the
third article, or a 'criminal prosecution' within the meaning of the
sixth amendment."

It's not like this is a new idea. There were always petty offenses under
the common law that didn't have jury trials. There still are.

> Whether or not
>> Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> denying this right is irrelevant. There were probably others before
>> him, but when he did it
>
>Cite?
>
>, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>> authoritative.
>
>Cite?
>
> The other members of the Supreme Court who have
>> continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
>Contemplate annihilation, Robert. You have annihilated your
>credibility.
>

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 12:42
pm Free Lunch perhaps from lunch@nofreelunch.us wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172419090.759680.19880@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>>> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie
>>> >> thePooh, wrote:
>>>
>>> >> ...]
>>>
>>> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. !lways speak
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > myself. !lways request trial by jury and then appeal the case
>>> >> > on the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.
>>>
>>> >> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. /u
>>> >> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your
>>> >> defeat.
>>>
>>> >> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for
>>> >> such zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away
>>> >> your 6th Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.
>>>
>>> >> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court
>>> >> decision, _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in
>>> >> all 50 states for criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors.
>>> >> 5ncan applied the 6th Amendment to the states by incorporating it
>>> >> into the purview of the 14th Amendment.
>>>
>>> >> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was
>>> >> denied admission to law school in Maryland because he was black,
>>> >> is grossly in error.
>>>
>>> >All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.
>>>
>>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>>
>>> >When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written
>>> >by Thurgood Marshall.
>>>
>>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>>
>>> >It has nothing to do with his race. e was a
>>> >Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that
>>> >all lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their
>>> >status and financial well-being.
>>>
>>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>>> support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>>
>>Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>>which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>>and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>
> As I said, I don't believe you.
>

He could be telling the truth, or at least the truth he can see with his
blinders on. Some minor "crimes" such as traffic infractions may place
him just before a judge. Some domestic problems especially for
juvenile delinquents or vistation rights or alimony considerations
might exclude a judge. And there is one biggie too -- our wonderful
(kangaroo) tax court is before a judge not a jury. In fact if you can
get the case in front of a real court with a jury it is almost certain
the defendant will win. [People hate the IRS and rule against it every
time.) But by submitting and signing your tax form the taxpayer agrees
to abide by the decision of the IRS's own court system.

>>Whether or not
>>Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>>denying this right is irrelevant. There were probably others before
>>him, but when he did it, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>>authoritative. The other members of the Supreme Court who have
>>continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>
> You'll have to show me the decision that supports your claim. I am not
> familiar with one that does. In short, it appears that you are making
> things up.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:11:25 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

>>>The only "supreme being" that can and does really exist
>>>through eternity was identified by Baruch Spinoza.
>>>Of course he was cursed by Jews and denounced by Christians
>>>for it, because he shows the deities described in the Bible
>>>are just man-made fantasy creations. -- L.

>> Everkybody but you knows he's wrong.

>===>Ah, so now you think of yourself as "everybody"???
>Your sickness is getting worse, Duckie! -- L.

No, I'm only me, libby. Everybody but YOU knows he's wrong.

duke, American-American

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 11:20
am rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:

> On Feb 24, 3:58?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>> ?? - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886...@4ax.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> ><1172327214.029352.172...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>> >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >>>rbwinnwrote:
>> >>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> > >rbwinnwrote:
>> >>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
>> >>> > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
>> >>> > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:46?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
>> >>> > > > > > wrote:
>> >>> > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>
>> >>> > > > > > > wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p."
>> >>> > > > > > > <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > snip
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > say whether it exists. Don't try to call me a
>> >>> > > > > > > > > > liar just because I called your bluff.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others
>> >>> > > > > > > > > claimed the Bible did not exist. ?Not only was
>> >>> > > > > > > > > that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called
>> >>> > > > > > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide
>> >>> > > > > > > > > quoted text -
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not
>> >>> > > > > > > > exist. ??If I ask you about Isaiah's account of the
>> >>> > > > > > > > Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply with an inane
>> >>> > > > > > > > question about fictional characters. ??o, the
>> >>> > > > > > > > conversation is over. ??ou are claiming that the
>> >>> > > > > > > > Bible does not exist.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should
>> >>> > > > > > > be nice to him; he does such good work for atheism.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for.
>> >>> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers,
>> >>> > > > > ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc.,
>> >>> > > > > $o not exist ...........any more than your god exists.
>>
>> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by
>> >>> > > > > fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get
>> >>> > > > > used to it- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil
>> >>> > > > does not exist.
>> >>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text
>> >>> > > -
>>
>> >>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>>
>> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you
>> >>> have seen him.
>>
>> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>>
>> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen
>> >>or not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. ??It is
>> >>none of your business what I have seen or not seen.
>>
>> >So you are just making unsupportable claims.
>>
>> No change there.
> If I say that I am going to church today, you would say that I have
> made an unsupportable claim. Anything I say or do would be an
> unsupportable claim to you.

