Re: Definition of God

[Bob]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,

Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.

>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people.

That would be the God of the Chosen People.

The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named
Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.




--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[mejercit@hotmail.com]

Steve O wrote:
> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:44fc09fb.2847125@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:21:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I
> >>reckon.
> >
> > It's good to be back on topic again.
> >
> > Define "psychotic God". It sounds like an oxymoron.
> >
> > Also, convince us you are not projecting.
>
> A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, particularly
> as described in the Old Testament.
> A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people.
>
He killed those people to show His power.


Michael

 

[knucmo]

Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:36:38 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
> >with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it.
>
> You will have a very difficult time proving malicious intent,
> especially for posters to Usenet. Most are too stoned to be truly
> malicious.

Hence:

"Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to
stupidity". An important principle.

 

[knucmo]

Steve O wrote:

> Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I
> reckon.

Given that psychotic is a property of something isn't it just as
possible to say:

"Anyone who follows an omnipotent God must be a little omnipotent?"

I don't reckon it follows when you start applying human attributes to a
God.

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>
> Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
> you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
> are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.

To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to
read the Christian bible.
The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful
killer.


>
>>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent
>>people.
>
> That would be the God of the Chosen People.

And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?

>
> The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named
> Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>
You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or did
you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>

--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Bob]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>>>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,

>> Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
>> you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
>> are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.

>To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to
>read the Christian bible.

So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh.

That is not my God. Do strive to understand that.

>The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful
>killer.

More leftist queer whining.

>> That would be the God of the Chosen People.

>And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?

The God of the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New
Testament.

>> The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named
>> Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.

>You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or did
>you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?

Christ happened. He said he was going to reform the Old Testament,
which he did. It is you who is confused about which God you are
talking about.

>"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
>that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

In your case, I would not count on it.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On 4 Sep 2006 10:44:52 -0700, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Steve O wrote:
>
>> Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I
>> reckon.
>
>Given that psychotic is a property of something isn't it just as
>possible to say:
>
>"Anyone who follows an omnipotent God must be a little omnipotent?"
>
>I don't reckon it follows when you start applying human attributes to a
>God.

Look, my kids think I'm a whole lot omnipotent, and I plan to keep
it that way as long as possible.

Lizz 'I charge high rent for nine months lodging' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> lied

> Christ said he was going to reform the Old Testament

What was actually said:

Matthew 5:17
[ The Fulfillment of the Law ] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote

> I don;t agree with princeton

Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!


Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)


[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote

> I don;t agree with princeton

Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!


Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)


[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[mejercit@hotmail.com]

Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>
> >> Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If
> >> you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you
> >> are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>
> >To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to
> >read the Christian bible.
>
> So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh.
>
> That is not my God. Do strive to understand that.
>
> >The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful
> >killer.
>
> More leftist queer whining.
>
> >> That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>
> >And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?
>
> The God of the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New
> Testament.
Jesus Christ said otherwise.


Michael

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> > >> >have none of this assurance.
> > >>
> > >> Neither do some theists.
> > >>
> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
> > >> exists.
> > >>
> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is
> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.
> > >>
> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
> > > exclusively in the brain?
> > > No one knows for certain.
> >
> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
famous.
>
> Then Tutor must be declaring

I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical fallacy in
the Wood's argument, understand?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
>> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
>> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
>> > >> >have none of this assurance.
>> > >>
>> > >> Neither do some theists.
>> > >>
>> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
>> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
>> > >> exists.
>> > >>
>> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There
>> > >> is
>> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
>> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.
>> > >>
>> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
>> > > exclusively in the brain?
>> > > No one knows for certain.
>> >
>> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
>> > are
> famous.
>>
>> Then Tutor must be declaring
>
> I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical fallacy
> in
> the Wood's argument, understand?

We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy since we
understand that you've once again misapplied the argumentum ad
ignorantiam . To simply point out a question, such as Wood did above, is
not to make any kind of argument whatsoever, let alone the argument from
ignorance for which anti-theists like yourself have become famous.

