I Extend the Same Offer to Harshman of 7 months ago
T Pagano
one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
The last time I gave this offer Harshman got so flustered that he
highlighted a post of his own that was so filled with obvious errors
that I was forced to grant him 6 months of Mercy Rule protection.
Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
The only one who should be terrified is you when you meet your God.
RAM
squealpiggy
Did you have a point to make along with this courageous challenge?
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pagano, Nashton, Nando. Seems like old times. Maybe Ed Conrad will
come back too.
Grandbank
Why yes. Instead of declaring victory and running away for months
*after* he loses an argument, he's now declaring victory and running
away before an argument is started.
Prudent choice.
KP
I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.
Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit;
touch it, and the bloom is gone.
- Oscar Wilde
backspace
> Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
I doubt Dr.Harshman would engage you with such a sarcastic tone, why
can't you state your case in a neutral tone ?
Earle Jones
<a259105e-2dc1-4613...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
RAM <RAMat...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
As Bush says: "Bring 'em on!!"
earle
*
Earle Jones
<6e682208-6a87-4894...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
*
Conrad realized that his misinformation was based on a typo:
What it really says is "Man -- as old as cola."
earle
*
Free Lunch
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
That didn't work so well for him.
*Hemidactylus*
> In article
> <a259105e-2dc1-4613-9636-fb2678e9f...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
posts this thread?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Yap, yap, yap.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
chris thompson
> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> one of his merry band of atheists
Does Harshman have a band? Who plays lead guitar?
> produce a particularly good rebuttal
> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
Wait, now it's only John who can play?
Well, for anyone who hasn't been here since Hector was a pup, I will
humbly submit, for your reading pleasure, this thread, in which Mike
Dunford, Andy Groves, Steven J, with some small help from me, tear
Pagano's vestigial structure argument to eensy weensy tiny bits that
shrivel up and blow away in a Santa Ana wind.
or
Enjoy
Chris
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
The answer to the question you pose in the Subject: line is
"Yes; both".
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
>one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
Translation from TonySpeak: "If I post and anyone responds,
I'll ignore the response and claim victory".
<snip TonyBlather>
Earle Jones
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:05:29 -0700, Earle Jones
> <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >In article
> ><a259105e-2dc1-4613...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > RAM <RAMat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 9:34 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> > I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> >> > one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> >> > to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> >> > if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
> >> >
> >> > Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> >> > new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> >> > point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> >> > I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
> >> >
> >> > The last time I gave this offer Harshman got so flustered that he
> >> > highlighted a post of his own that was so filled with obvious errors
> >> > that I was forced to grant him 6 months of Mercy Rule protection.
> >> >
> >> > Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > T Pagano
*
"If you find it necessary to inform people
that it was you who won the argument, you probably didn't."
M. E. Smith-Slattery
earle
*
John Harshman
So you're saying that the last time you did this, I accepted your offer,
and you were forced not to reply, i.e. endeavoring neither to respond
nor concede?
John Harshman
extremely sarcastic tone. The best way to puncture a balloon is with a
sharp pin.
Frank J
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:34:00 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> >one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> >to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> >if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> Translation from TonySpeak: "If I post and anyone responds,
> I'll ignore the response and claim victory".
IOW, playing chess with pigeons:
http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/
Steven J.
> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
you are not responding to my posts. I have somewhat more cause to
complain that you use terms which you either refuse to define or
define in self-contradictory ways. Take, e.g. "nascent" and "novel:"
you've never defined these terms in such a way that it applies to
anything we ought to expect from evolution. Is, for example, a
pectoral lobe-fin on _Panderichthys_ a "nascent" forelimb? Would it
count as a "novel" wing? If not, why not?
What does it mean to say that mutations or phenotypic changes are (or
that evolution requires them to be) added "progressively,
directionally, or coherently?" Now, "directionally" at least seems to
have a meaning: you allude to the Grants' research on the Galapagos
finches (whether you know you allude to this or not), which saw
average beak sizes first increase in response to drought and then
shrink again, and insist that evolution in populations cycles around
some mid-point. So "directional" changes would seem to be changes
that continue in some direction rather than return to their ancestral
state. The trouble, of course, is that exactly this is seen in the
Pearson, _et al._ foram series, or in Gould's _Cerion_ series, or
(with transitions between genera but not between morphospecies) in
several trilobite lineages. But it's not at all clear what, if
anything, you mean by "progressively" or "coherently."
