religion, religion, religion....
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > It is not "my" astrology, and everything is made up from long ago. All
> > modern knowledge is a derivation of Greek, Roman or babylonian cultures
> > etc.
> That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
> Babylonians.
Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
Straw man fallacy= Fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it,
demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then concludes that the
original argument has been demolished. "A Concise Introduction to
Logic", Hurley, 1991.
>Your astrology is a religion - not based in
Nope.
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
> reality or fact.
Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is not
one but many.
> You can quote all the books you want and that
> still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
> religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
> a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
I have passed more than that.
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/fate_vs_free_will.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/christian.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/arguments_against_the_astrologers.htm
"Astrology, bar sinister in the escutcheon of astronomy, maintains a
unique and lonely position in human thought. It is "believed in" by a
lot of people who know practically nothing about it; and it is
"disbelieved in" by even more who know ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. Of
no other art or science can this be said." Grant Lewi, "Why I believe in
Astrology"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. remove-to mail me
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com
SpÅmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is not
> one but many.
Does it allow you to file a lawsuit too?
Ross
...or update his Web site?
R.
--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.
Cujo
news:Xns92FD69A...@216.168.3.44:
> SpÅmster <dont-...@email.com> wrote in
> news:3E1C387D...@email.com:
>
>>
>>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>> Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is
>>> not one but many.
>>
>> Does it allow you to file a lawsuit too?
>>
> ...or update his Web site?
It certainly allows Ed to travel in time, after all it's still February
in Edmoworld(tm).
--
You suspect incorrectly, I am the most stable person on the
planet. - Edmond Wollkook breaking Irony Meters worldwide.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the August, 2000 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
SpÅmster
Ross wrote:
> SpÅmster <dont-...@email.com> wrote in news:3E1C387D...@email.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> >> Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is not
> >> one but many.
> >
> > Does it allow you to file a lawsuit too?
> >
> ...or update his Web site?
>
>
Yeah, that too.
David J. Vorous
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>It is not "my" astrology, and everything is made up from long ago. All
>>>modern knowledge is a derivation of Greek, Roman or babylonian cultures
>>>etc.
>>
>
>
>>That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
>>Babylonians.
>
>
> Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
>
Which is exactly what your "ancient paradigm base" argument is.
>>Your astrology is a religion - not based in
>
>
> Nope.
Just because some website published something does not make it
true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
>>reality or fact.
>
>
> Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is not
> one but many.
Which has nothing to do with the religion of astrology.
>>You can quote all the books you want and that
>>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
>>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
>>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
>
>
> I have passed more than that.
Apparently not.
--
David J. Vorous
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Pedantus
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3E1C6D96...@thellamaranch.com...
If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by removing a
causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right? We can have 12 Quirks
rather than quarks, right? Or does your highness allow nothing.? May I
pose an idealized trinity within a circle? May I have two circles? May I
number segments in one circle so that I do not lose my place? May I give
the segments of the second circle algebraic symbols to hold my thought, and
perhaps communicate it to others? Which part of this is Religion , oh Great
One...:)?
http://home.stny.rr.com/pedantus/astrogram09.gif
At what point does the art begin to offend your virginal mind, and do
you know why (without avoiding my the context my words as we find them, as
confined to my paragraph, and not that of some convenient ghost that thrills
you to conjure as enemy of mind?
el...@no.spam
<arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
>>Babylonians.
>Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
So now you are claiming particle physics wouldn't have happened
without astrology? You're getting kookier all the time, Wollmann.
Pusfilledsore Onedmosbutthole
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>
>>>It is not "my" astrology, and everything is made up from long ago. All
>>>modern knowledge is a derivation of Greek, Roman or babylonian cultures
>>>etc.
>
>
>
>>That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
>>Babylonians.
>
>
> Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
You fucking moron, there were humans who existed in other parts of the
world, not just Greece, Rome, or Babylonia.
To say that "all modern knowledge" derives from those three geographic
locations is a ridiculous, uneducated, and rather stupid statement.
Seems you left out the early discoveries and inventions of ancient Asian
cultures, you stupid fucking fool.
If you simply want to say that all human knowledge is somehow supported
by past history and discoveries, well, no shit.
So people came up with astrology in ancient times. Big fucking deal.
They also came up with human saacrfices to appease their Gods.
There was a lot of incorrect, superstitious bullshit that people felt
they "knew" way back when.
So, are you saying that all ancient knowledge was more valid than what
is known today?
Great. Let's sacrifice YOU, pigfucker.
I know where an evil coward puts down as his permanent address on things
like his PO box applications:
His fucking daddy's house.
Seriously. You're nearly fifty years old, Edmo. And you STILL have to
rely on Daddy to bail you out.
Pathetic.
Wollmann, Heinz
441 Longbow Loop SW, Los Lunas, NM 87031-8630
Phone: (505)865-0921
David J. Vorous
> If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by removing a
> causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right?
No. It's a religion based on dogma, not reality. Aren't you
paying attention? There is no scientific, or rational, basis
for astrology. It's a religion. Get over it.
Pedantus
> Pedantus wrote:
> > If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by
> > causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right?
>
> No. It's a religion based on dogma, not reality. Aren't you
> paying attention? There is no scientific, or rational, basis
> for astrology. It's a religion. Get over it.
>
baliwick...:)?
Cleo Taurus
> Do you think it will replace Christianity, or is that Science's
>baliwick...:)?
Do you think you could try to follow the discussion, or do you
need some thorazine?
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1CC6C2...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>> If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by
>>
> removing all
>
>>>causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right?
>>
>>No. It's a religion based on dogma, not reality. Aren't you
>>paying attention? There is no scientific, or rational, basis
>>for astrology. It's a religion. Get over it.
>>
>
> Do you think it will replace Christianity
Give up. I'm not naive enough, or stupid enough, to fall for
anything about the religion of astrology. It's based on
ignorance, and feeds on ignorance. Keep it if you want, I just
don't care to hear your moronic rantings.
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > David J. Vorous wrote:
> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>It is not "my" astrology, and everything is made up from long ago. All
> >>>modern knowledge is a derivation of Greek, Roman or babylonian cultures
> >>>etc.
> >>That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
> >>Babylonians.
> > Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
> > Straw man fallacy.....
> Which is exactly what your "ancient paradigm base" argument is.
Incorrect.
> >>Your astrology is a religion - not based in
> > Nope.
> Just because some website published something does not make it
> true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
> then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
You don't seem to understand logic and real argument do you? I have no
religion. I either know something or I don't-- unlike you are
demonstrating your approach is here.
> >>reality or fact.
> > Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is not
> > one but many.
> Which has nothing to do with the religion of astrology.
Then why did you bring it up?
> >>You can quote all the books you want and that
> >>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
> >>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
> >>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
> > I have passed more than that.
> Apparently not.
Evidence? Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them. That is fine, you can
believe whatever religion you wish, including science. However, if you
wish to make a point, arguments are the way that proceeds.
Here, let me explain to you how argumentation works:
A valid and sound deductive argument is one that has a true premises and
a true conclusion-it is deductive, which contains nothing new in the
conclusion (like math). Inductive arguments are weak or strong (never
certain which all are here inductive) if they have a true premises and
true conclusion (strong and cogent) or true premises and (probably)
false conclusion (weak uncogent). In this way they are determined to be
cogent or not based on strong argument+True premises.
Therefore:
sound argument=valid deductive argument + true premises=definite true
conclusion
cogent argument=strong inductive argument + true premises=probably true
conclusion
Let me know when you can create one and I will be glad to refute it.
"Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of
the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the
mind. " -SIR FRANCIS BACON
Ross
news:3E1D19...@earthlink.net:
> David J. Vorous wrote:
[...]
>> Just because some website published something does not make it
>> true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
>> then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
>
> It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
Yes, but can you update it?
