Search results

ART: >Those who expect a marine who experienced the trauma of >war as described, who participated in the killing of civilians >while following orders should be held to Turok's standards >of reason and consistency? >Hogwash. You may (or may not) be misunderstanding my position. In a...

I thought the Marine did a fine job giving us the "true" story. Unless of course you are suggesting that what he said isn't true (which is what I think). JB

Ahh yes...the "Mav" route -- post something as serious and when it gets blown out of the water call it a joke. JB PS. It is.

Ahhh yes...let's be sure and not nit-pick a soldier murdering weaponless civilians with their hands up. If we nit-pick a little thing like that it leads to a very slippery slope.

Very well put RS. JB

Vin: >I don't see how you can claim that his is >delusional and a liar in view of posts that >you have been replied to. Apparently it is >you squirming without reading?.... :) So you just like making statement that make you look stupid? -- you accuse me of not reading and yet I have...

Axe: >But since YOU are the person now asserting that >its "virtually ended", you will have to provide >OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE statistics on the trend of >research in this area. But first... you must precisely >define what you mean by "virtually ended". >Does this mean that research...

>Soooooo now you changed it, from him being a >"either delusional or a liar" your words earlier, >to an inconsistent murderous thug?:confused: What's confusing? Are those terms mutually exclusive in some way? "murdurous thug" is established WITH our WITHOUT orders and the term...

And science had no explanation for thunder in the days of Zeus believers. If at the time science would have speculated on the REAL cause you would also have cried "desperate". JB

Shoe >Let's debate it then. I'm up for the challenge. >I don't think you'll be ROFLAO by the end >of the debate. Well, after your "rearward projection" position earlier in the thread I'm not so sure. I lost a lot of faith in your ability to separate reality from fantasy in that...

>JB (ole buddy :) ) your effort to assassinate >the Marine's character is bellow contempt. No effort to assassinate his character is required...he does himself with his conflicting statement regarding the specific incident AND even more so by the following general statement... >They...

Shoe: >The origin of life research is dead ended... >Again, lay people understand all this. ROFLAO!!!!!! Like you saying it makes is so. I'm sure the research into the cause of thunder "dead ended" at some point as well. JB Reminds me of the "everybody knows" bit which people...

Well, perhaps you could find a Marine that is "speaking out" intelligently and consistently. These two statements come early in the post and are only a few lines apart. each statement relates to the same story... >They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some >warning shots. They didn't...

And yet that is what you do with your christian beliefs nearly every time you post. That point is not meant to be critical, but rather to demonstrate that "truth", "half truth" and "non truth" are nearly indistinguishable in the realm of theology when interpreted by two different people --...

You are right, there IS nothing wrong with your argument, however you are not making the same argument at Shoe. Shoe had no *proof* of future christian growth...only *projection*. There is a dramatic difference between the two. But, the comment was meant only in humor and Shoe admirably...

Shoe: >I think Axe would prefer a video >tape if you don't mind... And Shoe would accept the scribblings on the back of yesterdays napkin as proof. JB PS. Actually, Shoe has found a projection that he WILL exist in the future and thus he MUST HAVE existed in the past. ;-)

>Guys, >I'll post my logic one more time: And I'll ask my question one more time. Shoe, Why would you need to assert current growth ONLY by producing future projections? Why don't you just come up with CURRENT numbers to support CURRENT growth. This seems like a very logical and...

When your debate opponent gets a negative connotation from the words "religious tolerance" you just know it isn't gonna end well. JB PS, I'm on a plane, I really am (amazing that wireless broadband even reaches into the plane at the gate)

Damir: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm >according to this, there is disagreement on both the >defining and counting of c'ians Yes, they acknowledge the disagreement...they say the disagreement centers around whether christianity is DECLINING or STATIC. Neither position...

I like this question...think I'll keep asking it. Shoe, Why would you need to assert current growth ONLY by producing future projections? Why don't you just come up with CURRENT numbers to support CURRENT growth. This seems like a very logical and reasonable thing to do. JB