Messages Dated December 2002
861 - 880 of 880

Transcription
Cowards! If they're not going to proceed, that's unfortunate since it would have highlighted the silliness of their religion.

Parting shot (part 2)
No, Jeff is right. It is Kemp and Ceppa who've been saying silly things about positive/negative claims. Both Kemp and Ceppa have stated that the proper definition of "a negative", as used in the sentence "You can't prove a negative", is a claim that is "based on nothing" or a claim that is untestable. In other words, in order to support this pet saying of theirs, they've redefined "a negative" so that it means "that which cannot be proven". and

PARTING SHOT (PART 2)
Surely you don't mean each and every one.

Suit To Give Son Religiou
Now why isn't the Bush administration supporting _this_ faith-based initiative?

Parting shot (part 2)
Oh fuck. The standard definition of "a negative" should be accepted unless you can provide really good reasons for accepting your novel definition instead, which you have not done. I'm *this close* to permanently dismissing you as a hopeless flake.

Parting shot (part 2)
Obviously, it is possible for a positive claim to be untestable.

Parting shot (part 2)
Don't be so fucking condescending and don't presume to teach me the obvious.

Bible Publisher Caught in
Thank you very, very much for posting all of these news items. I don't have a television or radio, so I miss most of this shit. Bloody amazing stuff going on.

Hillary On Top
It would be GREAT is Ms. Clinton ran for the Presidental office. I'd not just vote for her---- I'd campaign for her.

FAITH VS REASON
In that other echo (the one run by Stain), he denies being any of the alia that have appeared. I say it doesn't matter if it is him, or one of the many idiots that have their noses up his butt. Blaming him for it is still fun. Even more fun is watching Jeff Binkley lick his ass like it is candy... From the desk of, Jack

Mother Teresa to be beati
It wasn't one of the best of the series, but something similar was done in a ST movie.

Parting shot (part 2)
So, are you trying to claim that it is a positive?

PARTING SHOT (PART 2)
Provide the evidence for your god. After all, it should be so easy for you.

Parting shot (part 2)
Whereas your type of "logic" concerning the existance of God is better? Problem is, you avoid that argument at every turn. I'll wait while you get Stan to formulate your answer for you. From the desk of, Jack

Parting shot (part 2)
So, just how did you plan to prove your "positive" claim that God exists? I'll wait while you consult Stan's asshole for your answer, bootlicker. From the desk of, Jack

Parting shot (part 2)
You're getting the hang of it now. It's when William's "should" is turned into "must" where it really gets dangerous.

Suit To Give Son Religiou
Hi BRAD, In a message to Curtis Johnson you wrote: Cue the crickets. From the desk of, Jack

Parting shot (part 2)
There is no arguing with this type of "logic". Basically he is saying he'll just make shit up and it is up to everyone else to prove him wrong and because he sets up the condition to make it almost impossible to prove, it is by his definition negative. That is about as stupid as it gets. That isn't negative, that is setting up impossible scenarios then patting one's self on the back for writing something ridiculous. Of course the

Parting shot (part 2)
Just when I thought you couldn't lower the stupidity bar any lower, you did it again. Amazing. And you folks claim to be intelligent. Must be a negative claim because you sure can't prove it. Jeff CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999

Parting shot (part 2)
You got it. It is the true negative claim. It, if you accept the challenge, forces you to provide the evidence for whatever I claim. And you evidence that I cannot move and do anything is? (I trust you are starting to see a pattern here...) Very good. Prove it is not an acceptable definition. After all, I am not the first to use the "Promissory Note" in this Echo. Thus, at least one other person accepts that. And, 2,