NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:4frst2105u23ismgf65p5ea9js024msj9a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:04:41 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45de4c6b$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:s4dkt21p4jn6vu6o6k3821agnkthmhg5ou@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:18:14 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>> <45d8c8bc$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>And which has as it's central theme: "There ain't no god(s)"?
>>>
>>> I don't say that. I state that there is absolutely no evidence for any
>>> gods. You choose to falsely claim that I have said something else.
>>>
>> That's an outright lie!!! Our Christian "God is love" and there is
>>plenty of evidence for the existence of love. YOUR god or devil doesn't
>>exist, for it is likely to be an invisible old man in the sky.
>
> You know your argument relies on falsely conflating two different
> meanings of the word _love_.
>
Tell us about it!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DE75BE.81EF8CFF@netvigator.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> Our Christian "God is love" and there is nothing "pitiful" about
>> love.
>> Nor does love "lie". If atheism is not a philosophy of life, then why are
>> you wasting your life arguing against our philosophy of life, unless you
>> think your philosophy of life is better?
>> You just got yourself all muddled again.
>
> You are the muddled one,
> 'He' was supposed to have sent his only begotten son down to earth and
> then had
> him ascend up to a heaven somewhere [just above the clouds back then]
>
> 'Love' alone can do that?
> GROAN
>
So you want to be a literalist. Let's see you interpret the Biblical
poetic format constructively. And no Jesus didn't just become weightless and
float like a helium filled balloon up and away into the sky. LOL



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:45DE7927.B506FE7D@netvigator.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> You again forgot to quote the statement of mine which evidences your
>> accusation. But even if you are right, tell us how do YOUR actions
>> compare?
>> But then perhaps you are running short of self-esteem again, and try
>> to
>> garner as many inferiors to yourself as possible, so as to contrast
>> yourself
>> favourably and give you that boost you crave?
>
> Nothing compares with common sense, logic, openness and transparency.
> Try it sometime Frank
>
You forgot 'simple-mindedness'. Only a true-disbelieving atheist
fundamentalist would try to derive meaning from poetry by the scientific
method.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 25, 5:16?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@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:
>> >> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>>
>Well, you can stop doing it any time, Don.

Wow--you did it a 3rd time!

Sheesh--how childish are you?


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"
 
In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:49:19 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 25, 5:15?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@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. !ul 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.
>>
>Well, 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"
 
In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:51:34 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 25, 5:17?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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,
>>
>> I will.
>Well, I was already aware of that. 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.

We can keep doing this until you repent of your
style-over-substance fallacy. Which you won't do, since you haven't an
argument to begin with. Crying about "profanity" is just a cover to
keep people from learning that you have no argument, but it always
backfires, since it SIGNALS that you have no argument.

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"
 
On Feb 26, 7:11 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:51:34 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 5:17?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:34:07 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
> >> >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 hasno
> >> >> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
> >> >> intelligence on the part of the complainer.
>
> >> >> Don
>
> >> >If you want to use profanity,
>
> >> I will.
> >Well, I was already aware of that. Profanity is the attempt of a weak
> >mind to make a strong statement.
>
> Crying about "profanity" is the last resort of one who hasno
> argument to begin with, and merely demonstrates the lack of
> intelligence on the part of the complainer.
>
> We can keep doing this until you repent of your
> style-over-substance fallacy. Which you won't do, since you haven't an
> argument to begin with. Crying about "profanity" is just a cover to
> keep people from learning that you havenoargument, but it always
> backfires, since it SIGNALS that you havenoargument.
>
I never claimed to be arguing, Don. What is there to argue about? We
have freedom of religion here in the United States. You are free to
be an atheist if that is what you want to be. You decided to try some
profanity on me. I told you what profanity is. Where is the
argument?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 26, 7:10 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:49:19 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 5:15?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@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. !ul 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.
>
> >Well, it is not a threat.
>
> It's an attempt at a threat. And it's so pathetic as to be
> laughable.
>
If you feel threatened by Jesus Christ, there must be a reason.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 26, 7:09 am, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 5:16?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
> >> <rbwi...@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:
> >> >> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> >Well, you can stop doing it any time, Don.
>
> Wow--you did it a 3rd time!
>
> Sheesh--how childish are you?
I don't see why you would want to base your life on what I do or don't
do. Why don't you just go find someone else to try to run your game on
\?
Robert B. Winn
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 26 February 2007 4:48 am
Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:18:54 -0500, Darrell Stec
> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <54fmvuF20djeaU1@mid.individual.net>
>>After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 25 February 2007 6:49
>>pm rbwinn perhaps from rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>> 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. ??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
>>>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to provide evidence
>>> to you that I attended church.
>>
>>Robbie, do you practice being that dense and lacking reading
>>comprehension or does it come natural to you? Please take time to
>>read what was actually written.
>>
>>You wrote: "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."
>>
>>Nobody ASKED you for evidence of going to church. My reply was to
>>counter your claim that anything you said would be unsupportable. I
>>merely explained to you under what circumstances you would be
>>believed.
>>But so far no one actually asked you for that evidence. It was only
>>suggested what we might accept to believe you.
>>
>>> I do not care whether you believe I went to church or not.
>>
>>Oh child, you do in fact care. Otherwise you would not have bothered
>>to comment unless you are trolling and are a disingenuous hypocrite.
>>
>>> This is true of almost everything about which you
>>> demand evidence. I am not aware of any mainstream Christians who
>>> are trying to communicate with me, just some atheists trying to run
>>> their little game.
>>
>>There have been several people here that replied to you that have
>>either posted they were Christian in the past or have directly told
>>you they were not atheists.
>>
>>You seem to think that anyone that does not agree with your
>>theological
>>dribble is an atheist. I've got news for you. A good many
>>knowledgeable Christians wholeheartedly disagree with your gibberish
>>ideas and that includes scholars of your own Church.
>>
>>> Are you claiming to be a mainstream Christian?
>>
>>See right there you have shown that you have problems with reading
>>comprehension. Just a few days ago I mentioned that I had a formal
>>education in theology and in the biblical languages. How many
>>non-Christians do you think would go after that type of education?
>>
>>What probably really confused you is that you seem to have a problem
>>wit
>>tenses. You used the wrong one for the verb "are".
>>
>>>
>>> Robert B. Winn
>
> It is none of business, I know, but I fail to see why you devote so
> much of your valuable time and scholarship engaging with this ignorant
> madman and infantile liar.
>