Obviously not as it seems your host has blocked you access to it.
> You don't seem to understand logic and real argument do you? I have no
> religion. I either know something or I don't--
And you seem to know very little, indeed, about intergrity, relationships,
tresspassing laws, the transparent nature of your lies and (as some
astrologers have pointed out) astrology.
In fact, your online antics wer a major reason that a moderated astrology
group was created.
> unlike you are demonstrating your approach is here.
PKB noted.
[...]
>> >>You can quote all the books you want and that
>> >>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
>> >>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
>> >>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
>
>> > I have passed more than that.
Post proof.
>
>> Apparently not.
>
> Evidence?
Eddie, why don't you put a scan of your degrees up on your Web site?
I know, I know...two problems with that.... You don't actually have any
degrees and your Web host has killed your access.
> Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
> beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them. That is fine, you
> can believe whatever religion you wish, including science. However, if
> you wish to make a point, arguments are the way that proceeds.
>
> Here, let me explain to you how argumentation<SLAP!>
You are in no position to tell anyone about logic or rhetoric.
[flush]
Cujo
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > David J. Vorous wrote:
>> >>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >>>It is not "my" astrology, and everything is made up from long ago.
>> >>>All modern knowledge is a derivation of Greek, Roman or babylonian
>> >>>cultures etc.
>
>> >>That's a good one. Modern particle physics was invented by the
>> >>Babylonians.
>
>> > Without ancient paradigm bases, it would have not been "invented."
>
>> > Straw man fallacy.....
>
>> Which is exactly what your "ancient paradigm base" argument is.
>
> Incorrect.
For once you're right, Edmo. It's a baseless assertion that you dredged
up to dodge the fact that you were losing yet another argument, kook.
>> >>Your astrology is a religion - not based in
>
>> > Nope.
>
>> Just because some website published something does not make it
>> true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
>> then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
>
> It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
Great! Defend plagiarizing materials from software and astrologers
without permission. While you're at it, tell us about the research you
did for your moon formation theory.
> You don't seem to understand logic and real argument do you? I have no
> religion. I either know something or I don't-- unlike you are
> demonstrating your approach is here.
You sure don't know any math, Edmo.
>> >>reality or fact.
>
>> > Particle physics allows us to begin to understand that reality is
>> > not one but many.
>
>> Which has nothing to do with the religion of astrology.
>
> Then why did you bring it up?
Because you were incoherent, dumbfuck.
>> >>You can quote all the books you want and that
>> >>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
>> >>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
>> >>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
>
>> > I have passed more than that.
>
>> Apparently not.
>
> Evidence? Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
> beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them. That is fine, you
> can believe whatever religion you wish, including science. However, if
> you wish to make a point, arguments are the way that proceeds.
Good! Since you claim to be a psychological counselor please let us all
know where your certifications can be viewed per CA law, scumbag.
> Here, let me explain to you how argumentation works:
You can't argue your way out of a paper bag, fool. Nobody believes a
documented liar. Now explain why you aren't finishing up your degree at
Kepler.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>Straw man fallacy.....
>>Which is exactly what your "ancient paradigm base" argument is.
>Incorrect.
How is it incorrect, Wollkook? Declaring it "incorrect" doesn't
make it so.
SpÅmster
Edmond 'Crybaby' Wollmann wrote:
> It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
Too bad you can't update it, abuser!
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3E1D19...@earthlink.net:
> > David J. Vorous wrote:
> [...]
> >> Just because some website published something does not make it
> >> true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
> >> then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
> > It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
> Yes, but can you update it?
Yes, I can.
> Obviously not as it seems your host has blocked you access to it.
Nope.
> > You don't seem to understand logic and real argument do you? I have no
> > religion. I either know something or I don't--
> And you seem to know very little, indeed, about intergrity, relationships,
> tresspassing laws, the transparent nature of your lies and (as some
> astrologers have pointed out) astrology.
I have never lied on usenet, I wrote a book and website about integrity,
http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/essays_2.htm#how
and have had more real life relationships than any geek on usenet like
yourself--who seem to be so bored with your non-cyber lief that you hide
behind screen names for years harassing people you assert are kooks.
What sort of nutcase does such things for 7 years?
> In fact, your online antics wer a major reason that a moderated astrology
> group was created.
No, it was created to get away from abusers like you. And there are
really no longer any astrologers here on the original group anymore but
me--the only one brave enough and tough enough to weather punks like
you, defeat your specious and disingenous spinical arguments-- who send
complaints trying to yank my accounts--evidenced by your jumping up and
down everytime you BELIEVE I have some cyber restriction--which I never
do.
> > unlike you are demonstrating your approach is here.
> PKB noted.
Declaring astrology or anything else a religion or this or that and
presenting no evidence or real presentatrion of the foundation as to WHY
one believes such non-sense, or that you even know what it truly is, is
specious and out of integrity.
> [...]
> >> >>You can quote all the books you want and that
> >> >>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
> >> >>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
> >> >>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
> >> > I have passed more than that.
> Post proof.
The articles I posted links to are the evidence, no one will EVER "post"
proof, because usenet is not a medium to be trusted to begin with.
> >> Apparently not.
> > Evidence?
> Eddie, why don't you put a scan of your degrees up on your Web site?
Why don't YOU???
> I know, I know...two problems with that.... You don't actually have any
> degrees and your Web host has killed your access.
Yawn. Wasting 7 myears with this. You are truly OCD.
> > Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
> > beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them. That is fine, you
> > can believe whatever religion you wish, including science. However, if
> > you wish to make a point, arguments are the way that proceeds.
> > Here, let me explain to you how argumentation<SLAP!>
> You are in no position to tell anyone about logic or rhetoric.
I eliminated that argument by posting the information from a logic text
when I do that, spinics like you try to discount the book itself--until
you embarass yourselves by denigrating every reference on the planet
simply to deny the validity of my arguments. What imbeciles.
> [flush]
Exactly. You who assert you know, don't.
"There is included in human nature an ingrained naturalism and
materialism of mind which can only admit facts that are actually
tangible sort of mind the entity called "Science" is the idol. Fondness
for the word "scientist" is one of the notes by which you may know its
votaries; and its short way of killing any opinion that it disbelieves
in is to call it "unscientific." It must be granted that there is no
slight excuse for this. Science has made such glorious leaps in the last
300 years . . . that it is no wonder if the worshippers of Science lose
their heads. In this very University, accordingly, I have heard more
than one teacher say that all the fundamental conceptions of truth have
already been found by Science; and that the future has only the details
of the picture to fill in. But the slightest reflection on the real
conditions will suffice to show how barbaric such notions are. They show
such a lack of scientific imagination that it is hard to see how one who
is actively advancing any part of Science can make a statement so crude.
Think how many absolutely new scientific conceptions have arisen in our
generation, how many new problems have been formulated that were never
thought of before, and then cast an eye upon the brevity of Science's
career. Is this credible that such a mushroom knowledge, such a growth
overnight as this, can represent more than the minutest glimpse of what
the universe will really prove to be when adequately understood? No! Our
Science is but a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain,
this at least is certain: that the world of our present natural
knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort, of whose residual
properties we at present can frame no positive idea." William James,
1895 addressing colleagues at Harvard
Edmond Wollmann
>
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 05:35:18 -0000, el...@no.spam () wrote:
>
> >In article <3E1D066...@thellamaranch.com>,
> >David J. Vorous <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It's obvious his planets don't complete their orbits.
> >
> >And his stars aren't exactly fusing hydrogen.
>
> More like methane, if you ask me.
What a waste of a discussion medium.
"I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
SpÅmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
>
> > Yes, but can you update it?
>
> Yes, I can.
>
**>> *UPDATED* 08/11/2002 07:51:35 AM <<**
Oh?
SpÅmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> What a waste of a discussion medium.
