Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Okimoto has asserted that Creationists are all anti science. Can he prove it? Creationists will watch him run.
18 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Feb 5, 2012, 4:54:05 PM2/5/12
to
Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
that creationists in general are anti-science.
I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
was anti-science.
Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
Regards,
T Pagano
are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
that creationists in general are anti-science.
I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
was anti-science.
Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
Regards,
T Pagano
Kalkidas
Feb 5, 2012, 5:22:37 PM2/5/12
to
biblear...@hotmail.com
Feb 5, 2012, 5:43:41 PM2/5/12
to
yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
Ray Martinez
Feb 5, 2012, 5:32:19 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
Ron Okimoto of the IDist camp. Your topic here supports my case. Ron
posts slander then runs. You do the same while evading facts and
points that show you to be a loudmouth ignoramus. I have exposed your
knowledge to be superficial, very limited. In response you choose to
comfort yourself with troll-like topic title headlines and evasion
(just like Kalkidas).
General Audience: Tony is unable to actually debate another person. He
cannot make it or last through the second round of rebuttal before he
quits and claims victory in behalf of himself. This is why I said his
knowledge is superficial, very limited, which also means he cannot
admit to any errors (that's why he quits). Tony is condemning another
person (Ron Okimoto) for the exact same thing I have briefly outlined
here. Funny thing is that both Ron and Tony accept the main claims of
Darwinism (natural selection/mutability/common descent). Two birds of
the same feather (Darwin's children) guilty of cowardice.
Ray (anti-selectionist/anti-evolutionist)
Ron O
Feb 5, 2012, 7:58:08 PM2/5/12
to
of stupid and senseless.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Feb 5, 2012, 8:08:34 PM2/5/12
to
response to that thread and should known that I was not claiming that
all creationists were anti-science. So why the lie to start this
thread?
Since I never made the claim there is nothing for me to prove.
QUOTE:
Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
END QUOTE:
Doesn't look like I claim that all creationists make the list.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Feb 5, 2012, 8:12:36 PM2/5/12
to
just have to work long enough for someone to be fooled by the lies.
Biblearcheology likely didn't even check to see if Pags had a point or
not.
The saddest fact is that they just don't care.
Ron Okimoto
Eric Root
Feb 5, 2012, 8:14:20 PM2/5/12
to
has always existed, or you think it does'nt exist yet.
Eric Root
A.Carlson
Feb 5, 2012, 8:21:16 PM2/5/12
to
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:54:05 -0500, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
>Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>are anti-science.
Their 'science' is, at best, superficial. When they are more
interested in supporting an a-priori belief they are far more likely
to selectively choose what science to promote, no matter how bad, and
what science to reject, no matter how sound.
This can clearly be seen with your own defense of Geocentrism, where
you continue to try and push 19th century science as it pertains to a
non-existent luminiferous aether and where you repeatedly reject
multiple consequences of Newtonian physics when it just doesn't suit
you.
> But can he prove it?
Have you even read any of the many rebuttals to your own defense of
Geocentrism?
You still haven't come up with a *credible* explanation for the
existence of geostationary satellites or why there are distinct
advantages to eastward rocket launches, just to name a few
discrepancies with this long-ago rejected model.
You continue to miss the gravity of the situation.
>Let's see this blow hard
>actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>that creationists in general are anti-science.
I particularly enjoyed your recent focus on evidence that, in your own
words, does not distinguish between the geocentric and heliocentric
models while pointedly ignoring evidence that actually does
distinguish between the two.
It is not exactly *anti*-science (your term) but it certainly is the
basis for *bad* science. You certainly do reject a lot of good stuff
that just doesn't support your a-priori positions.
>I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>was anti-science.
Again, 'anti-science' is your term. You certainly are, at best,
incompetent with the subject.
>Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
So what does that make you? You have repeatedly been challenged to
explain the existence of geostationary satellites, just to name one of
many issues that you continue to duck.
How about coming up with evidence that actually supports the
*existence* of a luminiferous aether to start with. You certainly do
rely on the *assumption* of one in a number of your own arguments.
Or are you just "nothing but a coward who is full of hot air"?
wrote:
>Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>are anti-science.
interested in supporting an a-priori belief they are far more likely
to selectively choose what science to promote, no matter how bad, and
what science to reject, no matter how sound.
