Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Various for Dave

Expand Messages
  • annika4se
    Hi Dave, From: Dave Wave Subject: Various is getting too long. A: I ll try to cut down on the answers then, but the outcome is
    Message 1 of 198 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dave,


      From: Dave Wave <empiricism101@...>
      Subject: Various is getting too long.


      A:
      I'll try to cut down on the answers then, but the outcome is lengthy
      anyway. Eric has answered some of your issues.

      I repeat that God can create both from nothing and from something.
      Unlike humans. My point is that only a Creator/God may perform final
      judgements.

      I claim to be a Christian and to trust the Bible. I also claim that
      it's simply not possible to prove or disprove a God or the Bible.
      YOU seem to claim that the Bible contains errors and
      inconsistencies. I ask you if you have any valid ones to list. So
      far I've been able to refute the few things you listed.

      Remember that when you list your personal views of certain verses or
      text in the Bible, I have my full right to refute what you say,
      using the same Bible. So if, according to the Bible, it says that
      the Cananites were really dangerous for themselves and for others,
      then I trust that this is true. I don't have to prove that they
      were, because I've never claimed I could, but since you claim there
      are inconsistencies in the text, the burden of proof is on YOU. So
      the only interesting thing here is to check if you can provide
      support for what you say, other than your personal opinions.

      ****


      How does god's special foresight and knowing these
      people would be evil, reconcile "go kill them" with "thou shalt not
      kill"?

      A: Because the laws are for human beings. God made the laws and only
      God may eliminate lives since only God can create life and natural
      laws.

      And Mormons can't see where Joseph Smith made a mistake in his
      starting a new form of
      Christianity.

      A: I listed a long list of inconsistencies when it comes to the book
      of Mormons. They are still valid.

      You admit nobody else is like the Hebrews in this regard, but you
      have no reasons why,puzzlingly after admitting that the Hebrews were
      just as sinful and condemned as the pagan nations
      they were routing.

      A. Now you are being very unfair since I claimed no such thing. I've
      claimed that all are sinners, I've claimed that the some Hebrew's
      rebelled during the Exodus, and some hang around with the daughters
      of the Cananites despite God's instruction not to, but I've never
      claimed that the Hebrews who entered Canaan were just as bad as the
      Cananites. The Bible says quite the opposite.

      Didn't Jesus say that even false teachers could do miracles by the
      power of Satan? If so, why
      then are you acting like "they did a miracle" is automatic proof
      that it must truly be God who is
      working through them?

      A: I'm not acting like it. I even said that if a man would come up
      to me and ask me to kill someone because it's the will of God, not
      only would I demand to see miracles directly from this person, but I
      would also check to see if it was a godly person and consistent with
      the Bible. Obviously he cannot be. This is because I don't
      automatically accept miracles as proof.

      As far as your 'but god knew what was right' excuse, how would you
      respond to a Canaanite who
      defended her child-sacrificing religion this way: "it may seem
      puzzling, but we obey our god even
      when we cannot understand his ways, just like you do, for his ways
      are higher than our ways, and
      besides, who are we to judge God?" ?

      A: I've already answered this, but you don't seem to understand. I
      say that I trust the Bible, and the Bible informs us that He is the
      idea maker and not the Israelites. "You only have the Bible to
      support that" you say, but that is what we are discussing here isn't
      it? I trust the Bible and you do not. You claim there are errors,
      but you don't provide any support for this. As far as the suggested
      Canaanite above, I do not believe that she got such a message from
      God because the Bible says the contrary. So when the Bible says that
      the pre-flood people, the Sodom inhabitants and the Canaanites were
      incredibly cruel, then I believe it. You can try to prove the Bible
      wrong if you want, but you can't.


      If the modern Jews don't have any bad habits, then why are they
      losing their land today?

      A: I never claimed that Jews or other people get punished as soon as
      they do something bad. Bad things also happen to good people, and
      good things happen to bad people. We live in a cursed world.