Not at all. You could support your claim by sending us a copy of your
driver's license and a picture (with date on it) of you in church. You
could also support your claim by giving us a letter from your bishop
that you attended church that day and a phone number of that bishop so
we could verify it.

There are any number of ways you could support your claim and provide
evidence that we could verify and that does not include arrogant
assertions.

> OK, if that is how you want to use the
> term, "unsupportable claim", go ahead and use it that way.

The problem is that you make assertion but provide nothing other than
your baseless opinion bolstered by your lack of education and dismiss
every single educated scholar on the subject.

> Far be it
> from me to interfere with what you want to do. It just goes to show
> that attempting to communicate with an atheist is not a worthwhile
> objective.

Do you realize that many of the people that are replying to your posts
are not atheists and are in fact mainstream Christians who hold their
faith dearly? It is just that they are botheed by your intellectually
deficient, baseless assertions and are calling you on it. They do not
fear to question their faith nor fear that some parts of their religion
have no support other than pure faith, nor are they bothered that some
primitive goatherders got some facts wrong, or that there truly are
inconsistencies in the bible.

> Robert B. Winn

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 21 February 2007
12:36 pm jl perhaps from jls1016@bellsouth.net wrote:

> On Feb 21, 11:25 am, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> news:nijot21c4sn80e45unu1lhbc8nk88rksu3@4ax.com...> On Tue, 20 Feb
>> 2007 22:57:00 -0500, "D...@V.A." <d...@bellsouth.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >You are mincing words, even the Largest Mormon Church condemns
>> > >these off-shoot Mormon groups.
>
> That's only because mainstream Mormons were required to abandon
> polygamy as a condition of statehood. While mainstream mormondom was
> seated in Utah Territory, all mormons practiced polygamy.
>

And let us not forget the monumental case of god changing his mind and
allowed the LDS church to admit blacks as members when the US
government threatened to take their religious tax exempt status from
them. I remember when that happened very clearly. God waited until
almost the last five minutes before his personal appearance and
revelation to the president of the Mormon church and told him of his
change of heart.