This can clearly be seen with your own defense of Geocentrism, where
you continue to try and push 19th century science as it pertains to a
non-existent luminiferous aether and where you repeatedly reject
multiple consequences of Newtonian physics when it just doesn't suit
you.
> But can he prove it?
Geocentrism?
You still haven't come up with a *credible* explanation for the
existence of geostationary satellites or why there are distinct
advantages to eastward rocket launches, just to name a few
discrepancies with this long-ago rejected model.
You continue to miss the gravity of the situation.
>Let's see this blow hard
>actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>that creationists in general are anti-science.
words, does not distinguish between the geocentric and heliocentric
models while pointedly ignoring evidence that actually does
distinguish between the two.
It is not exactly *anti*-science (your term) but it certainly is the
basis for *bad* science. You certainly do reject a lot of good stuff
that just doesn't support your a-priori positions.
>I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>was anti-science.
incompetent with the subject.
>Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
explain the existence of geostationary satellites, just to name one of
many issues that you continue to duck.
How about coming up with evidence that actually supports the
*existence* of a luminiferous aether to start with. You certainly do
rely on the *assumption* of one in a number of your own arguments.
Or are you just "nothing but a coward who is full of hot air"?
jillery
Feb 5, 2012, 8:38:17 PM2/5/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblear...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Identify what kind of evidence you would qualify as proof.
wrote:
T Pagano
Feb 5, 2012, 9:34:45 PM2/5/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:34 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>> was anti-science.
>>
>> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>What is a shame is that Pags covered the clergy letter project in his
>response to that thread and should known that I was not claiming that
>all creationists were anti-science. So why the lie to start this
>thread?
Apparently Okimoto never actually bothered to read the link he offered
to the discussion of the Clergy Letter
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project). While the
co-signers to the Clergy Letter are (apparently) faithful followers of
some religious creed, they are NOT identified as creationist. The
Clergy Letter, more or less, says that undersigned accept that purely
naturalistic evolutionism does not conflict with their creed.
One cannot sign this letter and at the same time be creationist. They
are obviously inconsistent positions. Apparently the academic
blowhard failed to pass Philosophy of Logic 101 in his undergraduate
career.
>
>Since I never made the claim there is nothing for me to prove.
The blowhard was caught and now he's trying to squirm out.
First he implies that "religiously-minded" folk are also creationists.
I attribute this illogic to Okimoto since the Clergy Letter only
identifies its co-signers as faithful religious believers. Since
Okimoto claims (at least at one time) to be Methodist. Does that mean
he is also a creationist?
Second Okimoto implies that the co-signers of the Clergy Letter are
both creationist and good-science-minded-folk. Yet the Clergy Letter
only identifies its co-signers as religious believers. And the Clergy
Letter states unequivocally that the co-signers accept that purely
naturalistic evolution is the best available theory and that they see
no conflict between the theory and their Faith. This is diametrically
opposed to creationism. So one cannot be a co-signer to the Clergy
Letter and also be a creationist.
The "list" that Okimoto refers to in his quote is his list of
anti-science posters in the forum. So Okimoto states that unless all
creationists in the forum (and else where) follow the lead of the
Clergy Letter co-signers and accept evolutionsm then they are ipso
facto anti science.
I'm going to give this blow hard seven days to prove that any
creationist is anti-science. Let's watch this blowhard-coward run.
Regards,
T Pagano
Okimoto rarely can produce a logical argument which is why Nyikos
wipes up the floor with him.
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>> was anti-science.
>>
>> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
>What is a shame is that Pags covered the clergy letter project in his
>response to that thread and should known that I was not claiming that
>all creationists were anti-science. So why the lie to start this
>thread?
to the discussion of the Clergy Letter
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project). While the
co-signers to the Clergy Letter are (apparently) faithful followers of
some religious creed, they are NOT identified as creationist. The
Clergy Letter, more or less, says that undersigned accept that purely
naturalistic evolutionism does not conflict with their creed.
One cannot sign this letter and at the same time be creationist. They
are obviously inconsistent positions. Apparently the academic
blowhard failed to pass Philosophy of Logic 101 in his undergraduate
career.
