NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 17:30:16 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172453415.648942.236...@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.- Hide quoted text -
> -

Spoken like an atheist. You have said that our freedom depends on
permission from atheists. No, sorry, our freedom has nothing to do
with you or your corrupt philosophies. Jeswus Christ was the one who
said we were free.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 26, 6:02 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 18:23:02 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172456582.857461.111...@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.- Hide quoted text -
>

Are you saying that you know of a District Attorney who will indict a
police officer for perjury committed in a misdemeanor case? What is
the District Attorney's name?
Robert B. Winn
 
On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> in article 1172454559.575420.50...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at
> rbwi...@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. 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.

>
> > Well, it is not a threat. You will have a chance to express your
> > views to Jesus Christ.

>
> I certainly will...and I won't be disappointed, because there is
> NOTHING Jesus Christ can offer me I would actually WANT.
>

Well, Jesus Christ would be the one to tell your idea. Strangely, the
scriptures say that none of you people are going to take advantage of
the opportunity.
Robert B. Winn
 
On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172545725.523360.319420@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>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>:


....

>> >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.


You, of course, know you are making an utterly absurd claim.

>My opinion is that you have no right to try to practice slavery.


Yet the Bible that you worship approves of slavery. Why do you disagree
with the Bible?
 
In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:50:36 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>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"


>> >> >> >> >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.


I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are.

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 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>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:


>> >> >> >> >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 have no argument, but it always
>> backfires, since it SIGNALS that you have no argument.
>>

>I never claimed to be arguing, Don.


That's good, since you are incapable of holding any sort of
rational argument.

> 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.


No, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means
to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did.


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 26 Feb 2007 19:11:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172545881.572790.37170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 17:30:16 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172453415.648942.236...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>

....
>>
>> >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.- Hide quoted text -
>> -

>Spoken like an atheist. You have said that our freedom depends on
>permission from atheists. No, sorry, our freedom has nothing to do
>with you or your corrupt philosophies. Jeswus Christ was the one who
>said we were free.


You mock Jesus with your absurd claims and intentional lies.
--

"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
 
On 26 Feb 2007 19:13:39 -0800, in alt.atheism
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
<1172546019.738234.301080@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 26, 6:02 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2007 18:23:02 -0800, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1172456582.857461.111...@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.- Hide quoted text -
>>

>Are you saying that you know of a District Attorney who will indict a
>police officer for perjury committed in a misdemeanor case? What is
>the District Attorney's name?


Do you have evidence that perjury was committed or are you just telling
us stories the way you do when you make things up with your religious
beliefs?
 
On Feb 26, 6:01?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2007 17:30:16 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172453415.648942.236...@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.- Hide quoted text -


Do whatever you decide to do. The United States is a free country.
What you do means nothing to me.
Robert B. Winn
 
On 22 feb, 17:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Free Lunch" wrote in messagenews:8vnpt2dbg15v1o4t4gi1od6t5c2d1r8el6@4ax.com...
> > There is no evidence for God or Satan or any other gods of Christianity
> > or any other religions.

>
> I respect this as a tenet of your belief that you religiously adhere to and
> evangelistically proclaim.
>

You shouldn't
If you disagree, you should produce the evidence.
You do not, therefore I suspect you agree.

Peter van Velzen
February 2007
Thung Song
Thailand
 
On Feb 26, 7:08�pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:25 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:19?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>
 
On Feb 26, 8:20�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 19:08:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172545725.523360.319...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >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>:

>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >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.
 
On Feb 26, 8:25�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:50:36 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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"
> >> >> >> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
> >> >> >> >> >existence of the Bible.

>
> >> >> >> >>
 
On Feb 26, 8:26�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn"
> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >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:
> >> >> >> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
> >> >> >> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up.

>
> >> >> >> >>
 
On Feb 26, 8:32�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 19:11:21 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172545881.572790.37...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 17:30:16 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172453415.648942.236...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>
> ...
>
> >> >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.- Hide quoted text -
> >> -

> >Spoken like an atheist.
 
On Feb 26, 8:33�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 19:13:39 -0800, in alt.atheism
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> <1172546019.738234.301...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 26, 6:02 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 18:23:02 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> >> <1172456582.857461.111...@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:
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 26 February 2007 7:50 pm
Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> 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.
>


Now that is funny.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --

>
> --


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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
In our last episode,
<1172546142.249794.79230@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented rbwinn
broadcast on alt.atheism:

> On Feb 26, 7:54 pm, Paul Duca <p.d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> in article 1172454559.575420.50...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, rbwinn at
>> rbwi...@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. 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.

>>
>> > Well, it is not a threat. You will have a chance to express your
>> > views to Jesus Christ.

>>
>> I certainly will...and I won't be disappointed, because there is
>> NOTHING Jesus Christ can offer me I would actually WANT.
>>

> Well, Jesus Christ would be the one to tell your idea. Strangely, the
> scriptures say that none of you people are going to take advantage of
> the opportunity.
> Robert B. Winn


Hey! You're out of business! They found the body!

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 693 days to go.
 
In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:16:01 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 26, 8:25?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:50:36 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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"
>> >> >> >> >> >Well, here we have another statement from an atheist denying the
>> >> >> >> >> >existence of the Bible.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> o, 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.

>>
>> I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are.
>>

>I have never thought you were amusing.


That's because I'm educational.


> And you are not childish.


That's because I don't believe in god. The upshot is that
those who believe in god are 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"
 
In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 22:17:59 -0800, "rbwinn"
<rbwinn3@juno.com> let us all know that:

>On Feb 26, 8:26?pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism On 26 Feb 2007 06:46:29 -0800, "rbwinn"
>> <rbwi...@juno.com> let us all know that:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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:
>> >> >> >> >> >How about this? Here is someone who thinks that his ancestors were
>> >> >> >> >> >monkeys telling me to grow up.

>>
>> >> >> >> >>

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> very 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. rofanity 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 have no argument, but it always
>> >> backfires, since it SIGNALS that you have no argument.

>>
>> >I never claimed to be arguing, Don.

>>
>> That's good, since you are incapable of holding any sort of
>> rational argument.
>>
>> > What is there to argue about? e
>> >have freedom of religion here in the United States. ou are free to
>> >be an atheist if that is what you want to be. ou decided to try some
>> >profanity on me.

>>
>> No, since there's no such thing. And I told you what it means
>> to argue style-over-substance, which is what you did.
>>

>There is no such thing as profanity?


Yep.

Now, if you would bother to back your claim that atheists say
that the bible doesn't exist (which I know you can't), we can make fun
of you for being so ****ing stupid as to make such a statement.


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"
 

Similar threads

R
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top