>>
>> > "These off-shoot Mormon groups" are still Christians, and they
>> > don't condemn their own practices, so not all Christians condemn
>> > these
>> > practices. Whether you consider them Christian or not is
>> > irrelevant.
>>
>> IOW, there is no characteristics that places a group outside
>> or your notion of Christanity. Even where there is no belief
>> system or nothing nothing in common with the majority of
>> Christians.
>>
>> > > Certainly, those practicing polygamy
>> > >do not condemn the practice, nor did I say they did.
>>
>> > They're Christian, and you said ALL Christians condemned the
>> > practice, so you said that they condemned it.
>>
>> Where is your evidence that they are Christian? >> > Do you imply
>> that
>> > >other Christians condone the practice of polygamy?
>>
>> > That wasn't your claim.
>>
>> They worship three different gods
>
> So do all the other Christians. They worship Jesus, God, and the
> Holy Spirit, all three separate entities. The Holy Spirit's status is
> slightly higher than the other two since if you blaspheme him you're
> irrevocably damned, while you can receive clemency for blasphemy
> against Jesus or God.
>
>
>
> and have a different
>> Christ born in a different location.
>
> So YOU know where Christ was born? Nobody really knows if he ever
> existed.
>
>
>
> Their Christ was born
>> of another man who had progressed to godhood through
>> the institution and practice of polygamy. Their Mary was
>> one of their god's wives. Through polygamy and having
>> offspring throughout this life and the life to come they
>> can and many will become gods themselves.
>
> Most of the clergy here on earth already believe themselves to be
> gods.
> Every one I ever knew got off on his power and influence so much he
> decided he was divine. Witness the case of Ken "Dino" Hovind, who
> just went to Florida prison for 10 years for refusing to pay taxes.
> He thought he was God.
>
>> These gods will be gods over their own world and
>> work out their own plan of salvation for their believers.
>> This is how they justify the practice.
>> This is foreign to any legimate Christian group.
>
> Ah, smug and haughty you are there, fella. No Christian group is any
> more "legitimate" than any other Christian group, thanks to the
> Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Nor is any Christian
> group any more legitimate than a Wiccan group, or Buddhist group, or
> Santerian group (which sacrifices pigeons and goats).
>
>
> Protestant,
>> Catholic or Orthorodox.
>> You are right, they are not Christian. They are heathens.
>
> So you're at loggerheads. You're deadlocked and at a dead end. They
> think you are heathen.
>
> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each other
> at the stake.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 21 February 2007 9:27
pm Al Klein perhaps from rukbat@pern.invalid wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:42:10 -0500, "Dan@V.A." <danW@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You don't know what you are talking about. An analogy is water.
>>It can be liquid, gas or solid. But it still one. Same with the
>>Christian concept of their God.
>
> The same water can't exist in all 3 states at the same time - the
> Christian god is supposed to.
>
>>The Mormon Christ was born in Jerusalem, the Christian God was
>>born in Bethlehem.
>
> Which didn't exist until LONG after Jesus died. It was a cemetery
> when he was supposedly born, and no Jews would live in, or next to, a
> cemetery.

You are thinking of Nazareth which did not exist until the third
century. Bethlehem did exist. In fact there were two of them in the
first century, one of which was only a few miles from the present day
Nazareth in Galilee. If Joseph owned property there, it would not have
been too outrageous to believe in a tax registration there. But there
is no evidence for any Joseph (Mark doesn't even mention him). and we
know beyond doubt there was no universal registration at that time.

>
>> Two diffeent cities, according the two Bibles
>>ie the Christian Bible and the Mormon Bible (the Book of Mormon)
>
> And the independent objective evidence that the Christian Bible is
> correct is???
>
>>> Fortunately for you, if all you cults and sects and denominations
>>> weren't arguing with us beloved atheists, you'd be burning each
>>> other at the stake.
>
>>This is BS. How can you be so asinine?
>
> He can read history. Christians have been killing Christians for
> 2,000 years.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 10:42�am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote:
>
> >> >> ...]
>
> >> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 11:23�am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 12:22�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 10:23:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> <1172427791.307648.106...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
> >> > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>
> >> Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
> >> which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
> >> and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>
> >The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
> >defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
> >U. S. 322 (1996)
> >See:

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 1:15�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 12:42
> pm Free Lunch perhaps from l...@nofreelunch.us wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
> >>On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >>> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie
> >>> >> thePooh, wrote:
>
> >>> >> ...]
>
> >>> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 15:11:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172445067.443820.54340@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 1:15?pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
>wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 12:42
>> pm Free Lunch perhaps from l...@nofreelunch.us wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> > <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>> >>On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >>> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >>> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >>> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie
>> >>> >> thePooh, wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> ...]
>>
>> >>> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. !lways speak
>> >>> >> > for
>> >>> >> > myself. !lways request trial by jury and then appeal the case
>> >>> >> > on the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.
>>
>> >>> >> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. /u
>> >>> >> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your
>> >>> >> defeat.
>>
>> >>> >> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for
>> >>> >> such zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away
>> >>> >> your 6th Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.
>>
>> >>> >> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court
>> >>> >> decision, _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in
>> >>> >> all 50 states for criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors.
>> >>> >> 5ncan applied the 6th Amendment to the states by incorporating it
>> >>> >> into the purview of the 14th Amendment.
>>
>> >>> >> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was
>> >>> >> denied admission to law school in Maryland because he was black,
>> >>> >> is grossly in error.
>>
>> >>> >All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.
>>
>> >>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >>> >When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written
>> >>> >by Thurgood Marshall.
>>
>> >>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >>> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >>> >It has nothing to do with his race. % was a
>> >>> >Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that
>> >>> >all lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their
>> >>> >status and financial well-being.
>>
>> >>> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >>> support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> >>Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> >>which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> >>and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> > As I said, I don't believe you.
>>
>> He could be telling the truth, or at least the truth he can see with his
>> blinders on. ome minor "crimes" such as traffic infractions may place
>> him just before a judge. ome domestic problems especially for
>> juvenile delinquents or vistation rights or alimony considerations
>> might exclude a judge.
nd there is one biggie too -- our wonderful
>> (kangaroo) tax court is before a judge not a jury. n fact if you can
>> get the case in front of a real court with a jury it is almost certain
>> the defendant will win. People hate the IRS and rule against it every
>> time.)
ut by submitting and signing your tax form the taxpayer agrees
>> to abide by the decision of the IRS's own court system.
>>
>Well, the fact is that any defendant has the right to appeal. If you
>are charged with a misdemeanor by police who are trying to harrass
>you, all you need to do is ask for a trial by jury and appeal the case
>when you are denied your Constitutional right.

