Re: Let's get this straight
- From: Inez <savagemouse123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:23:49 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 25, 8:59 am, heekster <heeks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:10:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:42 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:37:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allseei...@xxxxxxx>:
All life started with an "original" and "created" kind.
Well, it didn't take long to get from "let's get this
straight" to "this is what I believe, based on zero
evidence".
One sentence.
Congratulations.
<snip Non-Seeing-Idiocy>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Yet you cannot refute without personal attacks.
Yet, there was no personal attack. It seems that you lie.
In fairness <Snip non-seeing idiocy> might fairly be called a personal
attack.
Where he goes wrong is to assume that Mr. Casanova couldn't respond
without a personal attack. I believe that he could, it just wouldn't
have been as much fun.
Why is that?
Why do you always proffer an imbecilic canard, in lieu of any actual
evidence?-
He hasn't got any.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Let's get this straight
- From: Bob Casanova
- Re: Let's get this straight
- From: heekster
- Re: Let's get this straight
- References:
- Let's get this straight
- From: All-Seeing-I
- Re: Let's get this straight
- From: Bob Casanova
- Re: Let's get this straight
- From: All-seeing-I
- Re: Let's get this straight
- From: heekster
- Let's get this straight
- Prev by Date: Re: Must be important.
- Next by Date: Re: Why are there seashells on the top of Mount Everest K0oks?
- Previous by thread: Re: Let's get this straight
- Next by thread: Re: Let's get this straight
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|