      I asked you why they were completely exterminated, not just
      punished. for being as bad as other
      Nations

      A: They were not as bad as other nations, they were worse! And God
      wanted them exterminated in order to end the spreading of their evil
      habits. It was the Israelites who were reluctant to carry it out all
      the way. Eric explained that this wasn't carried out to 100%, so
      they popped up also later, showing violence and spreading their evil
      habits, thus caused many other peoples deaths. You may think it
      sounds cruel, but do you also feel pity for Pol Pot and Hitler when
      they died? I believe these Canaanites were in the same league. God
      knows if he would save more lives by ending all their lives rather
      than letting them live. Prove the Bible wrong.

      The fact that the Jews admit they didn't personally deserve god's
      favor doesn't erase the fact that their own God, allegedly
      nevertheless still admits they ARE in
      fact, for whatever reason, the chosen ones, which qualifies as favor
      toward them.

      A. Yes, they are the chosen ones, yes God loved them, and yes he
      promised Abraham many descendents and land. If other tribes could
      start trusting in the only living God thanks to chosen people, then
      its for the benefit of everyone. God loves all equally, but of
      course those people who seek and obey him also get a better chance
      to stay in his presence.


      Then they finally get free of Pharaoh, and after one Song of Moses,
      they are now grumbling "what
      shall we drink?" against Moses!

      A. These things happened DURING the Exodus, and I don't understand
      why you even bring it up since I've all along said that the
      Israelites rebelled against Moses and even died because they sinned
      DURING the Exodus. When they entered the land of Canaan on the
      other, hand, the remaining Hebrews were pretty good. Sure, they were
      ordinary sinners since we all have the inherited sin of Adam, but
      the point is that the inhabitants of Canaan at that point were
      incredibly CRUEL, and despite warnings, they decided to continue on
      their evil path.


      But when I mentioned the resurrection of Jesus, you said you could
      prove it from the secular
      historians:

      A. In that case I misunderstood your request. When I said "There are
      even secular historians that confirm this" then I referred to that
      even secular sources claim Jesus lived and claimed to be the son of
      God, claimed to have risen from the dead etc, and some even include
      some of his miracles. Naturally there is no way of proving though.
      Josephus gave a pretty good testimony of Jesus.

      How about their nursing newborns? Were they also horrific?

      A: (Canaanites) How many times must I answer? I say they are
      innocent, but when they grew up they were just like their parents,
      and THEN they were held accountable for their deeds. Why did they
      still die? I answer again that we are all going to die. Baby or
      adult, good or bad. God couldn't very well have killed all the
      parents and let the babies lay there for themselves, and they could
      have been too many for the Hebrews to handle. Humans cannot make
      such judgements but God can. He made the laws.

      Apparantly by your own words, god does NOT have the same rules for
      everybody.

      A: Yes he has. See the laws that were handed to the Hebrews. There
      was a death penalty for homosexuality, witchcraft etc.


      How can God "hope" to see people do something, if in fact he knows
      will absolute infallibility
      whether they will in fact do it?

      A: Yes, he knows exactly how things will turn out. But if someone
      will sin, and spread evil habits to others, he could either stop it
      before it starts or let it be until it can go no further. God knew
      Satan would fall, that Adam and Eve would eat of the forbidden tree
      etc. He had an ace up his sleeve. God doesn't provide immediate
      punishment all the time. The final judgements are saved for later.

      And I'm willing to start a new thread here for the purpose of
      allowing you to go first and give
      your single BEST ARGUMENT for trusting what the bible says. Care to
      engage?

      A: I've already told you. The prophesies that you so far have not
      tried to refute. They are in the other message that you say you will
      not respond to. Also the large amount of correct information of
      leaders, kings, cities, events, coins etc. So much info and nothing
      has been able to be refuted. But remember that your job is to prove
      the Bible wrong. I don't have the burden of proof to prove the Bible
      right.

      Did it ever occur to you that God's land-promise to Abraham and
      descendants through Jacob, was
      written by descendants of Jacob?

      A: I trust the Bible, and according to the Bible this is not so. You
      can shorten our messages if you try to prove the Bible wrong.