>
> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>
I'm sure you can respond, although the historical record does not
encourage optimism that your response will be relevant to the points
raised.
>
> The last time I gave this offer Harshman got so flustered that he
> highlighted a post of his own that was so filled with obvious errors
> that I was forced to grant him 6 months of Mercy Rule protection.
>
Tony, is there anyone who doesn't assume, based on past evidence, that
the Mercy Rule extends mercy to you, not to the person against whom
you invoke it? As I recall, the last time you extended this
challenge, Harshman let you pick any post of his you wished, and
respond to it -- a task you apparently found beyond your abilities.
>
> Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
>
Harshman has already responded to several of your recent posts.
Presumably, he thinks all these posts have merit. Why insist that he
pick one: just select his first reply to some substantive post of
yours, and respond to it.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Robert Carnegie
> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
Harshman tells him to? On the face of it, that will save everyone a
lot of time.
In fact, can we start with this one?
I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
point. But any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
Walter Bushell
<7b8ea071-9d32-49d6...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> IOW, playing chess with pigeons:
The pigeons think they've won if they knock over the pieces and defecate
on the board?
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Walter Bushell
> >As Bush says: "Bring 'em on!!"
>
> That didn't work so well for him.
Seemed to work great -- for him.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fn...@comcast.net>:
>On Jul 5, 7:42 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:34:00 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>:
>>
>> >I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
>> >one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> >to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> >if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>>
>> Translation from TonySpeak: "If I post and anyone responds,
>> I'll ignore the response and claim victory".
>
>IOW, playing chess with pigeons:
>
>http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/
Precisely.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>T Pagano wrote:
>> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
>> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>>
>> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
>> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
>> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
>> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>
>Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
won't put any nails in the 2X4.
>Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
>return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
>Harshman tells him to? On the face of it, that will save everyone a
>lot of time.
>
>In fact, can we start with this one?
>
>I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
>waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
>point. But any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
"Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
That got added to my sig file. Thanks!
--
Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could
eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 5, 10:34 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
>> one of his merry band of atheists
>
> Does Harshman have a band? Who plays lead guitar?
I think he is alluding to Robin Hood, in which case you should ask who
plays the lute.
I wonder how annoyed he would get if we started calling him Little John
Harshman?
>
>> produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> Wait, now it's only John who can play?
>
> Well, for anyone who hasn't been here since Hector was a pup,
I hadn't heard that before. My original guess (that it was to do with
Hector's House) turned out to be wildly wrong.
macaddicted
He'll never "see" it. You forgot to put his name in the subject line.
%-)
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
macaddicted
But Pags is fun! I think he's an idiot. He thinks I'm an apostate.
macaddicted
> Well, for anyone who hasn't been here since Hector was a pup, I will
> humbly submit, for your reading pleasure, this thread, in which Mike
> Dunford, Andy Groves, Steven J, with some small help from me, tear
> Pagano's vestigial structure argument to eensy weensy tiny bits that
> shrivel up and blow away in a Santa Ana wind.
We could use a good Santa Ana wind. Might cool things down.
Did anyone check to see if Pags brought his sock puppets with him?
Robert Carnegie
> Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could
> eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
According to www.imdb.com Chuck Norris is not ten feet tall.
Robert Carnegie
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> >> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> >> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> >> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> >> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> >> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> >> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> >> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>
> >Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
>
> Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
> won't put any nails in the 2X4.
>
> >Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
> >return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
> >Harshman tells him to? On the face of it, that will save everyone a
> >lot of time.
>
> >In fact, can we start with this one?
>
> >I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
> >waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
> >point. But any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
>
> "Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
Well, we have a responsibility. Imagine if he wants someone to talk
to online and he feels unwelcome in talk.origins. That would be a
crisis. Talk.origins was set up just for folks like Tony to raise the
issues that they want to raise, instead of other, less appropriate
places.
John Wilkins
I thought it was supposed to be "Man, as old as E coli"
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
chris thompson
wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>
> > >T Pagano wrote:
> > >> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> > >> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> > >> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> > >> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> > >> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> > >> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> > >> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> > >> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>
> > >Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
>
> > Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
> > won't put any nails in the 2X4.
>
> > >Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
> > >return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
> > >Harshman tells him to? On the face of it, that will save everyone a
> > >lot of time.
>
> > >In fact, can we start with this one?
>
> > >I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
> > >waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
> > >point. But any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
>
> > "Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
>
> But Pags is fun! I think he's an idiot. He thinks I'm an apostate.
