Reply-To: precent@yohoo.not
Subject: Re: Facts are facts in religioworld.
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.catholic,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.atheism,soc.culture.israel
References: <66087e5f$0$2422115$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <mf4i0jlocfmbv3hh530kcf3h2vp9oml0ab@4ax.com> <Rf9ON.599423$Ama9.194030@fx12.iad> <hkhi0j5lftl26sqvbgtv91o68o4iaqunc6@4ax.com> <X7hON.601214$Ama9.585363@fx12.iad> <diuj0jh2s97mech8v02omrub1jp2sc1r08@4ax.com> <%_oON.746016$xHn7.39142@fx14.iad> <1d0p0jlb2dej8ud4qmv379m1n4rv0063em@4ax.com> <u29PN.128050$_a1e.117460@fx16.iad> <scaq0jlqvabfsstqjveklb12ncdcqt23gf@4ax.com> <40hPN.619790$c3Ea.315793@fx10.iad> <l76lvtFc522U2@mid.individual.net> <ZBpPN.103422$Wbff.81835@fx37.iad> <uuls5u$f155$5@dont-email.me> <KKCPN.509819$vFZa.305441@fx13.iad> <l78i9nFks0dU2@mid.individual.net> <BtFPN.509822$vFZa.464902@fx13.iad> <660f28d9$0$3711190$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <uunf0d$se12$9@dont-email.me> <JzJPN.159690$m4d.121792@fx43.iad> <uuollk$se13$18@dont-email.me> <MMTPN.151431$_a1e.30211@fx16.iad> <l7aglhFtt8eU1@mid.individual.net> <66102dce$0$2909318$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <wLXPN.514461$vFZa.298384@fx13.iad>
Followup-To: alt.idiots
From: % <precent@yohoo.not>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:14:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <wLXPN.514461$vFZa.298384@fx13.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 214
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.thecubenet.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 19:14:14 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 10503
Organization: theCubeNet - www.thecubenet.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@thecubenet.com
Message-Id: <17c3783565708767$3281$2820980$e4ddee62@news.thecubenet.com>
Bytes: 10888

Alic/eTed wrote:
> Skeeter wrote:
> 
>> In article <l7aglhFtt8eU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> gladiator@colosseum.rome says...
>>>
>>> Ted wrote:
>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/04/2024 1:43 pm, Ted wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/04/2024 9:25 am, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <BtFPN.509822$vFZa.464902@fx13.iad>,
>>>>>>>> ted.street@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ted wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/04/2024 3:00 pm, Ted wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maximus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:10:50 GMT, "Ted"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <u29PN.128050$_a1e.117460@fx16.iad> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have yet to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any evidence that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any soul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists.  >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OMG, you're kidding,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?  WTF do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >> >> holds >> you >>>>>> up, man??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muscle and bone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How ridiculous. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your soul leaves your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muscle >> and >> bone >>>> collapse to the ground
>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>they're >> no >> longer >> being >> supported
>>> by >> the >>>> >>soul.  >>>>>>>>>That's obvious.  >> >> >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the muscle and bones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are still there but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't.  >> >> Good >> class, >>> well done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first time the question was asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are assuming there was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "soul" there in the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place.  What is your basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that assumption?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the beatles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you are unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a rational answer so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resort to attempted deflection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and redirection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't claim the Beatles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weren't real. I remember seeing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them >> on >> > Ed Sullivan. They were quite real.
>>> Do you >>>>>>> think >>Ed >>>>>>Sullivan >> was a >> > myth too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember seeing them on Jack Parr,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their first American appearance, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has nothing to do with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence or non-existence of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul.  They even don't accomplish a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misdirection or attempted change of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They do however strongly emphasize a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete and total failure to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the actual issue as well as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a failure to even attempt to answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "actual issue", as I see it, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your implication that Ed Sullivan was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a myth!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual issue is the question I asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above and will repeat here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second time the question was asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " You are assuming there was a "soul"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in the first place.  What is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for that assumption?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, what is your basis for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the Ed Sullivan Show was not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first appearance by the Beatles in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Teenage music fans comprised a large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of The Beatles? fan base. The news
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magazine show The Huntley-Brinkley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Report likely didn?t register with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. But anyone watching the show on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov.  18, 1963, saw The Beatles? first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV appearance in the U.S."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Beatles showed up on American TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again a few weeks before their first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live TV appearance in the U.S. On Jan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.  1964, talk show host Jack Paar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aired clips of the Fab Four performing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live versions of ?From Me to You? and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?She Loves You?  to the ever-present
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audiences of screaming teenagers, per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Trivia Book of The Beatles."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I saw that show on TV.  They were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greeted with hysterical laughter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Sullivan was on  Feb. 9, 1964.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
> https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-beatles-1st-tv-appearance-in-the-u-s-wasnt-the-ed-sullivan-show.html/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for straightening that out,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila. I was just a kid then, so I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again you ignored the basic question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can repeat it - again - for the third
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    " You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the
>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>>  place.  What is your basis for that
>>> assumption?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you. Your soul is what
>>> holds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you up.  That's obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made that assumption clear.  I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking for the basis you use for that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or did you just make it up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The basis is simple observation. When someone's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul leaves their body, they fall down. Because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no longer anything holding them up. As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said, it's obvious. So obvious that I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand why you're not getting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it's not a legitimate proposition. the soul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not in evidence. you have to establish first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a soul exists before you can posit any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the soul doesn't exist then why are there still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt it minimus dickus will answer that excellent
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, Ted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is not about truth, he is about lifestyle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Christ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And just as you predicted, he sidestepped the question
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of answering it.
>>>>>>>>>> no I did not liar. I requested clarification of it. and I or
>>>>>>>>>> anyone is under no obligation to answer your questions
>>>>>>>>>> anyway, liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What question? About the monkeys? I'd just like to know what
>>>>>>>>> exactly it is you have against monkeys. Makes no sense to me.
>>>>>>>> There better not be anyone dissing monkeys. You know how I
>>> live >>>>> monkeys.
>>>>>>> Me too!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Christ
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========