Remember, the Court decided over a century ago, that minor misdemeanors
are not covered by the right to trial by jury because they were _never_
covered by the right to trial by jury under the common law.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 15:07:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172444843.712292.252670@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 12:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 10:23:11 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> <1172427791.307648.106...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> >> Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> >> which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> >> and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> >The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
>> >defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
>> >U. S. 322 (1996)
>> >See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>>
>> >Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
>> >Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
>> >denied Duncan a jury trial. hen this case came before the Supreme
>> >Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
>> >Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. he judgment was reversed
>> >and remanded for a new trial.
>>
>> >Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
>> >or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
>> >of the Louisiana judge.
>>
>> >Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
>> >it:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
>>
>> Also, we can go far back (CALLAN v. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540 (1888), 549):
>>
>> "In our opinion, the provision is to be interpreted in the light of the
>> principles which, at common law, determined whether the accused, in a
>> given class of cases, was entitled to be tried by a jury. It is not to
>> be construed as relating only to felonies or offenses punishable by
>> confinement in the penitentiary. It embraces as well some classes of
>> misdemeanors, the punishment of which involves or may involve the
>> deprivation of the liberty of the citizen. It would be a narrow
>> construction of the constitution to hold that no prosecution for a
>> misdemeanor is a prosecution for a 'crime' within the meaning of the
>> third article, or a 'criminal prosecution' within the meaning of the
>> sixth amendment."
>>
>> It's not like this is a new idea. There were always petty offenses under
>> the common law that didn't have jury trials. There still are.
>>
>There have always been people like you and Supreme Court justices who
>are capable of pretending that they do not understand the English
>language.
>That does not change what the Constitution says. It says, "all
>criminal prosecutions".

Your ignorance of the _rest_ of the Constitution is noted. You don't get
to define words the way you like them just because you want it to be so.
The Court's job is to decide these things using all of the available and
appropriate information. It is not a mindless dictionary service.


--

"... There's glory for you."

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172444647.286662.253060@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 11:23?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 10:58 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> ...]
>> > > You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> > > support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> > Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> > which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> > and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> The Supreme Court has ruled that in petty misdeameanor cases the
>> defendant has no right to trial by jury. _Lewis v. United States,_ 518
>> U. S. 322 (1996)
>> See: (ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-6465.ZS.html
>>
>> Justice Thurgood Marshall voted with the majority in _Duncan v.
>> Louisiana,_ a misdemeanor assault case in which the Louisiana judge
>> denied Duncan a jury trial. hen this case came before the Supreme
>> Court of the United States, the justices voted 7 to 2 that the 6th
>> Amendment guaranteed Duncan a jury trial. he judgment was reversed
>> and remanded for a new trial.
>>
>> Maybe you have Thurgood Marshall confused with Justice Potter Stewart
>> or Justice John Harlan, who dissented, voting to uphold the decision
>> of the Louisiana judge.
>>
>> Here is the Duncan case paraphrased so hopefully you can understand
>> it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana
>>
>> Whether or not
>>
>> > Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> > denying this right is irrelevant. here were probably others before
>> > him, but when he did it
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> , lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>>
>> > authoritative.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> The other members of the Supreme Court who have
>>
>> > continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Contemplate annihilation, Robert. ou have annihilated your
>> credibility.
>
>It does not interest me in the least which cases the Supreme Court
>used to deny right to trial by jury.

