M
metro-golden-meower
Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:41:41 -0800 (PST), Axel Hussein Yerbouti
<mhm23x3@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 10:22?am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Axel Hussein Yerbouti wrote:
>> > On Dec 29, 9:45 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote in
>> >>>>>>news
an.2008.12.29.11.15.13@Arizona.Bay:
>> >>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee:
>> >>>>>>>> ?Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 28, 7:52 pm, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless he isn't there, then you have a real problem,
>> >>>>>>>>>> now don't you?
>>
>> >> A question was asked, and answer was given and then Christopher Lee
>> >> demonstrated the unreason at the heart of Atheist vitriol and ad hom;
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1Corinthians 15:1-19
>>
>> >>>>>>>> What a *******, in-your-face moron.
>>
>> >>>>>>> How does "What a *******, in-your-face moron" not qualify
>> >>>>>>> for the same ?criticism?
>> >>>>>>> And just how do you think dropping a "big fat one" like
>> >>>>>>> "What a *******,
>> >>>>>>> in-your-face moron" into a thread improves the chances
>> >>>>>>> anyone else could
>> >>>>>>> have any kind of meaningful debate?
>> >> Lee has defined the Christian response to the question to be invalid,
>> >> like the Atheist totalitarians in the USSR, mocked by Orwell, he seeks
>> >> to CONTROL both sides of the argument.. not by facts, he never has any,
>> >> not by reason, he never shows any, but by vitriol, dogma and abuse..
>> >> just like medieval fundamentalists! ? ?B^p
>>
>> > "Medieval fundamentalist" is a misapplication of terms,
>>
>> How so? ?
>
>Fundamentalism was a Protestant backlash against modernity (more
>specifically, against textual and scientific criticism of the
>Christian Bible).
>
>Since neither Protestantism nor modernity existed in the medieval
>period, "Medieval fundamentalist" is non sequitur and self-
>contradictory.
>
>> I note you accept all the other points about Chris Lee
>> being a rabid dog. ?B^)
>
>I am unable to speak to Chris Lee's rabidness, nor his caninitude. If
>he has contracted rabies, it is imperative he receive extreme medical
>intervention. He would become the third person ever to live through
>the course of the virus.
>
>>
>> ?> thereby invalidating your entire argument.
>>
>> unlikely.- Hide quoted text -
>
>Your points are inane, irrelevant, and insane.
<phew>
for a second i thought you where channeling gilbert t sullivan.
<mhm23x3@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 10:22?am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Axel Hussein Yerbouti wrote:
>> > On Dec 29, 9:45 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote in
>> >>>>>>news
an.2008.12.29.11.15.13@Arizona.Bay:>> >>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee:
>> >>>>>>>> ?Ted L <tedl...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 28, 7:52 pm, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless he isn't there, then you have a real problem,
>> >>>>>>>>>> now don't you?
>>
>> >> A question was asked, and answer was given and then Christopher Lee
>> >> demonstrated the unreason at the heart of Atheist vitriol and ad hom;
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 1Corinthians 15:1-19
>>
>> >>>>>>>> What a *******, in-your-face moron.
>>
>> >>>>>>> How does "What a *******, in-your-face moron" not qualify
>> >>>>>>> for the same ?criticism?
>> >>>>>>> And just how do you think dropping a "big fat one" like
>> >>>>>>> "What a *******,
>> >>>>>>> in-your-face moron" into a thread improves the chances
>> >>>>>>> anyone else could
>> >>>>>>> have any kind of meaningful debate?
>> >> Lee has defined the Christian response to the question to be invalid,
>> >> like the Atheist totalitarians in the USSR, mocked by Orwell, he seeks
>> >> to CONTROL both sides of the argument.. not by facts, he never has any,
>> >> not by reason, he never shows any, but by vitriol, dogma and abuse..
>> >> just like medieval fundamentalists! ? ?B^p
>>
>> > "Medieval fundamentalist" is a misapplication of terms,
>>
>> How so? ?
>
>Fundamentalism was a Protestant backlash against modernity (more
>specifically, against textual and scientific criticism of the
>Christian Bible).
>
>Since neither Protestantism nor modernity existed in the medieval
>period, "Medieval fundamentalist" is non sequitur and self-
>contradictory.
>
>> I note you accept all the other points about Chris Lee
>> being a rabid dog. ?B^)
>
>I am unable to speak to Chris Lee's rabidness, nor his caninitude. If
>he has contracted rabies, it is imperative he receive extreme medical
>intervention. He would become the third person ever to live through
>the course of the virus.
>
>>
>> ?> thereby invalidating your entire argument.
>>
>> unlikely.- Hide quoted text -
>
>Your points are inane, irrelevant, and insane.
<phew>
for a second i thought you where channeling gilbert t sullivan.