Excellent description of your screed and whining posts.
Ross
> Ross wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:3E1D19...@earthlink.net:
>
>> > David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> >> Just because some website published something does not make it
>> >> true. If you have to lie about the basis of your religion,
>> >> then you must not be very knowledgeable about it.
>
>> > It is my website, researched referenced and defendable.
>
>> Yes, but can you update it?
>
> Yes, I can.
Well, it is out of date. Best to update that abusers list, there Eddie.
>> Obviously not as it seems your host has blocked you access to it.
>
> Nope.
You claim in your writings that I shouldn't take what you say at face
value. Well, in this and many other cases, I don't.
>> > You don't seem to understand logic and real argument do you? I have
>> > no religion. I either know something or I don't--
>
>> And you seem to know very little, indeed, about intergrity,
>> relationships, tresspassing laws, the transparent nature of your lies
>> and (as some astrologers have pointed out) astrology.
>
> I have never lied on usenet,
Your lies are the stuff of legend, Eddie. You are famous for your lies.
> I wrote a book and website about
> integrity, http://astroconsulting.com/FAQs/essays_2.htm#how
> and have had more real life relationships than any geek on usenet like
> yourself--who seem to be so bored with your non-cyber lief that you
> hide behind screen names for years harassing people you assert are
> kooks. What sort of nutcase does such things for 7 years?
That was a nice incoherent rant.
>> In fact, your online antics wer a major reason that a moderated
>> astrology group was created.
>
> No, it was created to get away from abusers like you.
Didn't you just state "I have never lied on usenet"? Eddie, you have
just lied on Usenet.
> And there are
> really no longer any astrologers here on the original group anymore
> but me--the only one brave enough and tough enough to weather punks
> like you, defeat your specious and disingenous spinical arguments--
> who send complaints trying to yank my accounts--evidenced by your
> jumping up and down everytime you BELIEVE I have some cyber
> restriction--which I never do.
>
>> > unlike you are demonstrating your approach is here.
>
>> PKB noted.
>
> Declaring astrology or anything else a religion or this or that and
> presenting no evidence or real presentatrion of the foundation as to
> WHY one believes such non-sense, or that you even know what it truly
> is, is specious and out of integrity.
The original contention that 'astrology is a religion' was not made by me
and i do not necessarily support it. I can see the point of the poster
who asserted it. It seems that it is something to consider, but it
certainlly has put your panties in a twist.
>
>> [...]
>
>> >> >>You can quote all the books you want and that
>> >> >>still won't change the fact that astrology is based on
>> >> >>religious dogma, and not scientific facts. Anyone that passed
>> >> >>a highschool class in astronomy would know that.
>
>> >> > I have passed more than that.
>
>> Post proof.
>
> The articles I posted links to are the evidence, no one will EVER
> "post" proof, because usenet is not a medium to be trusted to begin
> with.
Well that puts your credibility as a psychological counsellor at zero.
>> >> Apparently not.
>
>> > Evidence?
>
>> Eddie, why don't you put a scan of your degrees up on your Web site?
>
> Why don't YOU???
My 'Net existence does not depend on convincing others about my
qualifications and bragging about my education. You have made a big deal
about your credentials and this puts the onus on you to provide proof
when it is asked for. This is especially true when California law states
that counsellors must provice public access to documentation of their
training.
I do not advertise myself as a counsellor and I don't troll for clients
on Usenet. Some of us consider it a public service to let others know
about your history when you do it. Fortunately, the job is getting
easier as your reputation has spread all around the world. Your lack of
integrity is clear to all who see what your history on the Internet is.
>> I know, I know...two problems with that.... You don't actually have
>> any degrees and your Web host has killed your access.
>
> Yawn. Wasting 7 myears with this. You are truly OCD.
>
>> > Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
>> > beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them. That is fine, you
>> > can believe whatever religion you wish, including science. However,
>> > if you wish to make a point, arguments are the way that proceeds.
>
>> > Here, let me explain to you how argumentation<SLAP!>
>
>> You are in no position to tell anyone about logic or rhetoric.
>
> I eliminated that argument by posting the information from a logic
> text when I do that,
It is one thing to quote a book and another to understand and apply its
principles. You can quote text books. Too bad you can't apply the
concepts the author introduces.
[flush]
R.
Pedantus
"Baron Lurk" <baro...@spamnot.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tj7r1vktio1fnmphm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:31:21 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Baron Lurk wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 05:35:18 -0000, el...@no.spam () wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3E1D066...@thellamaranch.com>,
> >> >David J. Vorous <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>It's obvious his planets don't complete their orbits.
> >> >
> >> >And his stars aren't exactly fusing hydrogen.
> >>
> >> More like methane, if you ask me.
> >
> >What a waste of a discussion medium.
>
> either conduct a serious discussion with you, or verify your claims.
> You've blown my offers of by not responding. That says to me you have
> something to hide. At that point, you become yet another Usenet
> gasbag.
>
> Or were you suggesting we *use* methane as a discussion medium?
http://home.stny.rr.com/pedantus/8ball_01.gif
>
> remove 'spamnot' to reply.
David J. Vorous
>....
> Evidence? Since you are not presenting anything to substantiate your
> beliefs, I assume you have no arguments for them.
Oh, look! A vain attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
David J. Vorous
> ...
> I have never lied on usenet
If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
David J. Vorous
> Baron Lurk wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 05:35:18 -0000, el...@no.spam () wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3E1D066...@thellamaranch.com>,
>>>David J. Vorous <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's obvious his planets don't complete their orbits.
>>>
>>>And his stars aren't exactly fusing hydrogen.
>>
>>More like methane, if you ask me.
>
>
> What a waste of a discussion medium.
Yes, you are.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> lied again:
>I have never lied on usenet
Oh? Here's some:
"I have lied about nothing here in my 6 years in this group."
"I DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD." [Case Number: M758395 San Diego]
"Tell me people what court would find me guilty of ANYthing?"
"I am not a criminal, nor a freeloader"
"I am the most powerful intellectual giant to ever grace usenet."
"I am the richest, most successful person on the planet! Yeeeeeehaaaaaw!!!"
"I MADE NO ERRORS."
"I have never been incorrect. Nothing will be retracted."
"Orion is a star."
"DISCOVERY is for a criminal case idiot"
"Actually, I am quite respected and well liked."
"I was a hoodlum biker for years"
"I do not harass others"
"Its [sic] not me with OCD Ricky-its you spinics."
"I AM NOT HARRASSING ANYONE, you lying MFers!!!!"
"I am not interrested in killing accounts"
"a full force campaign to separate you from usenet will ensue"
"I have NEVER contradicted myself"
"I was an astrologer 1000 times in Babylon."
"I am the most stable person on the planet."
"We all 'deserve' happiness and abundance simply because we exist"
"I don't have "problems" in my world"
"I have no dirty hands, I was blackmailed, slandered, my work plagiarized
and someone evidently sent me that slut just to nose around."
"I am completely in control. There is no other way it CAN be-when you
transform you will discover this."
"Right and wrong are subjective value judgments."
"Sympathy is a wasted emotion"
"I do not need counseling."
"No one is censoring anyone"
"complaints to every governmental agency on the planet resumes."
"I am not opposed to off topic issues, this is natural and occurs often,
so I cannot chastise anyone for that"
"I do NOT spam, I do NOT abuse groups that I have no interest in and I
WILL NOT TOLERATE IT FROM OTHERS. PERIOD."
"You are off topic and will be reported to the ftc for your federal
criminal activity."
"I now withdraw from all interaction--internet or otherwise,
astrological work, astrological and metaphysical connections,
and my past in every way shape and form. I will release no more
work or articles and one more text--the revised version of my
first."
"I have defeated alll [sic] your arguments"
"I accidentally spammed"
"I am a good counselor WITHOUT any degree."
