Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
55 online now:
frako, jar, PaulK (3 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,668 Year: 13,416/23,288 Month: 346/795 Week: 47/95 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 899 (818571)
08-30-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by riVeRraT
08-30-2017 10:58 AM


riVerRraT writes:

I am not the one asserting.

???

Aren't you asserting that there *has* been a world-wide flood since humans have existed?

My statement in response to your assertion just is.

And Jar is asserting the opposite, that there *hasn't* been a world-wide flood since humans have existed?

Are you denying the scientific method?

Now there's a weird one. How can a statement of position, particularly one supported by all the evidence, be a denial of the scientific method?

Somehow this Coffee House thread is beginning to look like a flood discussion topic. If actual meaningful discussion breaks out I'll move the thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2017 10:58 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2017 11:00 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 41 of 899 (818609)
08-31-2017 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by riVeRraT
08-30-2017 11:00 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Because that is not how science works. Aren't there enough threads on it? you can't prove a negative, and nothing is ever really proven anyway. All of it takes a percentage of faith. The better answer should have been "the evidence does not point to a flood, until better evidence is available".

Oh, you mean the principle of tentativity, not the scientific method. Tentativity underpins all science, so woven into the fabric that it rarely needs mention, except maybe for the sake of those who get it mixed up with the scientific method.

Scientists asserted the world was flat until it was round.

Actually, scientists knew the world was spherical long before Christian clergy began insisting it was flat.

Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again.

News flash!

Somehow being humble escapes many people who call themselves scientists.

Hmmm, denigrates scientists. Suggests there was a world wide flood.

I am not a creationist.

But you sure are quacking the walk.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2017 11:00 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 08-31-2017 6:27 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 66 of 899 (818670)
08-31-2017 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
08-31-2017 6:27 PM


riVeRraT writes:

No, I mean say what is technically correct.

That might be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you said. Here's what you said in Message 32, a description of tentativity:

riVeRraT in Message 32 writes:

Because that is not how science works...you can't prove a negative, and nothing is ever really proven anyway...The better answer should have been "the evidence does not point to a flood, until better evidence is available".

Moving on:

No one ever thought it was flat before that, said no one ever.

Say what? I'll put my decryption experts on it.

I did not suggest there was a flood.

Sure you did. This is how the exchange went, again from your Message 32:

RiVeRraT in Message 32 writes:

Percy writes:

Aren't you asserting that there *has* been a worldwide flood since humans have existed?

I suggested it.

First you suggest it, then you deny suggesting it - hey, still plenty of time left, you can change your mind again.

But you sure are quacking the walk.

Hell no, and I am proud to say that I learned that in here. Not being a creationist has made my faith stronger. So thank you to all the atheists and intelligent people in here for increasing my faith.

Congratulations on your strong faith, but let's go over the evidence again. Doesn't understand science that well.
Makes confusing contradictory statements. Denigrates scientists. Believes there was a global flood.

"Quack."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo, improve clarity in opening paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 08-31-2017 6:27 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by riVeRraT, posted 09-02-2017 6:59 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 80 of 899 (818815)
09-03-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by riVeRraT
09-02-2017 6:59 PM


Takes all my statements out of context and makes a fictional argument. I stand behind everything I said. If you don't get it, you are free to read it again.

I read your nonsense several times already. Clearly it's not in your best interests to be clear about what you're saying, so you try to be as confusing and ambiguous as possible. Will you be changing your mind again tonight about whether there was a global flood?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by riVeRraT, posted 09-02-2017 6:59 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2017 11:34 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 102 of 899 (818867)
09-03-2017 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by riVeRraT
09-03-2017 11:34 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Me thinks you are confusing "a flood" with "the flood" and now "global flood". But nice try on dodging the topic.

The only one dodging any issues is you. First there's this icon of clarity:

riVerRaT in Message 62 writes:

No one ever thought it was flat before that, said no one ever.

What does this mean? Who knows, you won't explain it. First you make conflicting statements and amidst a cloud of nonsense, then you try to blame the confusion on everyone else while still refusing to explain anything. Let's face it - you've made a hash of things and are desperately seeking a way out.

Now let's trace your confusion about the global flood:

Jar: There has never been a world wide flood during the period when humans existed

riVeRraT: That statement is incorrect.