      There you go again, acting like the pagan nations were under
      obligation to believe the Israelite
      god or else, but that Israelites were under no obligation to believe
      statements of pagan deities
      against Israel. Playing favorites.

      A: According to the Bible Adam's God is everyone's God. It's not
      evil of God to want everyone to seek the only true God, thus get
      eternal life. I'd say it's rather loving to want eternal life in
      Paradise for everyone.


      If that method is not wrong, then why don't
      you believe Mormons who quote the Book of Mormon to you to answer
      your criticisms of that book?

      A: I've already listed several things that are in error when it
      comes to the book of Mormons.

      > Remember what Rahab in Jericho said: I KNOW that the LORD has
      given
      > this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so
      > that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of
      > you. 10 We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red
      Sea
      > for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and
      > Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you
      > completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted
      and
      > everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is
      > God in heaven above and on the earth below.).

      That sounds like nothing more than a scared woman who is agreeing to
      Israel's ability to steal
      land, so as to spare her own butt from being slaughtered.

      A: And your interpretation is the only one that counts as usual?
      It's a pity that your interpretations always happen to be negative
      to the Bible. The only thing that you seem to believe without a
      problem is that the Hebrews eliminated the inhabitants of Canaan.
      Fine, but yet again, you refuse to accept the information that GOD
      knew about the wickedness of these inhabitants and that they really
      were a danger to themselves and for others. The last information
      would show a good reason for the Creator to act, but you don't seem
      to favour anything that could put God in a bright light.
      Above is an example of a woman who declares that her tribe knew
      exactly what was coming and the reason.

      How about "don't approach any city to take it, but rather, be
      content with what you have"? What's
      wrong with that?

      A. It would mean that the Canaanites could continue to spread their
      evilness, thus cause many other people's deaths, and maybe even
      getting a pre-Flood scenario yet again.

      How do you pretend to know what God could have told somebody or
      not?

      A: The Bible.

      Again, do you find it very
      convincing when a Mormon answers your charges against the Book of
      Mormon, by quoting from the Book
      of Mormon, because he trusts that it is the word of God?

      A: I've already told you some examples what's wrong with the book of
      Mormons.

      Which means today's fundamentalist Christian inerrantists disagree
      with NT
      authors about what it means to say the biblical text is "inspired".
      See how that works?

      A: I find no evidence of this. The NT is a fulfilment of the OT.

      Now then, If the author of the NT book of Hebrews held to the same
      belief in biblical inerrancy as
      you do, then why did corrupt the original Hebrew wording of Psalm
      40:6---

      A: I've already answered. He didn't corrupt anything since psalms
      contain psalms and not the real history. Likewise, we can't claim
      that since Psalms says that the "stars exclaim your name" and the NT
      says that starts can't speak (which is contrary to psalms) then the
      NT is correct anyway, because psalms contain psalms and not the real
      story.

      > So you are wrong. No, the NT CANNOT be trusted as a
      > valid source for proper interpretation of the OT. Ask
      > any orthodox Jew.
      >
      > A: I should ask a Jew whether the NT is valid?

      yes, and they ask "should I ask a Christian whether the OT is valid?"

      A: But you are claiming that the NT can't be trusted because an
      orthodox Jew cannot accept it. You try to refute me simply by
      finding a group of people who hold an opinion against me? So if I
      find a group of people who believe the earth doesn't circle around
      the sun, then it invalidates your claim that it does? No, if you
      want to prove that the NT is incorrect, then you should list
      Biblical reasons for this and not what other people think.

      They are right. The NT is the most anti-Old Testament volume ever
      produced, because it's authors
      appear not to have the least bit of concern for what the original OT
      text actually meant.

      A: Claims Dave without support.