>
>Since I never made the claim there is nothing for me to prove.
>
>QUOTE:
>Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
>other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>END QUOTE:
>
>Doesn't look like I claim that all creationists make the list.
Here Okimoto makes a couple of logical errors.
>QUOTE:
>Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
>other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
>END QUOTE:
>
>Doesn't look like I claim that all creationists make the list.
First he implies that "religiously-minded" folk are also creationists.
I attribute this illogic to Okimoto since the Clergy Letter only
identifies its co-signers as faithful religious believers. Since
Okimoto claims (at least at one time) to be Methodist. Does that mean
he is also a creationist?
Second Okimoto implies that the co-signers of the Clergy Letter are
both creationist and good-science-minded-folk. Yet the Clergy Letter
only identifies its co-signers as religious believers. And the Clergy
Letter states unequivocally that the co-signers accept that purely
naturalistic evolution is the best available theory and that they see
no conflict between the theory and their Faith. This is diametrically
opposed to creationism. So one cannot be a co-signer to the Clergy
Letter and also be a creationist.
The "list" that Okimoto refers to in his quote is his list of
anti-science posters in the forum. So Okimoto states that unless all
creationists in the forum (and else where) follow the lead of the
Clergy Letter co-signers and accept evolutionsm then they are ipso
facto anti science.
I'm going to give this blow hard seven days to prove that any
creationist is anti-science. Let's watch this blowhard-coward run.
Regards,
T Pagano
Okimoto rarely can produce a logical argument which is why Nyikos
wipes up the floor with him.
jillery
Feb 5, 2012, 10:47:30 PM2/5/12
to
Ron O
Feb 5, 2012, 11:09:56 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 8:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:34 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
Pags stares reality in the face and has to lie about it. You can't
make this junk up.
>
> First he implies that "religiously-minded" folk are also creationists.
> I attribute this illogic to Okimoto since the Clergy Letter only
> identifies its co-signers as faithful religious believers. Since
> Okimoto claims (at least at one time) to be Methodist. Does that mean
> he is also a creationist?
I have claimed to be a creationists before. Pags is just ignorant or
is lying again. What do you think Methodists are? Pags doesn't deny
that he is a creationist and he is supposed to be Catholic. I don't
know why he thinks that it would be different for other Christians or
the Clergy that signed the clergy letter project.
>
> Second Okimoto implies that the co-signers of the Clergy Letter are
> both creationist and good-science-minded-folk. Yet the Clergy Letter
> only identifies its co-signers as religious believers. And the Clergy
> Letter states unequivocally that the co-signers accept that purely
> naturalistic evolution is the best available theory and that they see
> no conflict between the theory and their Faith. This is diametrically
> opposed to creationism. So one cannot be a co-signer to the Clergy
> Letter and also be a creationist.
Beats me where you get this. You could make the case before you make
the stupid claims, but getting the fact wrong seems to be all that you
can do when you know that you were wrong about the creationist thing
and all that you can do is this? What is this? How plain and simple
does the quote about the clergy letter project have to be? Can't you
read?
Here it is again just for you. Make up whatever you want, but you
have to know that you are just making it up.
QUOTE:
Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
END QUOTE:
>
don't you get about that? Where is the dichotomy that you are
claiming that I support? Isn't it just a figment of your imagination?
>
> I'm going to give this blow hard seven days to prove that any
> creationist is anti-science. Let's watch this blowhard-coward run.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Okimoto rarely can produce a logical argument which is why Nyikos
> wipes up the floor with him.
I'll give you 7 days to retract all your bogus lies and then see if I
will respond or not. Poor Nyikos can't get any peace even when he is
MIA. Why should you make all the demands when you are obviously the
liar?
Anti-science from the guy that could be a poster child for anti-
science. Pags, describe how you are not anti-science again. It was a
laugher the first time that you did it. Have you improved the
delivery? Make sure that you list all the bad things about why all
the scientists are wrong about biological evolution and why your
notions are better and not anti-science.
I should have saved that post somehow. You'd be a liar if you claim
that you did not refute yourself within the post that you were
claiming to not be anti-science. You should try to find that post and
demonstrate that I am wrong about it. Wouldn't it be nice if you
could throw it in my face and demonstrate that it wasn't what I
claim? Go for it. I'd help you find it, but I can't recall how many
years ago it was. Could be more than 5 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:34 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
make this junk up.