Percy: Aren't you asserting that there *has* been a world-wide flood since humans have existed?

riVeRraT: I suggested it.

Percy: Suggests there was a world wide flood.

riVeRraT: I did not suggest there was a flood.

There it is in black and white, first you suggesting there was a world wide flood, then denying ever suggesting it.

And let's not forget this:

I am not a creationist.

"Quack!"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2017 11:34 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2017 11:43 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 122 of 899 (818930)
09-04-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by riVeRraT
09-03-2017 11:43 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Percy, if you can't debate the topic, please fuck off.

If you don't want to become frustrated, don't make contradictory statements that you then blame on others.

The only one who has made a hash of things is you not being able to debate the topic.

I've only responded to things you've said.

You are too interested in assaulting character.

I have no interest in assaulting your character. People will not be assessing your character based on things that I say, but on things that you say. Are you arguing for a global flood around 4000 years ago, or are you trying to obscure that fact? Are you a creationist, or are you trying to obscure that fact?

Typical, and is why I left this shit hole.

You appear to have come back angry and obfuscative. The door is still open.

It is also why my faith was increased being here.

I'm glad for you.

If being an atheist and a scientist means being mean, then I am out.

I'm not an atheist, but I do expect people to say what they mean and mean what they say.

You do nothing to win me over. You pretend to care about people knowing the truth, but you don't.

I care a great deal about people knowing what is true.

It's just the same old sad tired story in this forum. Liberal debate tactics. Keep arguing and talking until something doesn't jive and then say "there, see I told you". But by then you are so far off topic, it is invalid and has nothing to do with it.

I see. Your contradictory statements were the forum's fault. Okay, yeah, sure.

I suggested there was evidence of a flood. I did not suggest the flood actually happened. Am I not allowed to speak loosely like everyone else?

You can speak as loosely as you like. Immerse yourself in your own style to your heart's content. Just put the blame in the proper place when slipshod exposition and brevity butcher clarity and you end up saying something that makes no sense.

Jar's statement was technically incorrect if you are a scientist. You can say there is no evidence of a flood, but you cannot say there was no flood. You close the door, and are no longer open minded at that point.

If you say so. I'm still trying to figure out if you believe the evidence points to a global flood 4000 years ago. You seem awfully reluctant to commit yourself.

Since I just provided *weak evidence of part of the story of the flood, I think we shouldn't even be saying there is NO evidence of a flood. There IS evidence. We just choose to ignore it.

If you want to think so, go ahead. Doesn't that make you a creationist?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2017 11:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2017 10:43 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 140 of 899 (819018)
09-05-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by riVeRraT
09-04-2017 10:43 PM


riVeRraT writes:

I am not a creationist. Creationist do not conduct real science.

The CRS (Creation Research Society) and the Discovery Institute and Steve Austin and Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer and William Dembski and (throwing him in just for fun) Kent Hovind would disagree with you.

For the nth time, I am not saying there was a flood. I said Harvey the Hawk is direct evidence that part of the story of the great flood is true. Can you debate that maybe?

I don't debate the absurdly ridiculous. "Oh, look, it's raining, evidence of the flood."

There is evidence of a flood, we just choose to ignore it, because there is more evidence there wasn't a flood. Too many people in here say there is NO evidence.

If you pick and choose your evidence then anything can seem true. Seashells on a mountain top are evidence of the flood, as long as you ignore all the other evidence. Incomplete evidence points in the wrong direction all the time - it's why so many innocent people are in jail. Your ability to assemble a grouping of incomplete evidence doesn't make the flood any less impossible than it already is.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by riVeRraT, posted 09-04-2017 10:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by riVeRraT, posted 09-05-2017 4:36 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 899 (819081)
09-05-2017 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by riVeRraT
09-05-2017 4:36 PM


rVeRraT writes:

Percy writes:

riVeRraT writes:

I am not a creationist. Creationist do not conduct real science.

The CRS (Creation Research Society) and the Discovery Institute and Steve Austin and Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer and William Dembski and (throwing him in just for fun) Kent Hovind would disagree with you.


About what? That I am not a creationist, or that they are not conducting real science?

Those organizations and people believe that creationists do conduct real science, so you have no reason to exclude yourself from the ranks of the creationists.

Either way who gives a rats ass what they think.