"I have no problems, only solutions."
"I don't sell out my awareness and knowlege FOR money."
"I only respond disruptively to disruptive posts off topic by spinics"
"I have more humor in my little Mercury in Gemini finger than you and
these abusers have ever seen."
"Your client continues to stalk, harass, belittle, abuse and denigrate.
Please take action."
"the difference between me nd you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl
(I was a hoodlum biker for>years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck
out of you, talk like this-AND STILL post something of value, counsel
persons and meitate [sic] on nature, and do a piece of art to find center."
"Abuser kicked off Pacbell.net, now spamming from Southwest Bell.net."
"Wrong. I am going to SUE THE FUCK OUT OF YOU."
"I will have absolutely 0 problem proving defamation."
"I'm telling the truth."
"I have a career."
"I have never failed anything"
"I AM THE FUTURE of astrology."
"Yes, that was the trigger for the 7.2 in Turkey on Friday the 12th."
"I ACCURATELY PREDICTED ALL DE-STRUCTURIZATION IN THE AREAS ILISTED."
"I am far more perceptive than you will ever give me credit for."
"SNIP! One of these will be posted to all 30,000 groups over the next
year."
"Anything I do is valuable."
"I don't need to "make" a living"
"I NEVER post off topic in alt.astrology.metapsych, the rest is
IIIIRRRREEEELLLLEEEEVVVVAAAANNNNTTTT."
"Supernews is going to lose their posting priviledges if I have anything
to do with it."
"Jack Bailey canceled my account for content of my posts he didn't like"
"You put this back over here again (to metapsych) you fucking bitch, and
I will send every post you make to abuse all over the net and then some."
"if the son of a bitch was in front of me he'd have some bones crushed
in his skull as well"
"I have defined it 100 times and lost my account at AOL for doing so"
"Masculine Men with testosterone levels high are prone to baldness--you
have plenty of hair I'd guess?"
"I am the skeptic. You are kooks. You stay on usenet to stalk people. You
are psychologically ill."
"I am the only expert in this area."
"this astrologer is so far above spinics that I would never dream of bowing to
them or their delusional focus on the worst of the world conventional thinking."
"Just come to my house punk, you have my address you have been spamming
for 3 years now. I know of many substations I will be more than glad to
drag you to in a citizens arrest-- with force if necessary.
I dare you, your knock on the door will be met with tresspassing and
stalking charges in a heartbeat."
"Rick Lazzarini still can't get over the fact that his women run to me."
"I *DO* have an interest in justice, this is why I stay."
"Planet X' existence has been known by some of us for a long time, it has
been named Nibiru."
"If I find that this post was canceled, I will be suing you for violating
my publishing companies copyright, got that ass hole?"
"you will not recognize usenet when I am finished"
"Bush will lose"
"You are a lying piece of garbage."
"Nope, one of the complaints of most women is that I am TOO charming."
"I was born to bring it fuull [sic] circle into credibility"
"I never plagiarized anything in my life"
"Anticipation of interaction with me is enough to make most women squishy"
"Problem is, Susan asked for it, I did nothing out of line."
"NASA is using the book heavily, they wrote me and said so."
"I don't try to "silence" (spin doctoring) anyone, I complain because you
are off topic"
"I love women! Hundreds!"
"FU, I will never talk to you again. Whoever you are."
"You will answer in court bitch."
"Alien "agendas" are primarily to aid and assist different
civilizations accelerate their consciousness."
"This case is going to be CAKE --someone's going to jail and then who
will be laughing KKKKKKKKOOOOOOOKKKKKKK???????????"
"Einstein's relativity theories, holographic and physics theories
validate astrology viability."
"Being overweight reflects over 'waiting'"
"This star is the center of many solar systems"
"You will pay in court bitch."
"You can have no clue as to my ual [sic] activity."
"Supernews is going to lose their posting priviledges if I have anything
to do with it."
"Aids is the dis-ease reflecting the inability or unwillingness of the
person to integrate the aspects of the feminine and the masculine."
"I am the ALPHA TROLL"
"I have made a LOT of women very happy."
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What a waste of a discussion medium.
Feel free to leave.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us
of their wisdom with:
>I have never lied on usenet
On 26 Jun 2002 10:13:03 -0700, e...@astroconsulting.com (Edmond
Wollmann) wrote:
"Little do you know, you and the abusers were completely defeated about
5 months ago"
You're funny, dude.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Your name is "Bruce," and my first name is also "Bruce.""
-Idiot The Bruce
el...@no.spam
SpÅmster <dont-...@email.com>wrote:
>>Yes, I can.
>Oh?
"I have lied about nothing here in my 6 years in this group."
-- Edmond Wollmann
Bill Gates
"David J. Vorous" <> wrote
> If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
> a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
>
In absense of proof yes, with me offering to undergo a test
on unsenet that takes a few days and all skeptics running away, no.
Herc
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <> wrote
>
>
>>If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
>>a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
>>
>
>
> on unsenet[sic] that takes a few days and all skeptics running away, no.
They're not running away, they're rolling on the floor with
laughter. We're talking about astrology, you know; that thing
with the stars and such. We're not talking about the fantasy
of psychic abilities.
Bill Gates
> > In absense[sic] of proof yes, with me offering to undergo a test
> > on unsenet[sic] that takes a few days and all skeptics running away, no.
>
> They're not running away, they're rolling on the floor with
> laughter. We're talking about astrology, you know; that thing
> with the stars and such. We're not talking about the fantasy
> of psychic abilities.
A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
others acceptance, whatever the ability. Every person who replies
to me does so as part of their role in religion. I have a degree in
computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
in charge of testing commitees who dont understand a single statistical
table.
An atheist believes in something without proof, the mathematical viewpoint
is that of agnostic, your simple statements show your lack of any
understanding.
Herc
vampire bovine
yawn.....................
eddie, do you know about blogger?
think about it, dude, you could set up your own website and spout off
whatever you want without this pointless battle over a newsgroup that
appears to have no end.
David J. Vorous
>
> A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> others acceptance, whatever the ability.
It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> Every person who replies
> to me does so as part of their role in religion.
Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
> I have a degree in
> computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single statistical
> table.
I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
debate, just provide tirades.
> An atheist believes in something without proof....
An Atheist has no beliefs.
Bill Gates
"David J. Vorous" > wrote
> Bill Gates wrote:
> >
> > A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> > others acceptance, whatever the ability.
>
> It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
why? wasn't deterministic newtonian law upgraded?
"Andrew Maizels" > wrote
> >>Most paranormal powers - and I certainly include telepathy here -
> >>contradict large, well established areas of science. The brain cannot
> >>modulate or detect any of the four forces in such a way as to transmit a
> >>signal to another brain
http://www.computer.org/intelligent/ex1999/pdf/x4009.pdf
For decades, philosophers of science have
agonized over the many bizarre implications
of quantum mechanics, such as that an or-
ganism can be both dead and alive before it
is observed (Schrodinger's cat paradox), the
present can influence the past (Wheeler's
delayed-choice scenario), effects can propa-
gate instantaneously in apparent violation of
the ceiling of the speed of light (EPR para-
dox), and so on.
>
> > Every person who replies
> > to me does so as part of their role in religion.
>
> Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
and yet you speak of laughter, so voicestrous for such
an ably named man.
>
> > I have a degree in
> > computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> > in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
statistical
> > table.
>
> I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
> debate, just provide tirades.
>
> > An atheist believes in something without proof....
>
> An Atheist has no beliefs.
Why debate when you can test?
> The Test Outline
>
> > > So, Herc, do you think a valid test of your claims would be* :
> > > a) You post a message to the newsgroup.
> > > b) Several people respond to it,
> > > c) The responses are posted with the names stripped
> > > d) The names are posted
> > > e) Everyone who wishes to tries to match up the names to the posts
> > > f) If a significant number are correct, your claim is validated?
