Michael Daly wrote:
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself,
God does,

I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way
He
chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God
manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All
manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc.

You don't get it, you never will.

Mike

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know
that it is God that did this? TnT

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed,
even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****.

Poor snotty - did I make you cranky? The context of the discussion is
sexual behavior. Deal with that. I know, that means not lying, but
at least you can try.

In any sort
of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the
greater needs of the society in which he lives.

If all decisions are the responsibility of the greater society, that
pretty much eliminates all your claims about freedom.

If an individual cannot conduct his most private life according to
his or her own rules, then they have no freedom. We're talking
about sexual behavior here - between consenting adults - in case
you plan on bringing up some ridiculous analogy.

The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist.

What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they
cast into? What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes
a right?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus.

Sez you.

No, you make the bogus claims -

Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.
Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.
Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.
H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.
Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus.
Want more?

You throw out any claim, hoping that those who read it will be at least as
stupid as you are and believe it. However, those of us that are smarter
than you will always take you to task for your bull****.


There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not.

Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition.

I say one cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist.
You say that means that I say God does not exist. Hardly a case of
me not writing clearly enough.

I say fundies are fools for wasting their time with ridiculous
"theories" of creationism. You say that I say anyone that
believes in God is a fool. Again - not my writing that's the
problem - it's your twisted mind at work.


There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

See above.

You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner. Yet
you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master
logician. Bull****.

Mike

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply.

We don't reply because you're good - we reply to reduce the
level of bull**** in the newsgroup. Every time you post,
misinformation is spread.

Mike

On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the
separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell,
and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever,

It's fairly simple, in fact. The page you linked to is interesting, as
it demonstrates my point. There is no description of God there.

There is the ambiguous reference to making man in His likeness and image,
but, as I was taught in grade school, that _may_ only be a reference to
our mental capacities and ability to choose, not that our physical form
is the same. No direct reference in the Bible indicates that we have
the same general physical form. Those that are said to have seen God
did not describe Him.

If we are to try to prove God's existence in the physical world, we
have to be aware of His presence in the physical world as a physical
being. The Bible does not offer any evidence of what to expect.
Nor does it show that He is always around in physical form but, rather,
suggests that He chooses to reveal Himself only on occasion. Since
we don't know what to look for noe when to look, we are at a serious
disadvantage.

The spiritual world cannot be touched or felt. We have no device to
detect it. People who claim to be in touch with the spiritual
world (spiritualists) are considered frauds. Belief in spiritualism,
within the Roman Catholic Church for example, is wrong. This is
not the same thing as getting in touch with the spiritual world by,
say, praying. That, however, is a one-way street. Any possible
results of praying are covered under the vague "mysterious ways"
and cannot be used reliably as an experimental result.

If you want to move into another religion and discuss worldly gods,
then the situation changes. However, the Judeo-Christian God is
presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with.

or will ever occur?

I cannot claim to know the future. I leave that to fools like
weiser.

Mike

On 2-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think
that's already been documented. :-)

Mike

On 2-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

Sure they are, but the sites I have provided prove that it is the
wait for treatment that caused the deaths.

Ahh,, no they didn't. Now who's lying?

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 2-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

Sure they are, but the sites I have provided prove that it is
the
wait for treatment that caused the deaths.

Ahh,, no they didn't. Now who's lying?
====================
Yes, they do. So that would be you.


Mike

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM:


snip...


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the
US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at
their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about
their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience
of
the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a
medical
facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2
1/2
years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment.
======================
Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have
agreed to that, now.

Nono. Stop being dishonest.

I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment.
================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the
people
in
your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when
in
fact they were all in current receipt of care.

Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your
are
too weak and too much of coward to do it.
======================
Nope. Where's yours, liarman?

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in
the
story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag
for
taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was
referring to all
persons in Canada.
=====================
No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment.
liarman.


You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of
a
coward to do
it.
+=================
No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh
liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in
Canada
have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about
a lie
you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't
want
to discuss your continued willful ignorance?

What happened is you blathered on about the people in
Newfoundland waiting 2
1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not
waiting for
treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop
being a coward,
suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak?
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you,
liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it.

Yeah, you were.
=====================
No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted. And
it was the only time I brought it up.



You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years
for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They
aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so.
Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada
waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a
scumbag.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still
are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you
were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in
Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was
about only one site, and one example.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a
handle
on this
situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some
reading about
various systems and have at least a passing
acquaintance
with
a variety
of European models (I now know the difference between
the
Beveridge and
the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that
sense,
all of
this has been useful for me.

It's too bad rick could never see the value in such
discourse.
====================
LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic
chest-thumping lies.

Perhaps you should stop telling them, then.
=====================
I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists
in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for
that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this,
yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I'm not lying about anything.
=====================
Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in
Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that
treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove
this, yet
you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that
liarman?
Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet?

I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making
a fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to
the post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question
allowed you to meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar
regardless of how you make your claim.

All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland
were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still
are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you
were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in
Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was
about only one site, and one example.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
link.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM:


snip..

You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with
rick's
spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus
more
on
his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all
that
happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of
picking
on the wording of my attempts to make him focus.
=====================
No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er
wording,
liarman. You made direct declarative statements that
you
cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that
no 1)
no one is waiting for treatment in Canada,

Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the
people
in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for
treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big
of
a
coward to admit it.
======================
Nope. that's not what you said

Yes it is.

I responded to your allegation that the people featured in
the
story were
waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag
for
taking my
statement out of that context and trying to say that I was
referring to all
persons in Canada.
========================
Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment

No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting
for treatment as
you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your
dishonesty is
further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag.
============================
Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now

I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2
years for treatment and I was right.
==============
No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did
not start for at least 2 1/2 years.


You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still
are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you
were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in
Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was
about only one site, and one example.