Due to recent health problems my doctor ordered no lifting and no
exercise. I thought maybe an exercise in futility might help my
circulatory system. It is apparent now that I was getting too much
exercise in attempts to have a reasonable, responsible discussion with
Robbie.

> Surely you have more productive and sane theists to converse with?
>

Isn't "sane theists" an oxymoron?

> To quote Blackadder:
> "It is like fitting wheels to a tomato:
> Both time-consuming and entirely unnecessary!"
>
> This is entirely rhetorical, of course.
>
> --

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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Feb 26, 6:16 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:18?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
[...]
> Well, you are an apostate Christian. That means you are more
> dishonest than a person who was raised atheist.
> Robert B. Winn

On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned away from
dishonesty and embraced truth. He is to be more admired and esteemed
for having grappled himself up out of the stifling quicksands of
religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of atheism.
 
On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172452989.091439.309950@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 4:17?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 15:11:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172445067.443820.54...@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. /me minor "crimes" such as traffic infractions may place
>> >> him just before a judge. /me 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. eople 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. f 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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave
>had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. That was
>the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. So now you are saying that
>the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. Well, that
>does not really surprise me.

What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though
it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all
Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the
Dred Scott case is no longer valid.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion
or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were
an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:09:35 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
- Refer: <2gq5u2ln31vss5tl8ma6j15uconaek5kvn@4ax.com>
>In alt.atheism On 25 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0800, "rbwinn"
><rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>>On Feb 25, 5:16?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:32:15 -0800, "rbwinn"
>>> <rbwi...@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:
>>> >> >> >>rbwinnwrote:
>>> >> >> >> > 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.
>>>
>>Well, you can stop doing it any time, Don.
>
> Wow--you did it a 3rd time!
>
> Sheesh--how childish are you?

He has a mental age of around seven.

--
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:46:22 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <54gh6uF20gm00U1@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 26 February 2007 4:48 am
>Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

:

>> It is none of business, I know, but I fail to see why you devote so
>> much of your valuable time and scholarship engaging with this ignorant
>> madman and infantile liar.
>>
>
>Due to recent health problems my doctor ordered no lifting and no
>exercise. I thought maybe an exercise in futility might help my
>circulatory system. It is apparent now that I was getting too much
>exercise in attempts to have a reasonable, responsible discussion with
>Robbie.

Master Winn is getting far more excercise than anyone here, with his
jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of molehills, pushing his
luck, flying off the handle, beating around the bush, grasping at
straws, fishing for clues, & passing the buck.

>> Surely you have more productive and sane theists to converse with?
>>
>
>Isn't "sane theists" an oxymoron?

The Dalai Lama and Pangur render it not so!

>> To quote Blackadder:
>> "It is like fitting wheels to a tomato:
>> Both time-consuming and entirely unnecessary!"
>>
>> This is entirely rhetorical, of course.
>>
>> --

--
 
On 25 Feb 2007 17:30:16 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172453415.648942.236590@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 4:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 14:57:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172444233.997528.321...@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. (ere were probably others before
>> >> >him, but when he did it, lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>> >> >authoritative. (e 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.
lmost all Americans who appear in court
>> >today are told by judges and prosecutors that they do not have the
>> >right to trial by jury.
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>> Liar.-
>
>An accusation from an atheist does not change reality.
>Robert B. Winn

You've made a claim that you cannot support. You've made prior claims
that are demonstrably wrong. It is appropriate and necessary to let
people know that you are untrustworthy. Your claim to be religious does
not change that.
 