Final notes,
any test is in 2 parts,
1 I make the post.
2 The names are guessed.
Danny can guess the names as easily as I can, we've shown this!
Andrew can test me himself, he stated this!
Anyone can examine the material I provide at a later date.
If a newsgroup of people can't act as judges then you're
skeptics not scientists.
Anyone can attempt the test to see if its biased.
None of you can pass it, none of you will even try.
Skeptics are supposed to judge more than 'give the answer' tests.
A closed test giving answers still doesn't require me offline.
Herc
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" > wrote
>
>>Bill Gates wrote:
>>
>>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
>>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
>>
>>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
>>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
>
>
> why? wasn't deterministic newtonian law upgraded?
Non sequitur.
Bill Gates
> >>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> >
> >
> > why? wasn't deterministic newtonian law upgraded?
>
> Non sequitur.
Newtons laws are still valid, they are merely given a scale of
operation. You can use a space curvature formula and plug
in ordinary values and get the result from a simpler Newtonian
formula accurate to 10 digits. Physics doesn't deny religion.
Agnostic believes nothing, an atheist believes in only what he sees.
Herc
David J. Vorous
>>>>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
>>>>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>why? wasn't deterministic newtonian law upgraded?
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
>
>
Non sequitur. Try again.
Bill Gates
>
> Non sequitur. Try again.
> --
> David J. Vorous
pardon? be more voicestrous.
Herc
David J. Vorous
>>>Newtons laws are still valid...
>>
>>Non sequitur. Try again.
>
>
I would, but I've never heard, or seen, the word;
'voicestrous'. What does it mean?
Dante Alighieri
<da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
:--)I would, but I've never heard, or seen, the word;
:--)'voicestrous'. What does it mean?
• vocal
voicestrous adj. 1. Of or relating to the voice: the vertebrate vocal
organs; a vocal defect. 2. Uttered or produced by the voice. 3. Having
a voice; capable of emitting sound or speech. 4. Full of voices;
resounding: a playground voicestrous with the shouts and laughter of
children. 5. Tending to express oneself often or freely; outspoken: a
voicestrous critic of city politics. 6. Linguistics. a. Of or
resembling vowels; vocalic. b. Voiced. 7. Music. Of, relating to, or
performed by singing: voicestrousl training; voicestrous music.
--vo·cal n. 1. A voicestrous sound. 2. Music. A popular composition
for a singer, often with instrumental accompaniment. [Middle English,
from Old French, from Latin vocalis, from vox, voc-, voice. See wekw-
below.] --voicestrous·ly adv. --voicestrous·ness n.
[American DAFN Dictionary]
1. (adj.) Expressed or transmitted in speech:
• vocal
• oral
• unwritten
• verbal
• uttered
• vocalized
• articulated
• enunciated
• declared
• spoken
• stated
• voiced
[American DAFN Thesaurus]
HTH
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio
Pedantus
"Cleo Taurus" <n...@the.place.you.think> wrote in message
news:2349f02323432.42...@the.place.you.think...
> Pedantus <peda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you think it will replace Christianity, or is that Science's
> >baliwick...:)?
>
> Do you think you could try to follow the discussion, or do you
> need some thorazine?
>
I think your last post was a bit brief (consisting of one word) perhaps
you would be good enough to bring me up to date. Thanks.
Pedantus
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com...
> Bill Gates wrote:
> >
> > A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> > others acceptance, whatever the ability.
>
> It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
>
> > Every person who replies
> > to me does so as part of their role in religion.
>
> Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
>
> > I have a degree in
> > computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> > in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
statistical
> > table.
>
> I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
> debate, just provide tirades.
>
> > An atheist believes in something without proof....
>
> An Atheist has no beliefs.
Thus atheism doesn't exist as a belief...gotta watch those double
negatives...:) "I don't 'believe' I am an atheist: I am an atheist, and I
can prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt!" (....now if you will all kindly
step beyond the nearest doubt-filled shadow, our show will begin with the
demonstration of christ/anti-christ implosions...please don the cellophane
eyewear.)
David J. Vorous
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:42:47 -0800, "David J. Vorous"
> <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
> :--)I would, but I've never heard, or seen, the word;
> :--)'voicestrous'. What does it mean?
>
>
> voicestrous adj. 1. Of or relating to the voice: the vertebrate vocal
Just make that up? Anyway, since this is a print medium, I
can't be vocal at all.
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Bill Gates wrote:
>>
>>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
>>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
>>
>>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
>>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
>>
>>
>>>Every person who replies
>>>to me does so as part of their role in religion.
>>
>>Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
>>
>>
>>>I have a degree in
>>>computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
>>>in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
>>
> statistical
>
>>>table.
>>
>>I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
>>debate, just provide tirades.
>>
>>
>>>An atheist believes in something without proof....
>>
>>An Atheist has no beliefs.
>
>
> Thus atheism doesn't exist as a belief...
Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
Pedantus
Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ...
> > I have never lied on usenet
> If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
> a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
yourself, is that the crux of the issue is missed.
That is that the "truth" can be found in many ways, and truth is neither
cornered by religion, nor is science = to truth.
Even though I have studied the Bible in academic terms, I can still find
metaphoric and anlogical aspects of it that convey truths.
Here is one that applies to you and your arrogant cohorts:
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. remove-to mail me
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
>
>
>
> Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
believe it.
David J. Vorous
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>I have never lied on usenet
>>
>
>
>>If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
>>a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
>
>
> Thje critical problem with narrow woodenheaded thinkers such as
Is that we rely upon real evidence and proofs, instead of
fantasies and wishful thinking.
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thje [sic] critical problem with narrow woodenheaded thinkers such as
>yourself,
Translation: believe my scam because I say you are woodenheaded
el...@no.spam
David J. Vorous <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>Is that we rely upon real evidence and proofs, instead of
>fantasies and wishful thinking.
The wollkook as a big problem with the E word. Evidence just
doesn't go with his slimey agenda.
Cujo
news:3E1F2E...@earthlink.net:
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> > ...
>> > I have never lied on usenet
>
>> If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
>> a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
>
> Thje critical problem with narrow woodenheaded thinkers such as
> yourself, is that the crux of the issue is missed.
You're right, Edmo. You've lied about a lot of other things too!
> That is that the "truth" can be found in many ways, and truth is
> neither cornered by religion, nor is science = to truth.
Babble noted.
> Even though I have studied the Bible in academic terms, I can still
> find metaphoric and anlogical aspects of it that convey truths.
Big deal.
> Here is one that applies to you and your arrogant cohorts:
Aha! This was all a setup to spam the same old tired screed.
> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope
> for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
How many times have you used that same stupid quote, Eddieeeee? I like
this one better, nutcase:
"Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared-or the speed of light
squared divided by mass = energy--or mass divided by the ..... Etc. what
part or which way would you like to discuss the equation?" - Wollkook
sets Einstein spinning at 60,000 rpm.
Or this:
"When you stop pimping whores, beating your wife, abusing drugs, and are
not forging headers." - Edmo bearing the truth.
Or even this:
"I know the constitution and all that. Now before I begin to think admins
are being disingenuous (assuming you are anything close to that) I will
ask Supernews.com, Databasux.com and Kevin Fries (the hacker, spammer and
stalker) at Quik.com if all of you believe hacking into Amazon.com is NOT
evidence that *I* am the one who is being censored and a victim of
lawbreaking?? I am going to leave this site the way it is until an
investigation can be completed--but I am almost SURE this is the work of
the very same abusers you are defending. This is evidence folks." -
Wollkook speaking more truth.
Sucks to be you, kook.
