Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: [OT] The dumb and the guilty (Was Re: How many ....)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:09:14 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <uutrc9$2njht$1@dont-email.me>
References: <199e94ddd32456be8b7d600a5058347b@dizum.com>
 <uurip7$23pqh$1@dont-email.me> <uurjr6$2u7c$6@gallifrey.nk.ca>
 <uursel$2656m$1@dont-email.me> <uuskqf$p6l$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="466f736c86ea39adba5fcaed8be59b78";
	logging-data="2870845"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m2+nFcd4OpB+npnapW8ng+79PDgcKYDc="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tDrmyxnoADDa22QaARLQVOPDvlk=
In-Reply-To: <uuskqf$p6l$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
Bytes: 3061

The Doctor wrote on 7/4/24 9:11 am:
> In article <uursel$2656m$1@dont-email.me>, The Last Doctor
> <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

<Snip>

>>> You must insane in your irrationality!
>> 
>> Instead of parroting crazy phrases, why don’t you engage in
>> discussion?
>> 
>> Here are some things you could do:
>> 
>> 1) search the Bible for mentions of “Ishtar” or “Eostre” as
>> per your claims. Feel free to use a search engine and as many
>> versions of the Bible as you like.
>> 
>> 1a) If you find one, post chapter and verse. Congratulations! You
>> have made a good point in the debate and those of us who say there
>> are no such mentions will look foolish. (Probability- 0%, because
>> imaginary things can’t be found).
>> 
>> 1b) When you can’t find one, because there are none, ADMIT YOU
>> WERE WRONG and reconsider your position. (Probability of the first
>> part - 100%. Probability of you being honest about it - on your 
>> past record, infinitesimal).
>> 
>> 2) READ the article YOU linked and consider its conclusions. There
>> are links to further reading that support the article at the end of
>> the article. Then post back with your considered thoughts on the
>> article and any evidence-backed counter arguments you might have.
>> (Probability of you being open-minded enough to try this -
>> infinitesimal.)
>> 
>> 3) Post another meaningless non-sequitur that would be insulting if
>> it came from someone intelligent, but instead is just risible.
>> (Probability - 90% plus).
> 
> Can you think for yousrself MM?

"yousrself"??

Seems to me Mike is just asking YOU, asswipe, to THINK FOR YOURSELF, 
asswipe .... Oh!! And to actually READ the links YOU, asswipe, post!!
-- 
Daniel