Those so easily dismissive are as easily dismissed. Obviously you care what you think, and you want others to care, too, else you wouldn't be here.

I don't debate the absurdly ridiculous. "Oh, look, it's raining, evidence of the flood."

Ummm, let me check, nope I never said that. So was this statement another one of your unattacks on my character? Me thinks so.

You're wrong both factually and grammatically. Rain and hawks are equally absurd examples of ridiculous evidence for a fictional event.

If you pick and choose your evidence then anything can seem true.

Who's picking and choosing? Not me, you are.

If you weren't picking and choosing among the evidence then a flood from a Bible story wouldn't seem like a meaningful possibility to you.

Seashells on a mountain top are evidence of the flood, as long as you ignore all the other evidence.

Until the other evidence changes or new evidence is found. Aren't we always supposed to be on the look out for a better explanation? Who's picking and choosing now? Who has the closed mind now? Words are important.

But your idea of a better explanation is something that supports your religious beliefs. You're not seeking evidence to help decide between competing explanations of the real world.

Your ability to assemble a grouping of incomplete evidence doesn't make the flood any less impossible than it already is.

Incomplete evidence can do the same thing, as does lack of knowledge.

If you're looking for evidence of the fictional, I think your hawk is better evidence of Horus than of the flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by riVeRraT, posted 09-05-2017 4:36 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 6:45 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 168 of 899 (819133)
09-06-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
09-05-2017 8:06 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:

Actually I've many times answered your ridiculous claim with a description of my model.

Your models never survive scrutiny. What typically happens is that you invent excuses to abandon discussion amidst a storm of threats and insults, most recently in the MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?:

Faith in the Macro vs. Micro thread writes:

As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post...
...
This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it.
...
I'm not threatening to leave, I'm just not going to read insulting posts any more.
...
Amazing. Nothing but snark as usual. Amazing.
...
EvC is obviously some kind of alternative universe. Nothing here makes sense, nobody makes sense, what people say about me would be funny if it weren't so bizarre. In any case I'm no longer discussing anything with people who insult me in such bizarre ways with such a strange lack of understanding of the argument.
...
I've made the case and I'm not talking to people who insult me.
...
No, I won't read it because of that insulting sentence and some other similar stuff I encountered on a quick skim.
...
And Percy, if you come back to this post: I'm not reading anything else you post. [False, of course]
...
All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying.
...
I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense, as most of them have been in the last few days. It's so much more economical than slogging through it all to point it out statement by statement.

Don't you think it's time to close down this charade?
...
You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it.
...
Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years. And the article is glaring white.
...
I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry.
...
After reading your first two ridiculous paragraphs I have to take back what I said about trusting you to be honest.
...
...asking me for evidence is out of order.

This thread will end the same way - you'll eventually invent some excuses and abandon it, as you've done so many times before.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 8:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:43 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 175 of 899 (819166)
09-07-2017 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
09-07-2017 11:43 AM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:

The reasons I gave for my actions are true and sufficient,...

If you do say so yourself.

...your lame mind-reading is false, insulting and stupid.

So in this thread you're not going to be insulting and offensive? Starting when, pray tell?

You'll abandon this thread just like you've abandoned all the rest. In the meantime, why don't you say something on topic and provide evidence for the Flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 1:24 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 181 of 899 (819189)
09-07-2017 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-07-2017 1:24 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:

Percy writes:

In the meantime, why don't you say something on topic and provide evidence for the Flood.

Sure. Strata and fossils.

Wow, the walls are going up already. Plus that's evidence for an ancient Earth and evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 1:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 8:18 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 186 of 899 (819201)
09-07-2017 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by riVeRraT
09-07-2017 6:45 PM


riVeRraT writes:

No Percy. I do not try to prove creation with science.

Sure you do. Science is about gathering evidence in support of hypotheses. You titled this thread Evidence of the flood and offered Harvey the Hawk as your evidence. What you *do* try to do is be absurdly contrary and argumentative at every opportunity, which is actually a good strategy for those with no support for their position.

I've already expressed my subjective belief multiple times, but I will write it one more time just for you.

The search facility here isn't perfect, but it couldn't find where in this thread you've expressed what you say next about John 3:16:

God does not want us to find physical evidence of His existence because John 3:16

Well that's just daft. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It has nothing to do with your point.