On 25 Feb 2007 18:23:02 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172456582.857461.111630@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 25, 6:36?pm, Gospel Bretts <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 17:27:37 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 4:21?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On 25 Feb 2007 15:04:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> >> <1172444647.286662.253...@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. (en 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. (e 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
>>
>> >> >> (ether or not
>>
>> >> >> > Thurgood Marshall was the first Supreme Court justice to advocate
>> >> >> > denying this right is irrelevant. (ere were probably others before
>> >> >> > him, but when he did it
>>
>> >> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> >> , lawyers as a group endorsed his opinion as
>>
>> >> >> > authoritative.
>>
>> >> >> Cite?
>>
>> >> >> (e 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. /u 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. / here is where the matter
>> >> >stands: 3 the Supreme Court the Supreme law of the Land? /, the
>> >> >Supreme Court is not the Supreme law of the land. (e Constitution of
>> >> >the United States is the Supreme Law of the land. & there are
>> >> >lawyers who cannot understand the English language, they should not
>> >> >become Supreme Court judges.
>>
>> mendment 6 of the Constitution says
>>
>> >> >that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is guaranteed right
>> >> >to trial by jury. (e Constitution cannot be amended by the Supreme
>> >> >Court. t 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.- Hide quoted text -
>> >They did not give me any break. hey all came to court as witnesses
>> >and committed perjury about what happened.
>> >I was still declared not guilty because the judge did not want me to
>> >appeal the case.
>> >Robert B. Winn
>>
>> Hi Robert. Don't take this wrong, cuz I'm not trying to give you a
>> hard time, but I just want to ask an honest and innocent quesion. If
>> folks committed perjury to hurt you, then what can you do about it?
>> Can you get the D.A. to file criminal charges against them?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Not in a European style police state, which is what they are running
>at the present time. There is no D.A. who is going to file felony
>charges against police officers for committing perjury in a
>misdemeanor case. The most they will do is say the police officers
>did not remember correctly.

You enjoy defaming people.
 
On Feb 25, 8:25 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:19?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
[...]
> > >> 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.
>
> I do not define words. I just read them. So show us the logic that
> puts some criminal prosecutions outside of "all criminal
> prosecutions". You might want to draw us a Venn diagram.
> Robert B. Winn

I'm inclined to agree that refusing an accused a jury where he is
charged with multiple petty offenses is inimical to the 6th Amendment
guarantee of jury trial. For the defendant may well be at peril of
spending years in prison, and for a judge to find the facts without a
jury in such a case smacks of tyranny, notwithstanding that the
scholarly Free Lunch is correct in stating the practice occurred at
Common Law. So I disagree with that 1996 case I previously cited in
which Cardinal O'Connor delivered the opinion.

It is a problem in many Supreme Court decisions, this Orwellian drift
of the meaning of words. Very troublling to me. So the Supreme Court
redefines the offense and calls it petty, although the accused is in
jeapardy of hard prison time.

Winnie, in another post you stated that the courts are not empowered
to amend the Constitution; only Congress is. Well, it's not that
simple. A supermajority of Congress, i. e., 2/3, and a supermajority
of the states by ratification, i. e., 3/4, are required to amend. I
thought you said you had read your Constitution, or do you just flash
a pamphlet of it like that redneck farmer fighting with the U. S.
Forest Service?
 
in article 1172454559.575420.50280@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at
rbwinn3@juno.com wrote on 2/25/07 8:49 PM:

> On Feb 25, 5:15?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 24 Feb 2007 06:29:31 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@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.
 
On Feb 26, 10:16 am, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:16 am, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2:18?am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> [...]
> > Well, you are an apostate Christian. That means you are more
> > dishonest than a person who was raised atheist.
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> On the contrary, my dear Winnie, the ex-Christian has turned away from
> dishonesty and embraced truth. He is to be more admired and esteemed
> for having grappled himself up out of the stifling quicksands of
> religion and walked in the verdant and enlightened fields of atheism.

Well, if you atheists are so happy, why can't you stay away from
trying to discredit religion? It seems to me that if you were the way
you say you are, you would just show by example how much better it is
to be an atheist. Instead, all I see you doing is trying to strike
up conversations about the Bible.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 26, 5:32 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 17:23:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172452989.091439.309...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 4:17?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 15:11:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172445067.443820.54...@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. /me minor "crimes" such as traffic infractions may place
> >> >> him just before a judge. /me 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. eople 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. f 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that a runaway slave
> >had to be returned to his owner if he fled to another state. That was
> >the last Supreme Court ruling on slavery. So now you are saying that
> >the Supreme Court has made another erroneous decision. Well, that
> >does not really surprise me.
>
> What an absurd claim. At the time, the decision was correct, even though
> it was absolutely repugnant from the modern viewpoint for almost all
> Americans. The Congress and states changed the Constitution so that the
> Dred Scott case is no longer valid.
>
> You really have no idea what you are talking about, whether in religion
> or law. I would not be surprised based on your behavior here if you were
> an ignorant blowhard in other areas of knowledge as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
If you want to return runaway slaves, that would be your choice. My
opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery.
Robert B. Winn
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
FALSE GODS
2 3
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
EVIDENCE OF NO REAL GOD
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
GOD MYTHS AND FABLES
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top