... I no longer agree to other people's re-interpretations of ehat I say because of things like that. Once again, cut'n'pasted from an earlier message in this thread, in response to McDermid's repeated misrepresentation: He has an "it does/doesn't exist" hangup through which he filters whet he has been told. When we haven't even reached that stage yet. The only ...

... say that - it would be easy to :refute. However, that's not what I said, and you are a :lying, masturbating piece of shit to imply that I did. :You are, in short, a liar. :Scot McDermid (To Skeptic/Boggs): All you did was :snip out the points in my last post. Just like you :do each time. "Argumentum ad snippage?" <plonk>. :Digital Man: Yes, if someone asserts that Muddy Boggs :has no ...

...:statements incorrectly because of lack of context. : :Paul Murray:I'm beginning to suspect that you (Boggs/Skeptic) :may be a xtian plant attempting to make scepticism :look bad by shoddy argumentation. : :Scot McDermid (To Skeptic/Boggs): All you did was :snip out the points in my last post. Just like you :do each time. "Argumentum ad snippage?" : :Abner Mintz: By the way, you may want...

... own to discuss, due in part to people like him. Wrong "Roy". It was one of McDermid's sock puppets. Despite all the yelling, screaming and name calling (which has mostly come from Christopher), my [McDermid's/Roy's] point has been this: (1) "existence exists" (2) any existant "something"...

... their own to discuss, due in part to people like him. Wrong "Roy". It was one of McDermid's sock puppets. Despite all the yelling, screaming and name calling (which has mostly come from Christopher), my [McDermid's/Roy's] point has been this: (1) "existence exists" (2) any existant "something" *...

"Roy" <bite2@me.net> said: <...> Despite all the yelling, screaming and name calling (which has mostly come from Christopher), my [McDermid's/Roy's] point has been this: (1) "existence exists" I think this could be misleading unless it is made clear that it gives concrete and abstract objects the same ontological status. How does it work if we say "existence happens"? (2) ...

... of their own to discuss, due in part to people like him. Wrong "Roy". It was one of McDermid's sock puppets. Despite all the yelling, screaming and name calling (which has mostly come from Christopher), my [McDermid's/Roy's] point has been this: (1) "existence exists" (2) any existant "something" *...

...of their own to discuss, due in part to people like him. Wrong "Roy". It was one of McDermid's sock puppets. Despite all the yelling, screaming and name calling (which has mostly come from Christopher), my [McDermid's/Roy's] point has been this: (1) "existence exists" (2) any existant "something" *applies *TO...

... end of his bullshit. He can't grant that people who aren't theist have issues of their own to discuss, due in part to people like him. Wrong "Roy". It was one of McDermid's sock puppets. They don't have creationists on his planet. Or the BSA discriminating against atheists. Or a President saying atheists shouldn't be citizens. Or the imposition of religious fundamentalism. Or even...

...interest" captures it for you then just say so. Or else McDermid might continue to hunt you down for the rest of your miserable life. You are as big an asshole as McDermid. I made the mistake of trying to explain things to him in ...'n'pasted from an earlier message in this thread, in response to McDermid's repeated misrepresentation: He has an "it does/doesn't exist" ...