"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

I think you are being too subtle.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false
assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable
to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present
supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that
you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not
a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to
reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid
conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are
the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion
when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is
nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would
look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you
even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is
miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at
crunching numbers, would you please do the honors? TnT

bearsbuddy wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false
assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those
assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to
you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such
faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and
your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable
to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right
out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present
supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that
you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I
have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus,
not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to
reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

We must have attended the same schools, cause I came to the same
conclusions
as yourself, after reading Tinker's posts.

Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version
of the
NT--

Possibly you did, same data, same conclusion, same credentials,
indicate same limited processing function of alternative data or
conclusions, and limit of credentials. TnT

bearsbuddy say:
================
Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version
of the
NT
==================

I'm not a christian, so is it safe for me to accept Tinker's version?
I'm sorely in need of guidance in these affairs.

frtzw906

Wesiser says:
===============
So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun
laws in
Canada? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?
=================

There you have your answer embedded in your question: "which is WAY
over budget"

frtzw906

Weiser says:
================
I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet.
======================

And when you do, what will your lame defense be? "Whoops! I made a
mistake."

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false
assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

I was not disagreeing with you at all, in fact confirming your
observation of your apparently false assumption.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable
to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

Now there you go again making assumptions and jumping to conclusions
with the blinders of choice on. If you choose to see only limited data
and/or distort the data you have chosen to use, it should not be a
surprise if you jump to the wrong conclusion!

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Good, the silly notions you had, were definitely silly, though I
suspect that there are a lot of other silly ones that remain. We will
have to work on them another time!

e
Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present
supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that
you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not
a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to
reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

The problem with your logic, is depending on me to know what I am
talking about. To provide a basis of support for your position,
support your own position, and then you will have something to show me,
that you may be able to make logical and supportable conclusions from.
Otherwise, I could be blowing smoke up your ass, and you would not know
the difference, nor able to come to any supportable conclusion
yourself.

Respectfully TnT

Weiser says:
================
....what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

frtzw906

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 6-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:

No, the numbers are from the Canadian health system.

Bull**** - no attribution is given for the source of the
numbers.
That is why they are unsubstantiated.
==============
Keep dreaming. maybe someday you'll even believe your nonsense.




Mike

Weiser says:
============
But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I
choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend
the
defenseless should it be necessary.
=============

OK. OK. OK. You're very good! There I was, taking all this gun talk
seriously, and then you end with a sentence like that! Too funny! NO
ONE but a comedian could make a statement like that. You ARE funny!
"...to defend the defenseless...." LOL ROTFL!!!!!!

frtzw906