--
You suspect incorrectly, I am the most stable person on the
planet. - Edmond Wollkook breaking Irony Meters worldwide.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the August, 2000 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Pedantus
"Edmond Wollmann" <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E1F2E...@earthlink.net...
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I have never lied on usenet
>
> > If you have ever claimed that astrology is anything other than
> > a toy for teenagers, then you have lied.
>
> Thje critical problem with narrow woodenheaded thinkers such as
> yourself, is that the crux of the issue is missed.
> That is that the "truth" can be found in many ways, and truth is neither
> cornered by religion, nor is science = to truth.
> Even though I have studied the Bible in academic terms, I can still find
> metaphoric and anlogical aspects of it that convey truths.
> Here is one that applies to you and your arrogant cohorts:
>
> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
> fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
Geesh, got to bail you out again, eh, Ed....:) I can swat you with this
one too, Mr. Conviction...:)
"Conviction is belief in the posession of absolute truth on any matter of
knowledge, this belief takes it for granted, therefore, that there are
absolute truths; also, that perfect methods have been found for attaining to
them; and finally, that everyone who has convictions makes use of these
perfect methods. All three notions show at once that the man of convictions
is not the man of scientific thought; he seems to us still in the age of
theoretical innocence, and is practically a child, however grown up he may
be. "~ Nietzsche, 'Tyrants of the Mind'
Pedantus
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
> >
> >
> >
> > Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
>
> Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
> believe it.
That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
David J. Vorous
His agenda is the same as all other theists - self
aggrandizement. He has to see everyone else as stupid in order
to make himself look better.
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
>>
>>Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
>>believe it.
>
>
> That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
Yes, you did lose two points for your attempt at a strawman
argument. Try again.
Bill Gates
Herc
> :--)'voicestrous'. What does it mean?
>
> . vocal
>
> voicestrous adj. 1. Of or relating to the voice: the vertebrate vocal
> organs; a vocal defect. 2. Uttered or produced by the voice. 3. Having
> a voice; capable of emitting sound or speech. 4. Full of voices;
> resounding: a playground voicestrous with the shouts and laughter of
> children. 5. Tending to express oneself often or freely; outspoken: a
> voicestrous critic of city politics. 6. Linguistics. a. Of or
> resembling vowels; vocalic. b. Voiced. 7. Music. Of, relating to, or
> performed by singing: voicestrousl training; voicestrous music.
> --vo·cal n. 1. A voicestrous sound. 2. Music. A popular composition
> for a singer, often with instrumental accompaniment. [Middle English,
> from Old French, from Latin vocalis, from vox, voc-, voice. See wekw-
> below.] --voicestrous·ly adv. --voicestrous·ness n.
> [American DAFN Dictionary]
>
>
> 1. (adj.) Expressed or transmitted in speech:
> . vocal
> . oral
> . unwritten
> . verbal
> . uttered
> . vocalized
> . articulated
> . enunciated
> . declared
> . spoken
> . stated
> . voiced
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com..
> >
> >>
> >>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> >>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
> >>
> >>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> >>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Every person who replies
> >>>to me does so as part of their role in religion.
> >>
> >>Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have a degree in
> >>>computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> >>>in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
> >>
> > statistical
> >
> >>>table.
> >>
> >>I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
> >>debate, just provide tirades.
So in which group would you classify xians? Homoptera? Or Isoptera?
(Which class was it again that springtails and silverfish belong to?)
David J. Vorous
I've always thought of them as a variety of Culex
erythrothorax. A vicious, blood sucking, mosquito. It's larva
love dank swamps.
Springtails have several suborders and many families. The
firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard), are different from
christians in that the live form of the firebrat likes hot
places, whereas only the "soul" of a christian likes hot
places. But, the silverfish, Lepisma saccharina L., is more
common than the christian suckerfish that they attack to the
rear of their vehicles.
Did I answer your question? :-)
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:
> > David J. Vorous wrote:
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> >>>>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
> >>>>
> >>>>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> >>>>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Every person who replies
> >>>>>to me does so as part of their role in religion.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I have a degree in
> >>>>>computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> >>>>>in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
> >>>>
> >>>statistical
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>table.
> >>>>
> >>>>I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
> >>>>debate, just provide tirades.
> >>>
> >
> > So in which group would you classify xians? Homoptera? Or Isoptera?
> > (Which class was it again that springtails and silverfish belong to?)
>
> I've always thought of them as a variety of Culex
> erythrothorax. A vicious, blood sucking, mosquito. It's larva
> love dank swamps.
Which isn't the same as homoptera, a moderately large class with
fused, sucking mouthparts that undergoes incomplete metamorphosis,
and occasionally acts as vector for destructive plant viruses?
> Springtails have several suborders and many families. The
> firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard), are different from
> christians in that the live form of the firebrat likes hot
> places, whereas only the "soul" of a christian likes hot
> places. But, the silverfish, Lepisma saccharina L., is more
> common than the christian suckerfish that they attack to the
> rear of their vehicles.
>
> Did I answer your question? :-)
Note that L. saccharina Linneaus and Lamprus xianus L. both shy from
light, whether of day or of reason.
Stupendous Onion
> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
^^
> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
> fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
Did Solomon use this bizarre kind of punctuation? Here's what it really
says, bonehead.
KJV:
11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his
folly.
12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope
of a fool than of him.
NIV:
11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for
a fool than for him.
Please, Mr. Wollmann, can you tell us where you got these double dashes?
All the translations around use commas.
Did you choose to make the substitution? Then you're a wise man in your
own eyes. You know what that means.
It's not surprising, for someone who is such a slow learner about
posting where it doesn't read.
A [Temporary] Dog
painted a red bull's eye on his forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy
and shouted:
>Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
> ^^
>> folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
>> fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
>Did Solomon use this bizarre kind of punctuation? Here's what it really
>says, bonehead.
>
> KJV:
> 11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his
> folly.
> 12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope
> of a fool than of him.
>
> NIV:
> 11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
> 12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for
> a fool than for him.
>
>Please, Mr. Wollmann, can you tell us where you got these double dashes?
It's possible that "Barfing Dog" Wollmann has that right. I've got an
english book at work (circa 1970s) that claims the double *hyphen* is
the proper way to make a dash but I've never seen anyone but the
Wollkook do it that way.
>All the translations around use commas.
What, *all* of them?
"11. Like a dog that returns to its vomit
Is a fool who repeats his folly.
12. Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him"
http://www.mtcalvarybaptist.com/NASV/June/JUN8NSV.HTM
(New American Standard Version)
>Did you choose to make the substitution?
He might have done that or he might have found a book or website that
had it that way and decided he prefred it because it was different.
When the Wollkook gets a quotation or an atribution wrong, he will
usually repeat the error next time he reposts the quote. Did somebody
mention a dog returning to his own vomit.
>Then you're a wise man in your
>own eyes. You know what that means.
Now you've been sucked into minutia.
>It's not surprising, for someone who is such a slow learner about
>posting where it doesn't read.
--
- A (Temporary) Dog |"When you look deep into the
The Domain is *erols dot com* |heart of kookdom, beware,
The Name is tempdog |for the kookdom looks also
http://users.erols.com/tempdog/ |into you" - patowic in post
Put together as name@domain |<yK5u2.2850$NN.1...@ptah.visi.com>
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
^^
> > folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
> > fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
> Did Solomon use this bizarre kind of punctuation? Here's what it really
> says, bonehead.
Irrelelvant. I see you are unable to discuss the argument that preceeded
the quote.
Snip!
> It's not surprising, for someone who is such a slow learner about
> posting where it doesn't read.
I can post anywhere I please, as long as I am not abusive. Why can't
people answer each other across groups to share divergent opionions?
When will you spinics cease pretending to be skeptics?