>
>

 

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:40:16 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in
<ncSdndCsAaX8AGHZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
>
>> I don;t agree with princeton
>
>Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
>
><quote>
>Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
>criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
>mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
>Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
>sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
>Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
>moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
>are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
>which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
>false!

Every time you post that quote you remind us once again that you don't
understand what Copi was telling you. If you passed a class using that
textbook, you should demand that you be failed and allowed to take the
class again.

>
>Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
>same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
>transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
>equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
>crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
>of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
>prove false.
></quote>
>(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
>
>
>[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
>be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
>
>

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:7M1Lg.3225$v%4.248@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
> >> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> >> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> >> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood"
<drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
> >> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> >> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> >> > >> >have none of this assurance.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Neither do some theists.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
> >> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer
> >> > >> exists.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There
> >> > >> is
> >> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
> >> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible.
> >> > >>
> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
> >> > > exclusively in the brain?
> >> > > No one knows for certain.
> >> >
> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
> >> > are
> > famous.
> >>
> >> Then Tutor must be declaring
> >
> > I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical
fallacy
> > in
> > the Wood's argument, understand?
>
> We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy

Yes I have, moron. Let me explain it for you again. Arguing as Wood does
that there might be consciousness dwelling outside the brain because there
is no proof that hypothesis that 'might be theist conjecture) is false is
argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which you theists are famous,
as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Dan Wood]

"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szky7t0gp6o.fsf@fnord.io.com...
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
> >news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com...
> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes:
> ><SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable.
>
> >> >> >> You're liable to be psychotic?
>
> >> >> >> Please make up your mind.
>
> >> >> >No, you have slandered me.
>
> >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the
> >> >> docket...they'll appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem)
expertise.
>
> >> >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against
> >> >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of
> >> >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an
> >> >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do
> >> >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway!
> >> >But don't be so nasty in the future.
>
> >> Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is
"nasty"?
> >> (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's
in a
> >> newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.)
>
> >In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
> >with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it.
>
> If you're too full of yourself to pay attention, I look forward to you
finding
> out the hard way. (I won't be a party to it.)
>
I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those
who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil, forthright
even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest
and sincere discussions.

I hope you've had a wonderful day,
Dan
> --
> Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston,
Texas
> chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
> LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
> NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AuSdndMIcbGrL2HZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7M1Lg.3225$v%4.248@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:5eSdnRvvBOYeOGHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> >> In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood"
> <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
>> >> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
>> >> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
>> >> > >> >have none of this assurance.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Neither do some theists.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a
>> >> > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no
>> >> > >> longer
>> >> > >> exists.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death".
>> >> > >> There
>> >> > >> is
>> >> > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function
>> >> > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer
>> >> > >> possible.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
>> >> > > exclusively in the brain?
>> >> > > No one knows for certain.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
>> >> > are
>> > famous.
>> >>
>> >> Then Tutor must be declaring
>> >
>> > I am not declaring anything, moron, just pointing out the logical
> fallacy
>> > in
>> > the Wood's argument, understand?
>>
>> We understand that you have not pointed out a logical fallacy
>
> Yes I have, moron. Let me explain it for you again. Arguing as Wood does
> that there might be consciousness dwelling outside the brain because there
> is no proof that hypothesis that 'might be

Except he didn't do that. As usual, YOU added on the supposed argument,
tacking it onto a comment that didn't include an agument.

Here's what he actually said.

>> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell
>> > > exclusively in the brain?
>> > > No one knows for certain.

How does that turn into an argument?

 

[Bob]

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:47:53 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those
>who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil, forthright
>even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest
>and sincere discussions.

"Don't waste your time in pissing contests with skunks."


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
>>
> In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup
> with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it.

Oh brother. You need to go to alt.religion.christian.baptist and look up
one john "porno boy" weathery. He's also fond of threatening people with
law suits - And sounds just slightly a bit more stupid than you do.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
sni[p
>>
> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those
> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,
> forthright
> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest
> and sincere discussions.
>
> I hope you've had a wonderful day,

I hope you get bent.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557