>
> First he implies that "religiously-minded" folk are also creationists.
> I attribute this illogic to Okimoto since the Clergy Letter only
> identifies its co-signers as faithful religious believers. Since
> Okimoto claims (at least at one time) to be Methodist. Does that mean
> he is also a creationist?
is lying again. What do you think Methodists are? Pags doesn't deny
that he is a creationist and he is supposed to be Catholic. I don't
know why he thinks that it would be different for other Christians or
the Clergy that signed the clergy letter project.
>
> Second Okimoto implies that the co-signers of the Clergy Letter are
> both creationist and good-science-minded-folk. Yet the Clergy Letter
> only identifies its co-signers as religious believers. And the Clergy
> Letter states unequivocally that the co-signers accept that purely
> naturalistic evolution is the best available theory and that they see
> no conflict between the theory and their Faith. This is diametrically
> opposed to creationism. So one cannot be a co-signer to the Clergy
> Letter and also be a creationist.
the stupid claims, but getting the fact wrong seems to be all that you
can do when you know that you were wrong about the creationist thing
and all that you can do is this? What is this? How plain and simple
does the quote about the clergy letter project have to be? Can't you
read?
Here it is again just for you. Make up whatever you want, but you
have to know that you are just making it up.
QUOTE:
Religiously minded folk that don't want to make the list can look up
other creationists that wouldn't make the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project
END QUOTE:
>
> The "list" that Okimoto refers to in his quote is his list of
> anti-science posters in the forum. So Okimoto states that unless all
> creationists in the forum (and else where) follow the lead of the
> Clergy Letter co-signers and accept evolutionsm then they are ipso
> facto anti science.
Who was talking about logic? There aren't just two sets here. What
> anti-science posters in the forum. So Okimoto states that unless all
> creationists in the forum (and else where) follow the lead of the
> Clergy Letter co-signers and accept evolutionsm then they are ipso
> facto anti science.
don't you get about that? Where is the dichotomy that you are
claiming that I support? Isn't it just a figment of your imagination?
>
> I'm going to give this blow hard seven days to prove that any
> creationist is anti-science. Let's watch this blowhard-coward run.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> Okimoto rarely can produce a logical argument which is why Nyikos
> wipes up the floor with him.
will respond or not. Poor Nyikos can't get any peace even when he is
MIA. Why should you make all the demands when you are obviously the
liar?
Anti-science from the guy that could be a poster child for anti-
science. Pags, describe how you are not anti-science again. It was a
laugher the first time that you did it. Have you improved the
delivery? Make sure that you list all the bad things about why all
the scientists are wrong about biological evolution and why your
notions are better and not anti-science.
I should have saved that post somehow. You'd be a liar if you claim
that you did not refute yourself within the post that you were
claiming to not be anti-science. You should try to find that post and
demonstrate that I am wrong about it. Wouldn't it be nice if you
could throw it in my face and demonstrate that it wasn't what I
claim? Go for it. I'd help you find it, but I can't recall how many
years ago it was. Could be more than 5 years ago.
Ron Okimoto
Charles Brenner
Feb 6, 2012, 12:19:03 AM2/6/12
to
On Feb 5, 6:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:34 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
premise, your claim that he even made the (reasonable) assertion that
all Creationists are anti-science, is false, and by ignoring that
devastating rebuttal you lose your own challenge.
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:08:34 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> >> was anti-science.
>
> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >What is a shame is that Pags covered the clergy letter project in his
> >response to that thread and should known that I was not claiming that
> >all creationists were anti-science. So why the lie to start this
> >thread?
>
> Apparently Okimoto never actually bothered to read the link he offered
> to the discussion of the Clergy Letter
Doesn't matter. Okimoto has already won -- he replied that your
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> >> was anti-science.
>
> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >What is a shame is that Pags covered the clergy letter project in his
> >response to that thread and should known that I was not claiming that
> >all creationists were anti-science. So why the lie to start this
> >thread?
