Messages Dated January 2003
1 - 20 of 1,099

DROP
DROP

PARTING SHOT (PART 2)
have to do Unless I've missed something, I don't think he has asserted that at all. But only that the idea that all negatives are unproveable, is incorrect, and that the tactic used to defend that assertion (defining "negative" as "that which cannot be proven") is itself an assertion that has yet to be supported. That's the "unproven definition" he refers to. What "unproven definition" are you referring to?

Parting shot (part 2)
The "Promissory Note" is a good example of an untestable claim, and of why it is folly to accept something as true just because you can't disprove it. But it has no bearing whatsoever on your definition of "negative", which still looks absurd to me. The disagreement is with your definition, not your logic. If I accepted a definition of "negative" as "that which cannot be tested", then I'd accept that one can't prove a negative. But I see no

MY PROOF IS...
Sure does demonstrate to the rest of the world that the US system of government is superior, doesn't it?

My proof is...
Nah, you're the one boring them to sleep, I'm the one entertaining them with lively conversation. <G> CMPQwk 1.42 16554 Humans are not the pinnacle of creation. Cats are.

Mother Teresa to be beati
"Not one of the best?" For shame! You mean you don't appreciate William "Tribble Hair" Shatner's directorial "skills?" <G> CMPQwk 1.42 16554 Humans are not the pinnacle of creation. Cats are.

Parting shot (part 2)
How? CMPQwk 1.42 16554 Humans are not the pinnacle of creation. Cats are.

Parting shot (part 2)
Why is it untestable? Dan said the note was stuck on one of the Voyager spacecrafts. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to go fetch the spacecraft, just to tear apart to look for the note. But not impossible. CMPQwk 1.42 16554 Humans are not the pinnacle of creation. Cats are.

Parting shot (part 2)
Brad and William are having no problems keeping this straight. The rest of you arguing for Ceppa appear to be illiterate. Jeff CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999

PARTING SHOT (PART 2)
No, which is why the word "all" is in front of the word eaten instead of the word leftist. Jeff CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999

Parting shot (part 2)
Show me my argument for Ceppa, Jeff. From the desk of, Jack

Hillary On Top
Hi DAVID, On <Tue, 31 Dec 02>, you wrote me: Well, you can have her. If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President of the USA, I'll have to finally write off the entire nation as whacko's, including you From the desk of, Jack

Re: A question & A reply
Hey, it is ALL-POLITICS... From the desk of, Jack

Hillary On Top
As a good christian woman, she isn't perfect: she's forgiven. Surely even WOAs can grasp that simple point. Come, Sir, in all fairness you must admit that our humorous possibilities do not stop short at the free world's borders. As the only remaining superpower, we have the honor of appearing ridiculous globally. And we're damned proud of it! (don.martin@hq.med.va.gov)

More on the James Box
Are James,Joseph and Jesus Jewish names? SLMR 2.1a Capital Punishment means never having to say,"You again?"

Mormons Breaking Jewish B
to Also Erwin Rommel. SLMR 2.1a Member No.99-----Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

PARTING SHOT (PART 2)
ha all. to 2+2=5 is incorrect, is provable and is negative. SLMR 2.1a Inform all troops that communications are broken down

Re: Jeff-ese
K K a role from have Amen SLMR 2.1a It's lonely at the top but I eat better.

Muslims and Xians in Pakistan
'I think now it will be a complete genocide of the non-Muslims' Rory McCarthy Saturday August 10, 2002 The Guardian [Snip] Many Christian leaders now believe more attacks will follow. "We are paying the price of being Christians here and being allied with the west," said Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian leader who heads the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance. "I think now it will be a complete genocide of the non-Muslims here if the Islamic militant forces are not checked." Pakistan's

W's Faith-Based Initiative Bad Idea
You'd better believe this is a bad idea By Karen McCarthy Brown January 1, 2003 Lots of people seem to think that federal funding for faith-based charity violates the separation of church and state. It does. But there is another reason why Americans should be wary of allowing the government to have any financial control over our richly diverse religious traditions: Such funding allows the government to decide, essentially, what counts as a religion. [Snip] For Bush, there is no