Sounds like the makings of a fine religious war!
Chris
Vernon Balbert
They base their information on what they see on the films. That's just
special effects.
--
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with
potatoes. - Douglas Adams
AC
squealpiggy <anthon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:34 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
>> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>>
>> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
>> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
>> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
>> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>>
>> highlighted a post of his own that was so filled with obvious errors
>> that I was forced to grant him 6 months of Mercy Rule protection.
>>
>> Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano
>
You'd better watch it or he'll invoke the mercy rule on you.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Earle Jones
<7962f915-129a-4126...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
I suspect you're both right!
earle
*
Don Cates
Vernon Balbert wrote:
> On 7/7/2008 1:50 AM, Robert Carnegie went clickity clack on the keyboard
> and produced this interesting bit of text:
>> On Jul 7, 12:42 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could
>>> eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
>>
>> According to www.imdb.com Chuck Norris is not ten feet tall.
>
> They base their information on what they see on the films. That's just
> special effects.
>
Oh, come on! "two-tons"? He'd have to be much taller.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
macaddicted
Vernon Balbert
>
>
> Vernon Balbert wrote:
>> On 7/7/2008 1:50 AM, Robert Carnegie went clickity clack on the
>> keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
>>> On Jul 7, 12:42 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and
>>>> could
>>>> eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
>>>
>>> According to www.imdb.com Chuck Norris is not ten feet tall.
>>
>> They base their information on what they see on the films. That's
>> just special effects.
>>
> Oh, come on! "two-tons"? He'd have to be much taller.
Chuck Norris is really dense.
--
Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a
spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the
earth's atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature
of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publicly claimed it was a meteor,
and still owes him a beer.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com
(macaddicted):
Well, one of you is correct for certain. But I don't know if
you're an apostate.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>On Jul 6, 11:12锟絧m, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com>:
>>
>> >T Pagano wrote:
>> >> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. 锟絀f either he or
>> >> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> >> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> >> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>>
>> >> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
>> >> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
>> >> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). 锟絀n return
>> >> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>>
>> >Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
>>
>> Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
>> won't put any nails in the 2X4.
>>
>> >Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
>> >return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
>> >Harshman tells him to? 锟絆n the face of it, that will save everyone a
>> >lot of time.
>>
>> >In fact, can we start with this one?
>>
>> >I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
>> >waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
>> >point. 锟紹ut any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
>>
>> "Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
>
>Well, we have a responsibility. Imagine if he wants someone to talk
>to online and he feels unwelcome in talk.origins. That would be a
>crisis. Talk.origins was set up just for folks like Tony to raise the
>issues that they want to raise, instead of other, less appropriate
>places.
I'd like for Tony to "raise his points in an appropriate
place". And it has the advantage that he can do it alone,
with no Internet access at all.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<catHO...@cc.umanitoba.ca>:
Not if he says he doesn't.
Jack Dominey
<vbal...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>On 7/7/2008 1:45 PM, Don Cates went clickity clack on the keyboard and
>produced this interesting bit of text:
>>
>>
>> Vernon Balbert wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2008 1:50 AM, Robert Carnegie went clickity clack on the
>>> keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
>>>> On Jul 7, 12:42 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and
>>>>> could
>>>>> eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
....
>> Oh, come on! "two-tons"? He'd have to be much taller.
>
>Chuck Norris is really dense.
I see you've read some of his writing.
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Chuck+Norris
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
chris thompson
> > T Pagano wrote:
> > > I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. If either he or
> > > one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> > > to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> > > if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>
> > > Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> > > new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> > > point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). In return
> > > I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>
> > > The last time I gave this offer Harshman got so flustered that he
> > > highlighted a post of his own that was so filled with obvious errors
> > > that I was forced to grant him 6 months of Mercy Rule protection.
>
> > > Assuming that Harshman isn't terrified let the games begin...
>
> > So you're saying that the last time you did this, I accepted your offer,
> > and you were forced not to reply, i.e. endeavoring neither to respond
> > nor concede?
>
> He'll never "see" it. You forgot to put his name in the subject line.
> %-)
I put his name in my post and he hasn't "seen" that one, either.
Oh, to be a creationist, and be able to see things that aren't there,
and be able to make unpleasant things that _are_ there, go away.