But you lied about it.

>The fact is that they did it,
>which even your explanation shows. So here is where the matter
>stands: Is the Supreme Court the Supreme law of the Land? No, the
>Supreme Court is not the Supreme law of the land. The Constitution of
>the United States is the Supreme Law of the land. If there are
>lawyers who cannot understand the English language, they should not
>become Supreme Court judges. Amendment 6 of the Constitution says
>that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is guaranteed right
>to trial by jury. The Constitution cannot be amended by the Supreme
>Court. It has to be done by the Congress of the United States.

You are an absolute fool. I am confident that the police who 'harrassed'
you had actually given you a break, but you were too ornery to realize
it.

 

[Free Lunch]

On 25 Feb 2007 14:57:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172444233.997528.321870@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 10:42?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 07:58:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172419090.759680.19...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 23, 9:22?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Feb 2007 18:09:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1172282994.677931.75...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 23, 11:05?am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 22, 12:18 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>, i. e., Winnie thePooh, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> ...]
>>
>> >> >> > I have never appeared in court with a lawyer. !lways speak for
>> >> >> > myself. !lways request trial by jury and then appeal the case on
>> >> >> > the grounds that I was denied trial by jury.
>>
>> >> >> That must be the reason for your acrimony against the courts. /u
>> >> >> bumble and lose and then blame the lawyers and judges for your defeat.
>>
>> >> >> If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at furnishing caselaw for such
>> >> >> zany charges as blaming Thurgood Marshall for taking away your 6th
>> >> >> Amendment rights, I can understand why you're losing.
>>
>> >> >> Marshall voted with the majority in the 7 to 2 Suprme Court decision,
>> >> >> _Duncan v. Louisiana,_ which required jury trials in all 50 states for
>> >> >> criminal defendants accused of misdemeanors. 5ncan applied the 6th
>> >> >> Amendment to the states by incorporating it into the purview of the
>> >> >> 14th Amendment.
>>
>> >> >> So your accusation against Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was denied
>> >> >> admission to law school in Maryland because he was black, is grossly
>> >> >> in error.
>>
>> >> >All I know about it is that states started denying trial by jury.
>>
>> >> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >> >When it all started everyone was quoting a minority opinion written by
>> >> >Thurgood Marshall.
>>
>> >> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> support your claim, you just whine.
>>
>> >> >It has nothing to do with his race. % was a
>> >> >Supreme Court Justice who saw a reason to deny trial by jury that all
>> >> >lawyers bought into because they saw it would increase their status
>> >> >and financial well-being.
>>
>> >> You assert that, but when asked to provide evidence or citations to
>> >> support your claim, you just whine and defame lawyers and judges.
>>
>> >Well, I have gone into court as a defendant, asked for trial by jury,
>> >which is my guaranteed Constitutional right, and been told by judges
>> >and prosecuting attorneys that I had no such right.
>>
>> As I said, I don't believe you.
>>
>> >Whether or not
>> >Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> >denying this right is irrelevant. here were probably others before
>> >him, but when he did it, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>> >authoritative. he other members of the Supreme Court who have
>> >continued on in this injustice are equally responsible.
>>
>> You'll have to show me the decision that supports your claim. I am not
>> familiar with one that does. In short, it appears that you are making
>> things up.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I am not making anything up. Almost all Americans who appear in court
>today are told by judges and prosecutors that they do not have the
>right to trial by jury.

Liar.