>
> Apparently Okimoto never actually bothered to read the link he offered
> to the discussion of the Clergy Letter
premise, your claim that he even made the (reasonable) assertion that
all Creationists are anti-science, is false, and by ignoring that
devastating rebuttal you lose your own challenge.
Charles Brenner
Feb 6, 2012, 12:19:35 AM2/6/12
to
can notice from some of the replies, it doesn't insulate you from your
reputation as being a coward on this board, but only reminds us of it
and provokes people to review why it is true.
Rolf
Feb 6, 2012, 8:12:26 AM2/6/12
to
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Rodjk #613
Feb 6, 2012, 10:13:09 AM2/6/12
to
start when the kids move out.
Approximately 16 years...
Rodjk #613
raven1
Feb 6, 2012, 1:16:33 PM2/6/12
to
exists. YMMV as to whether "it happened through natural processes" or
"it happened by magic" is a more logically tenable position.
Ray Martinez
Feb 6, 2012, 3:33:18 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
continue today unabated?
The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
discovery of cellular complexity.
Ray (species immutabilist)
[....]
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> >> was anti-science.
>
> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> exists.
Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> >> was anti-science.
>
> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> exists.
and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
continue today unabated?
The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
discovery of cellular complexity.
Ray (species immutabilist)
[....]
Ray Martinez
Feb 6, 2012, 3:43:42 PM2/6/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since Tony (an atheistic Creationist) accepts conceptual existence of
natural selection, species mutability, and common descent to exist in
nature, his claim that you conclude all Creationists to be anti-
science, is falsified.
He's in your bed, Ron (just be happy that you're on top).
Ray (anti-selectionist/anti-evolutionist)
Kalkidas
Feb 6, 2012, 4:47:55 PM2/6/12
to
insult others.
Congratulations.
Greg Guarino
Feb 6, 2012, 5:01:31 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/2012 3:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> (an atheistic Creationist)
Sounds like Backspace's cue to jump into this thread.
> (an atheistic Creationist)
Sounds like Backspace's cue to jump into this thread.
jillery
Feb 6, 2012, 5:38:59 PM2/6/12
to
Burkhard
Feb 6, 2012, 5:42:35 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 8:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > >> was anti-science.
>
> > >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> T Pagano
>
> > >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> > That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> > exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
> and Nobel Prize for the authors?
You should have read the next sentence. Raven's point is that both
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > >> was anti-science.
>
> > >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> T Pagano
>
> > >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> > That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> > exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
> and Nobel Prize for the authors?
scientific research and the Genesis account describe abiogenesis - in
the case of the latter
something not alive, a-bios, the clay, became something alive. At
least in the judeo-chrisitian tradition, there was a point when there
was no life (apart, possibly, from God though he does not really fit
the definition of alive that biology uses, and God created life
therefore from non-life, an abiogenetic event.
Raven is of course not quite right, as there are models possible, and
indeed promoted by some religions, where life existed always
>Why does abiogenesis "research"
> continue today unabated?
another matter?
> The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
> beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
> life always a component in producing life.
and its result are entirely independent of any insights that might
come from abiogenesis research
> When the animate is
> removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
> as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
> discovery of cellular complexity.
>
terms of developing an dtesting possible models of how life on earth
originated on the past, and how life can be created from scratch now.
If you need to get up to date with the considerable body of research
you could do worse than this for further reading:
Luisi, Pier Luigi . The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to
Synthetic Biology. CUP 2006
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> [....]
Frank J
Feb 6, 2012, 5:45:15 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 5, 4:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> are anti-science.
Please show me the exact quote that gave you that impression.
> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> are anti-science.
The irony is that I complained that he defined "creationist" so
broadly that it included himself!
Dana Tweedy
Feb 6, 2012, 5:46:23 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/12 1:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>>>> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>>>> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>>>> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>>>> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>>>> was anti-science.
>>
>>>> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>>>> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>
>>> He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
>>> yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
>>> illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>>
>> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
>> exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
> and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
> continue today unabated?
Because scientists would like to know how it happened. That it happened
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano<not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>>>> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>>>> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>>>> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>>>> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>>>> was anti-science.
>>
>>>> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>>>> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> T Pagano
>>
>>> He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
>>> yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
>>> illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>>
>> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
>> exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
> and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
> continue today unabated?
is known.
