 | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is contemptable. (...) You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not' 2 + not 2 (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Double D'oh!!!! Grr!!! 'Twas suppose to be 2 + not 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = not 5 !!!!!! Grr!!! crazy kid doesn't know what the h-e double hockey sicks he's talking about!! Grr!! Going (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Right, but by that same token, consider this: In statement A, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is God. In statement B, the conditional thing that does or does not exist is belief. (...) I disagree, believe it or not! 8^) I (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
The poblem is not in my or Dave!'s logic, it lies possibly in the language or words we are using to express our ideas. Obviously, it is easier to talk about things in the positive rather than negative because in the negative you have to conjure an (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) On that we both agree! :) And the rest nicely stated. Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
