From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.26bfb283fd64b06998a18b(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <4c55baf5$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:43:00 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <4c559b53$0$7916$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > >
> > >> The press is not allowed to libel and defame. There is a legal
> > >> distinction involved that you are apparently too stupid to grasp.
> > >
> > > Replaying a video of you speaking your own words is not libel or
> > > defamation. Journalists and make editorial decisions all of the time
> > > as to what is relevant to the story and what is not relevant to the
> > > story. The problem Sherrod has is that they are her words and her
> > > words alone. What is really funny is you and the other libtards are
> > > going apoplectic about this issue.
> > >
> > > If the government steps into this situation it will be seen as
> > > censorship and it will become a first amendment issue.
> >
> > Actual quote: "Some people say I killed him, but I swear I did not."
> >
> > Brietbart: "...I killed him..."
> >
> > You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you
> > understand what Breitbart did. You're just playing the fool. Again.
>
> Breitbart didn't do tanything that other media/press outlets havent done
> in the past without reprecussions.

I love how your story changes back and forth...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.26bfa94c52adf27998a188(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <4c55cc7c$0$12238$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:11:22 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <wclark2-48697E.13012701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > >> In article <MPG.26bf30409b5cfafb98a175(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
> > >> <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > >>> In article <alangbaker-6FE270.23073531072010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > >>> alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> So you are telling us that atheistic evolution isn't faith based?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Answer me one question, Greg:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How many years old do personally believe the earth is?
> > >>>
> > >>> Research says it is some 4 to 10 billion years old.
> > >>
> > >> Ah, in other words scientific evidence says so. Not 6,000 years, no
> > >> dinosaurs with saddles on?
> > >
> > > You, Carbon and Baker are laughable each and every time you bring this
> > > up. You are under the misguided impression that anyone who is in
> > > disagreement with you is a fundie or some religious nut.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If you had any idea what the scientific method was you
> > probably wouldn't jump to conclusions quite as much.
>
> Dude I am married to a real scientist, someone who does real science 5
> days a week. She is degreed in geology and chemistry and is an expert in
> the battery field, with 25 years of experience.

"Degreed"? What the hell is that?
>
> I understand Science and the scientific method just fine. However, I
> don't pray at the alter of Science like some of you.

Tragedy is that none of this "degreed" stuff seems to have rubbed off on
you. Oh, well.
From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.26bf3b963bd18c9d98a17b(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > > >
> > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > world than science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the
> > > > > > game,
> > > > > > just to how they calm their nerves.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in
> > > > > the
> > > > > dark, like atheistic evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Greg
> > > >
> > > > LOL
> > > >
> > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is.
> > >
> > > Evolution is a theory.
> >
> > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven
> > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory.
> >
> > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic.
>
> According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty.

And?

>
> The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and
> bolts.

Not in the slightest.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: William Clark on
In article <k03c5654l5cbk8dr861jcfk0at7fjrv61r(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:55:31 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> >I understand Science and the scientific method just fine. However, I
> >don't pray at the alter of Science like some of you.
>
> What are these people praying for?

That Bertie shuts the hell up with this garbage?-)
From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Evolution is a theory.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven
> > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory.
> > > >
> > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic.
> > >
> > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty.
> > >
> > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and
> > > bolts.
> >
> > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why
> > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of
> > human life?
>
> Where did the Big Bang originate?

Where did the christian god originate?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?