Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Alan Baker on 1 Aug 2010 21:33 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 1 Aug 2010 21:33 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 1 Aug 2010 21:34 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 1 Aug 2010 21:34 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 1 Aug 2010 21:35
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> |