      If Luke's gospel is correct, then Mary was NOT of the house of
      David, by virtue of her link to
      Elizabeth, who was of the line of Aaron (compare Luke 1:5 and 1:36)

      A: Jesus was related to David both through Mary and through Joseph.
      Luke is tracing Mary's line, showing that she was also a descendant
      of David, as implied in Luke 1:32. Matthew traced the legal line
      from Joseph to David, but this line was cursed because of Jeconiah
      (Jer. 22:17–30). This curse means that if Joseph had been Jesus's
      biological father, then Jesus would not have been eligible to sit on
      King David's throne.
      There is a good detailed website about the entire lineage....but you
      may not be interested...

      > A: Can he show me some miracles or some support for that he is
      > really a prophet from God the way Moses was?

      Yes, he has a fiew letters that mention the miracles his god did in
      the past to prove that his
      people were guided by god.

      A: That doesn't cut it. According to the Bible the Hebrews witnessed
      the miracles directly. So unless I can witness the miracles
      directly, from this supposedly person who asks me to kill some
      people, then I obviously don't trust him. But I also say, even if he
      could show me some miracles directly, I still have to check that
      it's a godly person, that it's in accordance to the Bible etc.
      Obviously that wouldn't be the case. The Hebrews had all the reasons
      in the world to believe God and his prophet Moses.

      I don't believe God promised land to Abraham. I believe that Israel
      simply made up that story to
      justify their land-grabbing and racist (we are god's chosen ones)
      greed.

      A: Why do you believe Abraham even existed? Why do you believe that
      there was an Exodus? Why do you believe that the Hebrews killed the
      inhabitants of Canaan? Which parts do you believe and which parts do
      you not believe in the Bible? So far it looks like you believe all
      things that you could possibly construe as negative (if you also
      ignore other parts).

      wrong again: The Ramesside Era Stela from Egypt, which contains
      entries from a "Merenptah", says
      in it's final lines, that besides Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yano'am, it
      names Israel among the defeated
      foes, all parts of Egypt's province, Canaan.
      Do you agree now that a source outside the bible contradicts the
      bible's claim? Or do you plan on
      trying to reconcile "Israel is no more" from that stela
      with "Pharaoh was no more" from Exodus?

      A: You're doing the same mistake as when you view science.
      Archaeologists have various views, and you favour those with your
      type of opinions. I don't know much about the specific example, but
      I've read about the time controvery when it comes to placing various
      events in the middle east. There are interesting websites I could
      recommend for further studies....So, no there are no Biblical
      information that clearly contradicts historical or scientific facts,
      but naturally there are opinions from various scholars that oppose
      the Bible. Its therefore important to check what they all support
      their opinions on, because speculations are no proof.


      > A: But this is not always the case. There have been prophecies
      > several hundred years before they were fulfilled.
      > Have you had time to check what I wrote about prophesies and have
      > you studied the links that I gave in relation to this?

      No, I don't refute people by referring them to links where I wrote
      other articles, I instead deal
      directly with their actual words by responding with freshly-worded
      argument.

      A: Come on now really Dave, I did use my own words and I did give
      you examples of prophesies. I can't very well rearrange the words in
      the prophesies since they must be word by word from the OT. I also
      provided links in case you were interested in FURTHER studies in the
      end of the list. Fine with me if you're not interested in further
      studies, but you could at least try to refute the prophesies that I
      listed!

      Giving me links is a
      waste of time, you should be willing to give an example or two HERE
      to support your point instead
      of referring me to something you wrote earlier. No, I'm not gonna
      attempt to refute whole
      articles you wrote----

      A: But we did discuss the prophesies earlier and since you asked me
      to list some I wrote some down for you just as you requested. If you
      don't like that they were many, then maybe you can focus on them a
      couple at a time? Or maybe you could have told me that you found a
      problem with my listings somehow? I did take some time to gather a
      few for you, so its really unfair to tell me so much later that you
      have decided to not check them out.
      so please just cite one piece of evidence at a time here in this
      debate.
      What's wrong with that?