Chris
Woland
> On 7/7/2008 1:45 PM, Don Cates went clickity clack on the keyboard and
> produced this interesting bit of text:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vernon Balbert wrote:
> >> On 7/7/2008 1:50 AM, Robert Carnegie went clickity clack on the
> >> keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
> >>> On Jul 7, 12:42 am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and
> >>>> could
> >>>> eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
>
>
> >> They base their information on what they see on the films. That's
> >> just special effects.
>
> > Oh, come on! "two-tons"? He'd have to be much taller.
>
> Chuck Norris is really dense.
>
> --
> Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a
> spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the
> earth's atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature
> of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publicly claimed it was a meteor,
> and still owes him a beer.
Yeah, he's made out of, like, tachyon particles, or something.
Robert Carnegie
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:54:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>
> >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.carne...@excite.com>:
> >>
> >> >T Pagano wrote:
> >> >> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
> >> >> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
> >> >> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
> >>
> >> >> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
> >> >> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
> >> >> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
> >>
> >> >Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
> >>
> >> Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
> >> won't put any nails in the 2X4.
> >>
> >> >Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
> >> >return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
> >> >lot of time.
> >>
> >> >In fact, can we start with this one?
> >>
> >> >I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
> >> >waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
> >>
> >> "Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
> >
> >Well, we have a responsibility. Imagine if he wants someone to talk
> >to online and he feels unwelcome in talk.origins. That would be a
> >crisis. Talk.origins was set up just for folks like Tony to raise the
> >issues that they want to raise, instead of other, less appropriate
> >places.
>
> I'd like for Tony to "raise his points in an appropriate
> place". And it has the advantage that he can do it alone,
> with no Internet access at all.
Uh-uh. Sorry. Talk.origins was made for creationists, creationists
were not made for talk.origins.
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 01:54:53 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>>
>> >On Jul 6, 11:12?pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.carne...@excite.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >T Pagano wrote:
>> >> >> I extend the same offer to Harshman of 7 months ago. ?If either he or
>> >> >> one of his merry band of atheists produce a particularly good rebuttal
>> >> >> to one of "my" posts that he thinks demands my response I will do so
>> >> >> if, and only if, Harshman points it out.
>> >>
>> >> >> Since I don't have time to read all the responses he need only begin a
>> >> >> new thread with my name in the subject line to get my attention and
>> >> >> point out the outstanding post in the body (or link to it). ?In return
>> >> >> I will endeavor to respond or concede if I cannot.
>> >>
>> >> >Does /anyone/ here desire to get Tony's attention?
>> >>
>> >> Only if I can use the classic "mule" technique. I promise I
>> >> won't put any nails in the 2X4.
>> >>
>> >> >Can we construe the preceding article as a promise by Tony never to
>> >> >return to a thread that he started or joined in on, unless John
>> >> >Harshman tells him to? ?On the face of it, that will save everyone a
>> >> >lot of time.
>> >>
>> >> >In fact, can we start with this one?
>> >>
>> >> >I don't bear you ill-will, Tony - if you're reading this whilst
>> >> >waiting to see if John Harshman tells you that someone made a good
>> >> >point. ?But any time you prefer not to talk with us, that's fine.
>> >>
>> >> "Fine" somehow fails to capture the full essence.
>> >
>> >Well, we have a responsibility. Imagine if he wants someone to talk
>> >to online and he feels unwelcome in talk.origins. That would be a
>> >crisis. Talk.origins was set up just for folks like Tony to raise the
>> >issues that they want to raise, instead of other, less appropriate
>> >places.
>>
>> I'd like for Tony to "raise his points in an appropriate
>> place". And it has the advantage that he can do it alone,
>> with no Internet access at all.
>
>Uh-uh. Sorry. Talk.origins was made for creationists, creationists
>were not made for talk.origins.
T.o was made for creationists *who post to newsgroups*. It
should be obvious that if they don't post at all it's even
better. I stand behind my suggestion.
Dan Luke
"chris thompson" wrote:
> Oh, to be a creationist, and be able to see things that aren't there,
> and be able to make unpleasant things that _are_ there, go away.
No, thanks.
I tried that in the '60s and the payback is murder.
--
Dan
"Don't make me nervous when I'm holdin' a baseball bat."
-Big Joe Turner
chris thompson
> "chris thompson" wrote:
> > Oh, to be a creationist, and be able to see things that aren't there,
> > and be able to make unpleasant things that _are_ there, go away.
>
> No, thanks.
>
> I tried that in the '60s and the payback is murder.
They accomplish it without the aid of illicit pharmaceuticals, for the
most part.
And yeah, I know what you're talking about (although it was the 70's
for me).
Chris