>
> The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
> beget life.
life.
> The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
Actually, "Darwinists" do acknowledge that life today comes from pre
> The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution.
existing life. You, Ray are the one trying to claim that life is
created de novo by a supernatural being.
> Even ToE has
> life always a component in producing life.
> When the animate is
> removed, end of story.
from inanimate "clay like ground" by a supernatural being.
> Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
> as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
> discovery of cellular complexity.
was in the 19th century. Cellular complexity is not a problem for
modern studies of abiogenesis, as no one claims that the modern cell
suddenly, or randomly assembled. You seem confused as to the status of
modern ideas about abiogenesis.
DJT
Ron O
Feb 6, 2012, 7:03:45 PM2/6/12
to
the opportunity to gain access to what guys like you post. I don't
even tell them what posts to read. If that is insulting then you
shouldn't write the junk.
Why are misdirection ploys and stupidity valid arguments for your
cause? Is it my fault that all I have to do is give people access to
what you write for it to be taken as an insult? What should that fact
mean to you?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Feb 6, 2012, 7:05:22 PM2/6/12
to
One day you will look back with the kids gone and see that.
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
Feb 6, 2012, 7:27:00 PM2/6/12
to
your motive is only to insult others. By your fruits -- your insulting
words -- we all know you.
Congratulations. Enjoy your legacy.
Frank J
Feb 6, 2012, 7:27:38 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 3:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > >> was anti-science.
>
> > >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> T Pagano
>
> > >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> > That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> > exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging.
Classic example of lack of reading comprehension.
> On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > >> was anti-science.
>
> > >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> T Pagano
>
> > >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> > That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
> > exists.
>
> Classic example of question begging.
Where in "life exists" do you see "because it was created by humans."?
Abiogenesis happened at least once *by definition*
Let the trolls like "bible" (who reminds me of voweltroll) bait-and-
switch between the fact of abiogenesis and the theory (that doesn't
yet exist) and get busy with your book.
> Where is the announcement paper
> and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
> continue today unabated?
>
> The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
> beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
> life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
> removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
> as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
> discovery of cellular complexity.
>
> Ray (species immutabilist)
>
Ron O
Feb 6, 2012, 7:52:01 PM2/6/12
to
what the title really meant he went bonkers (more bonkers than
usual). I don't expect you to understand the meaning of the title
becasue you do not have a Biblical background, but you might Google it
to see what you get. We are talking about a legacy, but it isn't
mine.
Ron Okimoto
Rolf
Feb 7, 2012, 4:01:21 AM2/7/12
to
abbreviated and accepted form of referring to some unavoidable facts we
observe in nature. Nothing special about it. It is as simple as you
selecting socks from a drawer. You don't wear a red sock on one foot and a
blue on the other, do you?
If an island drifts of from a continent with all it's inhabitants, we say
that they have been naturally selected. We find that after a time several
will have undergone changes consistent with the changes in climate,
competition, food sources and so on. The effect and result of their being
selected by the process of becoming isolated, and experiencing changes in
living conditions is evolutionary change, adaptation to the envireonment in
the struggle for survival, to live and reproduce.
Now tell us what is wrong with that.
raven1
Feb 7, 2012, 7:46:34 AM2/7/12
to
>On Feb 6, 10:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>> >> was anti-science.
>>
>> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> T Pagano
>>
>> >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
>> >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
>> >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>>
>> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
>> exists.
>
>Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
>and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
>continue today unabated?
Ray, you do understand that the Genesis creation story with Adam being
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800 (PST), biblearcheol...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
>> >> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
>> >> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
>> >> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>>
>> >> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
>> >> was anti-science.
>>
>> >> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
>> >> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> T Pagano
>>
>> >He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
>> >yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
>> >illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>>
>> That abiogenesis occurred is demonstrated by the fact that life
>> exists.
>
>Classic example of question begging. Where is the announcement paper
>and Nobel Prize for the authors? Why does abiogenesis "research"
>continue today unabated?
formed from the dust of the Earth is abiogenesis, don't you?
>The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
>beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
>their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
>life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
>removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
>as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
>discovery of cellular complexity.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)
>
>[....]
