Re: Free State Security - part 2

Jim Bianchi, clinging deperately to the last shreds of his
sanity, fell to his knees and shrieked ...:

On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:27:30 GMT, Bob the Burger-Builder wrote:
Jim Bianchi apparently said ...:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:40:26 GMT, Bob the Burger-Builder wrote:
Jim Bianchi apparently said ...:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:24:02 GMT, Bob the Burger-Builder wrote:
[big snip]

[another big snip]

Ok. So you've repeated the same material multiple times
that I've already said that (according to my proposal) is
interprative

Is not "interpretive." It's FACT. Not only do you dismiss it out of
hand, you offer nothing in the way of evidence for your reading (except for
your constant whining about how you can't throw away half of a sentence and
expect it to mean the same thing). Instead you run about madly putting your
fingers into holes and wriggling them.

Nope. Each time you devolve into using terms like "whining"
to describe that which you cannot or will not respond to
rationally, you simply add verification to that detail by
the very limitations of your dismissal method.

You've failed to illustrate how my proposed reading is
totally wrong, simply by providing material that is based on
the very things I'm saying are interpretive, based on my
proposal.

Therefore, you are intentionally avoiding the whole point of
the discussion and simply barracking from an established
safe sniper-position, using prepared material at that.

Either come out and play, or just quit your own "whining"
from behind your fence, m-koi?

You've inaccurately accused me of (amongst several things)
denial. I've not denied anything, simply questioned it and
made an alternative proposal.

And many times you've been shown the utter rubbish your alternative
proposal is. Yet, you persist in holding to that view.

Not ONCE has this been done. Claimed many times, but still
not been done. Hell! If the best I'd seen was a half-arsed
effort, I'd have helped out! But nothing to date.

And so, to save you the bother of continuing to be
frustrated at your inability to grasp the basics of what
I've been trying to discuss here, I'd like to suggest that
if and when you get the urge to post the same material yet
again, you simply take a scan through the thread as exists,
and just pretend you've posted, and I've replied. This
should save both of us some effort, yes?

In other words, you're abandoning the effort to promote your
baseless view of what the 2nd means and how it is constructed. Looks as if
you've lost again. What's new?

Nope. Wrong again, again. I'm BORED with the loop. Here, go
take a look. Everything you are likely to contribute is
already there, along with that which you've just spent over
a week trying rubbish, and failing to do so, without even
looking at it.

http://tinyurl.com/2zl7sm

Enjoy.


P.S. I still think this is funny though

(From a newsgroup post on "I gruppi di Google"
some 400 odd years ago - translated)

A 1616, Giovedì, circa tempo del tè, Giovanni detto,

Look, you idiot! Aristotle PROVED the sun orbits
the earth, and to evidence this, here are several
documents from the Holy Roman Catholic Church that
demonstrate that this is correct. Now just WHEN are
you going to stop with this ridiculess nonsense
that the earth orbits the sun, Mr Galileo Galilei?
You're nothing more than just another damn
mealy-mouthed sun-grabber!

Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Criticism


But maybe this is the wrong NG for humour? :(

--
Bob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... <snip lots> ... do you know how to weigh a mountain? ... Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are ... that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... <snip lots> ... do you know how to weigh a mountain? ... Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are ... that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We keep lowering insulin dosage but BG readings stay low
    ... We took a BG reading in the evening and she registered a 296 reading ... Her insulin, whether she produces her own or she ... if he can convince the endo to agree with him. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: The Middle Ground.
    ... Are we reading the same newsgroup? ... for posterity as a monument to airheads everywhere". ... I notice you did not put up your original post, which, on reflection, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Middle Ground.
    ... Are we reading the same newsgroup? ... USENET quoting customs as a monument to airheads everywhere". ... I notice you did not put up your original post, which, on reflection, ...
    (talk.origins)