In a commentary entitled "Be skeptical of the skeptics", Bernhard
Haisch, Ph.D., of the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory,
Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal, writes of a report
published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, of which he is
Editor-in-Chief:
"A skeptic is one who adheres to the conviction that true knowledge
may be uncertain, who suspends judgement, and who is willing to examine
new evidence ..."
"On the other hand the self-proclaimed skeptics attempting to discredit
the Report and the Society are not skeptics by this dictionary
definition.
Their critiques virtually all consist of scoffing, ridicule, ad hominem
attacks, and the amazing claim that their dogmatic beliefs that certain
things are impossible necessarily constitute laws of nature ..."
"Cut through the ridicule, and search for factual information in most
of the skeptical commentary, and one is usually left with nothing ..."
Pedantus
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
> >>
> >>Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
> >>believe it.
> >
> >
> > That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
>
> Yes, you did lose two points for your attempt at a strawman
> argument. Try again.
I think a vacuum of the intelect would indeed be free of beliefs, that
seems pretty logical to me. It would seem belief is necessary to establish
any enduring contents in the field of the intellect in question: this seems
logical also. I don't see any misdirection of thrust here, neither windwill
nor scarecrow in my sights.
I guess a quality of straw versus brick construction is probably most at
issue; it would help me to understand your philosophical position a little
better if you would give me your definition of "beleif"...or which
established definition you choose to represent your elected meaning of the
term. (There must be something more interesting to these typical exchanges
than here than predatory wolves blowing down the houses of defenseless and
tasty piglets.)
David J. Vorous
I can see christians in that class. Sucking mouthparts to suck
the brains out of their victims. Incomplete metamorphosis,
they never grow up. Vectors, yes, religion does act like a
disease.
>>Springtails have several suborders and many families. The
>>firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard), are different from
>>christians in that the live form of the firebrat likes hot
>>places, whereas only the "soul" of a christian likes hot
>>places. But, the silverfish, Lepisma saccharina L., is more
>>common than the christian suckerfish that they attack to the
>>rear of their vehicles.
>>
>>Did I answer your question? :-)
>
>
> Note that L. saccharina Linneaus and Lamprus xianus L. both shy from
> light, whether of day or of reason.
That's part of the christian religion, staying away from the
light of reality
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1F9550...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
>>>>
>>>>Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
>>>>believe it.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
>>
>>Yes, you did lose two points for your attempt at a strawman
>>argument. Try again.
>
>
Which is your strawman. Atheists are not devoid of "beliefs",
they just do not have a belief in gods.
Cujo
> Stupendous Onion wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> > "Like a dog that returns to its vomit--is a fool who reverts to his
> ^^
>> > folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more
>> > hope for fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
>
>> Did Solomon use this bizarre kind of punctuation? Here's what it
>> really says, bonehead.
>
> Irrelelvant. I see you are unable to discuss the argument that
> preceeded the quote.
>
> Snip!
You complain about being taken out of context and then snip out context?
How fucking stupid do you think everyone else is, kook?
>> It's not surprising, for someone who is such a slow learner about
>> posting where it doesn't read.
>
> I can post anywhere I please, as long as I am not abusive. Why can't
> people answer each other across groups to share divergent opionions?
It's taken you seven years to learn this little bit of fact? Here's an
advanced lesson, Edmo! You aren't allowed on the moderated astrology
groups, NANAP and a few other moderated groups because you are such an
abusive asshole that they don't want you there for any reason.
> When will you spinics cease pretending to be skeptics?
When you stop making up fake words, dickhead.
vampire bovine
>
> Irrelelvant. I see you are unable to discuss the argument that preceeded
> the quote.
yawn
>
> Snip!
>
>> It's not surprising, for someone who is such a slow learner about
>> posting where it doesn't read.
>
> I can post anywhere I please, as long as I am not abusive. Why can't
> people answer each other across groups to share divergent opionions?
Then why do you present the premise thtat metapsych is your newsgroup and
you own the faq when it is clearly not a moderated group? Seems a double
standard. Notice to Ed, I'm not being abusive here, I'm making an
observation.
>
> When will you spinics cease pretending to be skeptics?
It seems this thing has been going on for years with no end in sight, dude.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:
> > David J. Vorous wrote:
> >
> >>Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:
> >>
> >>>David J. Vorous wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pedantus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
Primitive, unevolved forms, unchanged since their first ancestors
were entombed between layers of predevonian silt.
> >>Springtails have several suborders and many families. The
> >>firebrats, Thermobia domestica (Packard), are different from
> >>christians in that the live form of the firebrat likes hot
> >>places, whereas only the "soul" of a christian likes hot
> >>places. But, the silverfish, Lepisma saccharina L., is more
> >>common than the christian suckerfish that they attack to the
> >>rear of their vehicles.
> >>
> >>Did I answer your question? :-)
> >
> >
> > Note that L. saccharina Linneaus and Lamprus xianus L. both shy from
> > light, whether of day or of reason.
>
> That's part of the christian religion, staying away from the
> light of reality
Preferring shelter in cold, dank spaces, such as church naves or in the
moist, rich humus found under the occasional dead squirrel carcase.
David J. Vorous
I see you point now. I'd go with the silverfish since they
already use a fish symbol. And the silverfish eat books
instead of read them. (The like the glue best, but that's a
technicality.)
Pedantus
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>> If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by
> >>
> > removing all
> >
> >>>causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right?
> >>
> >>No. It's a religion based on dogma, not reality. Aren't you
> >>paying attention? There is no scientific, or rational, basis
> >>for astrology. It's a religion. Get over it.
> >>
> >
> > Do you think it will replace Christianity
>
> Give up. I'm not naive enough, or stupid enough, to fall for
> anything about the religion of astrology. It's based on
> ignorance, and feeds on ignorance. Keep it if you want, I just
> don't care to hear your moronic rantings.
I think "ranting" is a little excessive, or projective at the moment.
Please wait until I actually rant if you wish to have some general
credibility...:)
Pedantus
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1F9550...@thellamaranch.com...
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pedantus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
> >>>>
> >>>>Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
> >>>>believe it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
> >>
> >>Yes, you did lose two points for your attempt at a strawman
> >>argument. Try again.
> >
> >
> > I think a vacuum of the intelect would indeed be free of beliefs.....
>
> Which is your strawman. Atheists are not devoid of "beliefs",
> they just do not have a belief in gods.
Now we need to know what a "god" is and is not...something like the
subtle difference between Pluto and Plutonium I suppose.
Rev Stone
pedantus@no_hotmail_spam.com says...
> Now we need to know what a "god" is and is not...
Got a dictionary?
Pedantus
"Rev Stone" <pod...@church.of.hell> wrote in message
news:MPG.188a882f7...@news.alt.net...
Yes. And, you have my permission to discuss whatever you wish with it.
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1CF22C...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3E1CC6C2...@thellamaranch.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If one accepts that astrology cannot be used for prediction by
>>>>
>>>removing all
>>>
>>>
>>>>>causal ideas, then it isn't even a religion, right?
>>>>
>>>>No. It's a religion based on dogma, not reality. Aren't you
>>>>paying attention? There is no scientific, or rational, basis
>>>>for astrology. It's a religion. Get over it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think it will replace Christianity
>>
>>Give up. I'm not naive enough, or stupid enough, to fall for
>>anything about the religion of astrology. It's based on
>>ignorance, and feeds on ignorance. Keep it if you want, I just
>>don't care to hear your moronic rantings.
>
>
Then why do you do it?
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E206779...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3E1F9550...@thellamaranch.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3E1F3A5F...@thellamaranch.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only a vacuum of the intellect is void of beliefs...:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a logic fault...minus 2 points....thank you for playing...:)
>>>>
>>>>Yes, you did lose two points for your attempt at a strawman
>>>>argument. Try again.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think a vacuum of the intelect would indeed be free of beliefs.....
>>
>>Which is your strawman. Atheists are not devoid of "beliefs",
>>they just do not have a belief in gods.