      A. Nothing of course, but I didn't know that this was a strong
      request from you. I noticed before that you took the time to go back
      to my previous email to quote me. Maybe you can do the same now and
      go back to my previous email and check some of the prophesies I
      listed. I think that would be the quickest way, or else we could
      continue and send messages back and force about this to each other.
      This suggests that you are not really interested in fair debates,
      but rather to win the debate no matter what, even if you must ignore
      evidence that is offered by the one you are debating with. So if you
      still want to have a fair debate, then you go back to the email and
      read them through, or list them here a few at a time or however you
      want. Either that or tell me that you're not interested to continue
      the debate any more. I've done my part.

      I have 40 gigs worth of rebuttal papers to every claim made by
      biblical
      inerrantists, some of which is posted on my website, but do you see
      me referring people to my
      website as passing for my "asnwer" to their criticisms of something
      I say in public debate forums
      like this? No.

      A: So do you feel that the only thing I do is to list websites? I
      seldom use my own words when I write? Hmmm

      That's awfully brash, given that I already cited Hebrews 10:5 as an
      example of
      theological/interpretive error in the bible, and your response was
      little more than "is that all
      you have?"

      A: Unfair. I told you that you made a mistake by comparing psalms
      with reality.

      Please refrain from saying the bible has no errors, if you plan on
      persisting in your current
      methodology, in which you paper over my examples of biblical errors.

      A: Please refrain from claiming there are Biblical errors if you
      decide to ignore my refutations of your attempts.

      If you don't want to be seen as
      ignorant, then start interacting with my proofs of biblical errors
      with something more than just
      "is that all you have?"

      A: I did. If you were attentive enough, you would notice that I
      refuted your attempt with that you compared psalms with reality.

      R u convinced now there is no problem with the book of Mormon?

      A: Eh? Of course not. The book of Mormons contains lots of errors.

      If you don't require a beginning for your god, why do you require a
      beginning to the Mormon
      recession of gods?

      A: I've answered. According to the Bible God is a spirit, and needs
      no beginning, and has always existed.


      > There are false prophesies from Joseph Smith.
      Name one.

      A: Josheph Smith said: ---"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of
      Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon
      the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed
      by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly
      overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd
      left,"---

      But the United States never apologized for anything to the Mormon
      Church. The united states in government was not overthrown. Joseph
      Smith made a false prophecy. However, some of Mormons teach that
      the Civil War was the fulfillment of this prophecy. It was not
      because the united states government was not utterly overthrown and
      wasted. In fact, it is still here. Joseph Smith was a false
      prophet.

      > Also
      > If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white
      > when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981
      > revision).

      What indian ever became a mormon?

      A: I don't have any names, but statistically there must be lots of
      them considering where in the world there are many mormons.

      > If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church
      > changed it?

      If the bible is true, then why has the Christian church changed it?

      A: It hasn't changed it and you have not been able to tell me that
      it has. The Mormon church has been changed though, by comparing
      their statements.

      >Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4.
      > Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra
      > Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding
      > punctuation changes.)

      Examples are Luke 3:23, Mark 16:9 ff. Conpare these with the
      earliest manuscripts of those books.
      Bart Ehrman counts numerous changes in the NT, excluding
      punctuation changes.

      A: I read on the net a critique on his book, since Im not familiar
      with Mr Ehrdan that
      "Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
      Bible and Why has been getting a lot of press these days. Given
      Ehrman's academic stature and communicaton savvy, that's not
      suprising. But it's puzzling that so many folks have so readily
      bought into Ehrman's central claim—that major NT doctrines (like the
      divinity of Jesus) are significantly affected by textual variants—
      when Ehrman provides no real evidence for it. Textual critic and
      Christus Nexus Fellow Daniel B. Wallace elaborates in a short review
      of Ehrman's latest work."
      Also read: http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_18.htm for examples
      of his errors. With other words, it's a matter of choice which
      scholar to believe isn't it? I recommend apologetic sites that
      respond to people like Ehrman.

      > How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of
      > Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They
      weighed
      > about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per
      > cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of
      > Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

      You believe in God's ability to do miracles, don't you?

      A: Joseph Smith is a person and not a God.

      > If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel
      > now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

      God doesn't always tell us everything we'd like to know, such as
      when John of Revelation is told
      to keep the testimony of the clouds secret until the appointed time.