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
Frank J
Feb 7, 2012, 9:42:58 AM2/7/12
to
tactics of anti-evolution activism. If t were up to me I'd only use
the word "creationist" for anyone who *deliberately* uses such tactics
- along with playing favorites with evidence, quote mining, baiting-
and-switching concepts (e.g abiogenesis with evolution, the fact of
either vs. its theory, etc.).
Ron has me concerned because he's using the word for people who don't
even *innocently* use those tactics. People who are on *our side* in
the science-pseudoscience battle.
>
> >The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
> >beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> >their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
> >life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
> >removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
> >as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
> >discovery of cellular complexity.
>
> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> >[....]
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight- Hide quoted text -
> >The reason why abiogenesis is unsolvable is because only life can
> >beget life. The refusal of Darwinists to acknowledge only testifies to
> >their dishonesty and the pro-Atheism nature of evolution. Even ToE has
> >life always a component in producing life. When the animate is
> >removed, end of story. Abiogenesis remains in the exact same position
> >as it was in the 19th century----but only worse off since the
> >discovery of cellular complexity.
>
> >Ray (species immutabilist)
>
> >[....]
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
Bob Casanova
Feb 7, 2012, 12:04:43 PM2/7/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:47:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
You mean the epithets such as "blow hard" and "coward who is
full of hot air"? That's just Tony's usual defensive whining
when he gets caught out; he ignores all responses until the
Big Day, then declares victory and runs away.
>Congratulations.
For what? Tony was apparently born with those traits.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
full of hot air"? That's just Tony's usual defensive whining
when he gets caught out; he ignores all responses until the
Big Day, then declares victory and runs away.
>Congratulations.
For what? Tony was apparently born with those traits.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Stockwell
Feb 7, 2012, 12:46:48 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 5, 2:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> was anti-science.
>
> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
Yep. Creationism is an anti-science philosphy because it presupposes
> Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> was anti-science.
>
> Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
that accounts
of the origin of life, of history, and of the nature of the universe
are tacitly true, without
regard for scientific evidence. Hence, creationism is "anti-science'
if you are a
"creation-ist" then you are a proponent of anti-science.
But of course, you will either ignore what I have just written or
barefacedly lie about it,
as you do with most rational responses to your rants.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
Kermit
Feb 8, 2012, 4:04:39 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 5, 5:14 pm, Eric Root <eric1r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:43 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
or misunderstanding the word "abiogenesis". He means, of course, that
it is some failing on our part to believe that abiogenesis is a
*natural process, with several proposed mechanisms, and an end result
(life) which shows no sign on unnatural processes; rather than a
*magical event, which completely lacks any evidence whatsoever, and
has no falsifiable models to explain it.
Kermit
> On Feb 5, 5:43 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > > are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > > actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > > that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > > I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > > was anti-science.
>
> > > Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > > run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:54 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > Okimoto has asserted in a recent thread starter that all creationists
> > > are anti-science. But can he prove it? Let's see this blow hard
> > > actually produce quotes with links to the quotes in context that prove
> > > that creationists in general are anti-science.
>
> > > I seriously doubt he could prove that a lone creationist in the forum
> > > was anti-science.
>
> > > Beginning tomorrow I'll start the usual 7 day count down to watch him
> > > run. He's nothing but a coward who is full of hot air.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> > > T Pagano
>
> > He won't do it. After all people who claim that abiogenesis is true
> > yet can't prove it, yet expect us to believe it, aren't likely to
> > illustrate the rules of logic and knowledge properly.
>
> ??? If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then you either think life
> has always existed, or you think it does'nt exist yet.
>
> Eric Root
Strictly speaking, that's true, but we both know that he is misusing
> has always existed, or you think it does'nt exist yet.
>
> Eric Root
or misunderstanding the word "abiogenesis". He means, of course, that
it is some failing on our part to believe that abiogenesis is a
*natural process, with several proposed mechanisms, and an end result
(life) which shows no sign on unnatural processes; rather than a
*magical event, which completely lacks any evidence whatsoever, and
has no falsifiable models to explain it.
Kermit
Kermit
Feb 8, 2012, 4:07:59 PM2/8/12
to
At least she's more self-maintenance now.
Kermit
0 new messages