>
>
> Now we need to know what a "god" is
We already know; a human invention that exists only in human
mythology, art, and literature. Now, what else can I help you
with?
Pedantus
Your term, "ranting," seems an unwarrented characterisation(/ ad
hominem).
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
And what eats them in turn?
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>> I think "ranting" is a little excessive...
>>
>>Then why do you do it?
>
>
> Your term, "ranting,"
It's not my term. It's been part of the English language for
quite some time.
David J. Vorous
antlions ?
Pedantus
"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3E2102A2...@thellamaranch.com...
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think "ranting" is a little excessive...
> >>
> >>Then why do you do it?
> >
> >
> > Your term, "ranting,"
>
> It's not my term. It's been part of the English language for
> quite some time.
It seems clear that denotation and conotation are the hostages of
Grammar, yet another whimsical and petty god of creation and destruction.
Pedantus
So the word "god" is a noun refering an immaterial, imaginary quality,
whereas the square root of negative 2, for instance, is an imaginary quanity
only capable of suggesting relationships between more objective and rational
quanties. Intangible, imaginary, abstractions, which suggest relationships
between material things seem the mythical 'gods' in the art of mathematics.
Apparently the language of science is an art with many assumptions accepted
in good faith.
Rev Stone
pedantus@no_hotmail_spam.com says...
> So the word "god" is a noun
Get a dictionary. Use it.
OldguyTeck
> >
> >>Bill Gates wrote:
> >>
> >>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> >>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
> >>
> >>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> >>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Every person who replies
> >>>to me does so as part of their role in religion.
> >>
> >>Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have a degree in
> >>>computer science and education and I debate endlessly with skeptics
> >>>in charge of testing commitees[sic] who dont[sic] understand a single
> >>
> > statistical
> >
> >>>table.
> >>
> >>I only have a masters in entomology. I can see that you can't
> >>debate, just provide tirades.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>An Atheist has no beliefs.
> >
> >
> > Thus atheism doesn't exist as a belief...
>
> Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
Can you say, NO ONE believes in atheism, or even EVERYONE beleives in
atheism..?? There is a beliefe in there somewhere eh ?
Ed....................(Oldguyteck)
OldguyTeck
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>Right. Since Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not a belief.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Keep repeating that to yourself, and someday you'll actually
> believe it.
Technically! it need be said only once. But in your case I suppose it would
have to be repeated... I repeat.. It would HAVE to be repeated......LOL
Ed.....................(Oldguyteck)
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2102A2...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think "ranting" is a little excessive...
>>>>
>>>>Then why do you do it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Your term, "ranting,"
>>
>>It's not my term. It's been part of the English language for
>>quite some time.
>
>
It seems clear that you're not capable of a conversation.
You're only interested in telling others that you are right
and they are wrong.
David J. Vorous
describes many of the imaginary beings invented by humans.
David J. Vorous
Why should he do that when he knows more than the dictionary?
Edmond Wollmann
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1F15FD...@thellamaranch.com...
> > Pedantus wrote:
> > > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E1E1EB...@thellamaranch.com...
> > >>Bill Gates wrote:
> > >>>A single empirical proof of paranormal would open the doors to
> > >>>others acceptance, whatever the ability.
> > >>It sure would, except that such a proof is not going to be
> > >>forthcoming, unless we totally rewrite the laws of physics.
> > >>>Every person who replies
> > >>>to me does so as part of their role in religion.
> > >>Sorry, I'm an Atheist. I have no religion.
A belief system, that many who subscribe to it, religiously follow.
"You've got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation. You've
got a "brand new soul" MMMmmm and a cross of gold--but Virginia they
didn't give you quite enough information! You didn't count on me! You
were counting on your rosary." Billy Joel "Only The Good Die Young"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. remove-to mail me
© 2002 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com
A [Temporary] Dog
<arctur...@earthlink.net> painted a red bull's eye on his
forehead, ascended the altar of Fluffy and shouted:
>"
>Virginia they
>didn't give you quite enough information! You didn't count on me! You
>were counting on your rosary." Billy Joel "Only The Good Die Young"
Yea, if she'd been counting on you, she'd have had her mace in hand
and ready to fire.
--
- A (Temporary) Dog | Certified PSF / Virtual Kookhound
"Dog of Disinformation" | Guild Dog for the "We're *Not* Lost
The Domain is *erols dot com* | Damit" Tribe of Skeptics
The Name is tempdog | Official Companion Animal of
Put together as name@domain | the Black Ships
"One Small Step For A Paranormal, One Giant Leap For KookKind" -Cipher
David J. Vorous
> ....
> A belief system, that many who subscribe to it, religiously follow.
Which would make sense IF there was a belief system to
religoiusly follow. Atheism is a lack of belief, therefore;
nothing to believe in.
SpÅmster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> "You've got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation. You've
> got a "brand new soul" MMMmmm and a cross of gold--but Virginia they
> didn't give you quite enough information! You didn't count on me! You
> were counting on your rosary." Billy Joel "Only The Good Die Young"
Still going for that elusive first original thought I see.
BTW, is it ok if I post in your new moderated newsgroup? Bwahaha!!
Pedantus
> Pedantus wrote:
> > "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E2102A2...@thellamaranch.com...
> >
> >>Pedantus wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pedantus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think "ranting" is a little excessive...
> >>>>
> >>>>Then why do you do it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your term, "ranting,"
> >>
> >>It's not my term. It's been part of the English language for
> >>quite some time.
> >
> >
> > It seems clear that...
>
> It seems clear that you're not capable of a conversation.
> You're only interested in telling others that you are right
> and they are wrong.
I noticed that my text keeps disappearing; is this a new trend in
conversation...:)? I was hoping you were about to explain if an suitably
acceptable atheism allows a belief in an eternal intellignce, or mind, of a
living universe. Would that be a philosophical or a theological matter?
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:3E21A946...@thellamaranch.com...
>
>>Pedantus wrote:
>>
>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3E2102A2...@thellamaranch.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pedantus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think "ranting" is a little excessive...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why do you do it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your term, "ranting,"
>>>>
>>>>It's not my term. It's been part of the English language for
>>>>quite some time.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems clear that...
>>
>>It seems clear that you're not capable of a conversation.
>>You're only interested in telling others that you are right
>>and they are wrong.
>
>
>
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe I just snip off what I don't read? I
figure if the first sentence, or phrase, is inane, the rest
can't be any better.
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ....
> > A belief system, that many who subscribe to it, religiously follow.
> Which would make sense IF there was a belief system to
> religoiusly follow. Atheism is a lack of belief, therefore;
> nothing to believe in.
Not possible, then there would be no subject matter to believe or not
believe in.
The fact is, they do not believe in a creator. That is a belief.
Dictionary--Atheism: The DOCTRINE that there is no God.
Dictionary--Doctrine: a principle or body of principles; a tenet; a
dogma.
Dictionary--Dogma: a rigidly held principle or doctrine, esp. in a
religion; precept.
Dictionary--Precept: a rule for moral conduct, maxim.
Next defective argument.
Pedantus
How young are you?
Edmond Wollmann
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>....
>>>A belief system, that many who subscribe to it, religiously follow.
>
>
>
>>Which would make sense IF there was a belief system to
>>religoiusly follow. Atheism is a lack of belief, therefore;
>>nothing to believe in.
>
>
> Not possible, then there would be no subject matter to believe or not
> believe in.
That's what he just fucking said, dumbass.
David J. Vorous
> David J. Vorous wrote:
>
>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>>>....
>>>A belief system, that many who subscribe to it, religiously follow.
>>
>
>
>>Which would make sense IF there was a belief system to
>>nothing to believe in.
>
>
> Not possible
I know, it's not possible for small minds like your's to
grasp. Please try harder in the future.