      A: But if a Mormons answer is either "God works in mysterious ways"
      or "God doesn't always tell us everything" or "Miracle" then every
      single religion could be supported in that way. I don't use such
      answers when I defend the Bible, because there are answers in the
      Scriptures. That's why the Bible has an advantage. Christians don't
      have to use "God works in mysterious ways" because we have better
      Biblical answers which show that God makes sense. This is my I trust
      the Bible and not the book of Mormons. Moroni should be a God and
      not an angel if the book of Mormon would make any kind of sense....

      > Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the
      > part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or
      famine?
      > (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

      Why do Christians emphasize part of Leviticus 18 that says
      homosexuality is wrong (18:22), but
      ignore the part commanding the death of those who do it (20:15)?

      A: Because we live under a new covenant according to the Bible. Some
      laws are for the Hebrews only, some laws are for a short time and
      some are for ever. Again, the Bible has answers.

      > Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov.
      > 124:56-60).

      For the same reason Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre wasn't fulfilled.

      A: It was fulfilled. You don't like website listings, but if you
      change your mind I can sure give you an interesting website which
      shows that it was fulfilled. (There were even several cities of Tyre
      in just about the same place.) Again, this tells me that the Bible
      can be trusted even in details.

      > If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God
      > and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses,
      > Vol. 1, page 50).

      Isaiah 55, god's ways are mysterious.

      A: The non-christian answer. Again, the Bible is in the lead.

      > How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple
      like
      > Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to
      > build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17).

      God chose to help Nephi with miracles, and not Solomon, and you
      already know that god doesn't give
      everybody miracles just because he give them to some.

      A. Another God did it answer. Bible is in the lead.

      > Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October
      > 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the
      > practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church
      > Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324).

      For the same reason Ezekiel preached reinstatement of animal
      sacrifices in the New Jerusalem
      temple, even though he was inspired by the same god who said in
      Hebrews 8 that the animal
      sacrifice system was totally done away in Christ.

      A: I answer with a link to be brief, if you're interesting in the
      discussion about the covenants and whether laws are temporary or
      eternal, etc, then read this link
      http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah.html. It's only if you
      are interested to see "the other side" of an argument. We can get
      back to this later if you're interested, but maybe we can sort out
      what we have first.

      I chose not to respond to it because it was getting far too lengthy,
      and I just don't have the
      time, and no, I will not lower my standards and respond partially.
      I always obey my own rules of
      responding to each main point, and if that means I can't do it in
      the little internet time I have,
      then i won't.

      A: I have missed a few of the main points and repeated many
      questions that have been answered already.

      You should consider making individual post-responses to me, so that
      I can respond to specific
      points quicker, and i don't have to write for 2 hours before i can
      sent out my responses.

      A: The reason why I write long messages is that I save lots of time,
      rather than looking around in the message list for possible posts
      that I am requested to respond to. It doesn't take more time to
      respond to one long email rather then the same text divided in many,
      but of course it's more appealing to read for others....
      Not sure what we could do about it. I really tried to be brief, but
      I feel that I failed....

      It would be interesting to see if you have examples of positive
      mutations to give me?

      And to clarify if you still claim there are errors concerning Cains
      wife in the Bible`

      /Ann
    • Michael Hamblin
      ... Dave, it s quite simple: my observation is correct, and your argument is fallacious. There is no shame in correcting an honest mistake and moving on - some
      Message 198 of 198 , Jan 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Dave Wave wrote:

        > [snip wild handwaving, mouth foaming]

        Dave, it's quite simple: my observation is correct, and your argument is
        fallacious. There is no shame in correcting an honest mistake and moving
        on - some people might even see it as a sign of wisdom and maturity. But a
        proud and arrogant fool refuses correction.

        ---
        Michael Hamblin michaelh@...
        7815 McCallum Blvd Apt 17201 http://www.michaelh.com/
        Dallas, TX 75252-6801 Home Phone: 972-733-3357
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.