 | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
|
(...) Again simply accusing me of being equivocal, but this time doing it in a rather prolix over exasperated way, as if that somehow makes it any less transparent and laughable. In case you hadn't noticed I'm still "holding" the position I started (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) That's a pretty pathetic comeback. I thought you said you are clever - I'd figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed. (...) Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could figure it out. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Well, we can't... but we CAN spotlight stuff we agree with. You got my vote on this one, Brother Sproat. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic
|
|
(...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races))
|
|
(...) Indeed it has. You might want to parcel it out a bit cautiously, as it would be a shame to run out of it too soon. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