 

[rbwinn]

On Feb 25, 3:16�pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 11:20
> amrbwinnperhaps from rbwi...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 3:58?pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:22:37 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> wrote:
> >> ?? - Refer: <rhp0u2tkecj62dap0cnp9240cisu886...@4ax.com>
>
> >> >On 24 Feb 2007 06:26:54 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> >"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> ><1172327214.029352.172...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >>On Feb 23, 11:02?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
> >> >>>rbwinnwrote:
> >> >>> > On Feb 22, 9:44?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> > >rbwinnwrote:
> >> >>> > > > On Feb 15, 9:08?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com>
> >> >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >>> > > > >rbwinnwrote:
> >> >>> > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:46?am, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
> >> >>> > > > > > wrote:
> >> >>> > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 13:22, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>
> >> >>> > > > > > > wrote:> On Feb 15, 2:17?am, "thomas p."
> >> >>> > > > > > > <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb., 00:29, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 8:34?pm, bob young
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > snip
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > Well, Bob, does the Bible exist or not? ?You
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > say whether it exists. Don't try to call me a
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > liar just because I called your bluff.
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > You are a liar. ?You said that I and others
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > claimed the Bible did not exist. ?Not only was
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > that a lie, it was incredibly silly. ?You called
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > nobody's bluff; you just told a silly lie.- Hide
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > quoted text -
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > > You are still claiming that the Bible does not
> >> >>> > > > > > > > exist. ??If I ask you about Isaiah's account of the
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Assyrian invasion of Judea, you reply with an inane
> >> >>> > > > > > > > question about fictional characters. ??o, the
> >> >>> > > > > > > > conversation is over. ??ou are claiming that the
> >> >>> > > > > > > > Bible does not exist.
>
> >> >>> > > > > > > Little Bobby is such a pathetic twit, but we should
> >> >>> > > > > > > be nice to him; he does such good work for atheism.
>
> >> >>> > > > > > Your personal attacks show everyone who you work for.
> >> >>> > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >>> > > > > These - wizards, satans, evil spirits, $evils, lucifers,
> >> >>> > > > > ghouls, diabolous, Auld Hornies, Fiends, Old Nicks etc.,
> >> >>> > > > > $o not exist ...........any more than your god exists.
>
> >> >>> > > > > They, along with your god, were all manufactured by
> >> >>> > > > > fearful humans long before you were borne Robert - get
> >> >>> > > > > used to it- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >>> > > > Well, the most common lie told by Satan is that the devil
> >> >>> > > > does not exist.
> >> >>> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> >> >>> > > Seen him have you? 9ou really do need help- Hide quoted text
> >> >>> > > -
>
> >> >>> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >>> > Why would a person who has seen Satan need help?
>
> >> >>> You are a moat dishonest person. 4he question was whether you
> >> >>> have seen him.
>
> >> >>> Deviating again, because your god is nothing
>
> >> >>Well, the problem with telling a person like you what I have seen
> >> >>or not seen is that you would use it in a dishonest way. ??It is
> >> >>none of your business what I have seen or not seen.
>
> >> >So you are just making unsupportable claims.
>
> >> No change there.
> > If I say that I am going to church today, you would say that I have
> > made an unsupportable claim.

 

[Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 24, 6:47?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:00:05 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >On Feb 23, 7:07?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >Well, actually, it does. aul stated that in the last days men would
>> >> >be turned to fables, being unable to abide sound doctrine.
>>
>> >> jesus = fable.
>>
>> > The person to explain your idea to would be Jesus Christ.
>>
>> jesus = fable.
>>
>> IOW: you can repeat that "you can talk to jesus when he comes
>> back", but that pathetic attempt at a threat means nothing. You'll
>> have to find something valid.
>>
>It is not a threat

It's an attempt at a threat. And it's so pathetic as to be
laughable.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

 

[Don Kresch]

In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 24, 6:47?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 23 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 23, 7:10?am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism On 22 Feb 2007 19:31:53 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 18, 10:09?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 17, 10:32?pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > Bill M wrote:
>> >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > > >news:1171521149.118439.271150@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > So when Jesus Christ said that he was not the offspring of monkeys,
>> >> >> > you claim that he was telling a "yarn"?
>> >> >> > Robert B. Winn
>>
>> >> >> IDIOT there is nothing to show your Jesus said anything other than what other
>> >> >> foolish humans like you have claimed
>>
>> >> >> Grow up- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
>> >> >existence of the Bible.
>>
>> >> No, that's not what we have. We only have that if you, Bobby,
>> >> do not understand English. Are you admitting that you do not
>> >> understand English?
>> >You first, Don.
>>
>> Oh please, Bobby. IKYABWAI is so kindergarten.
>So don't try it on me.

IKYABWAI followed with IKYABWAI is really childish.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"