I am not looking for evidence. It found me.

More irrelevant nonsense. You're arguing that a hawk in a car is evidence for a Biblical myth.

The story of the flood is amazing, be it fake or real.

It's fake.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 6:45 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 9:33 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 206 of 899 (819247)
09-08-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
09-07-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:

My participation on this thread has been cursory at best,...

Your participation in most threads is cursory at best. Voluble, but cursory.

Strata and fossils. Works a lot better as evidence for the Flood than for your OE and evolution, LOTS better.

But all you can do is say this, you can never show it. The reality is that strata and fossils as evidence for the flood fails so badly that it was abandoned a couple centuries ago.

Ridiculous really, the idea of time periods sandwiched between slabs of rock, physically impossible for it to happen that way...

The strata of the geological record are the same in character as the strata being deposited today. What we see happening before our very eyes in the present is the same thing that happened in the past and formed those ancient strata. A large flood could not sort strata of different composition, particle size, fossil content, radiometric age, and containing tracks and burrows.

...which all managed somehow to get smushed down into the sediments, a bit of flora and scattered fauna and no other evidence that such a scenario ever actually existed on that spot...

Now you're mentioning another discussion you abandoned in thread The TRVE history of the Flood.... Stile's last post on this topic was Message 1312. You replied in Message 1320, "I've lost all interest, sorry."

And that wasn't the first time you abandoned this topic. You did so in The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock, replying to Stile's Message 1144, "I do intend to get back to this; just needed a break," and then you never got back to it.

And that's just a couple examples. The truth is that you've abandoned defense of your various claims dozens and dozens of times. Later you just repeat them as if you've experienced complete amnesia about how poorly they fared previously, as if you can't remember a single explanation for why they're impossible.

Here are your last few posts from the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread showing how you abandoned discussion there:

Faith in the TRVE history of the Flood... thread writes:

Rather you pick the conjob of your own fallen intellect over the revelation of the God who made it all.
...
All I need is the Bible for the timing. God's word you know. I give other kinds of evidence where there is no Biblical information.
...
The last dozen or so posts I've put up on this thread are all the evidence needed for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale. Sorry, but you and your EvC army of evos are just blowing smoke.
...
Ha ha. The case has been made. Sorry.
...
It's been discussed to death over the last few years. You lost.
...
Convincing the brainwashed isn't the right criterion. The case has been made logically though denied by the local gang of evos. Sorry.
...
I've given all the evidence needed to prove the Flood. Sorry.
...
I've made the case so there is no need to address all the other stuff.
...
I've made my point, I proved it, that's all there is to say.

Not a shred of substance in any of that, and you're continuing the "no substance" theme in this thread.

...not to mention the simple absurdity of expecting a time period to have any kind of neat physical demarcations at all, let alone a whole series of them over hundreds of millions of years.

The geologists of 200 and 300 years ago were expecting evidence supporting the Biblical account, but they accepted the evidence as they found it and followed it where it led. Which was to an ancient Earth.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 8:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:28 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 207 of 899 (819251)
09-08-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by riVeRraT
09-07-2017 9:33 PM


riVeRraT writes:

Percy writes:

What you *do* try to do is be absurdly contrary and argumentative at every opportunity, which is actually a good strategy for those with no support for their position.

Wait a sec, did you just call me a scientist? Are you accusing me of using the scientific method?

There you go, putting words in my mouth. I never offered a hypotheses. I

Well what do you know, contrary and argumentative with no support for your position. Again.

I just offered evidence. As I stated earlier, it was because I am tired of hearing the phrase "there is no evidence".

A hawk seeking shelter is not evidence of a Biblical myth.

There is evidence, you just choose to ignore it based on other evidence.

"Hey, hawk's in the car, it's raining, must be evidence that the Flood of the Bible was a real event." Good show!

You must believe in God by faith.

If you must, you must.

In order for that statement to be true, you cannot use objective evidence to believe in God. That's my hypothesis, based on John 3:16 and many other verses.

But you're interpreting objective evidence (hawk seeks shelter in car, something that was observed to have really happened) as evidence of the Flood, a Biblical myth supporting your belief in God.

More irrelevant nonsense. You're arguing that a hawk in a car is evidence for a Biblical myth.

What does that have to do with the fact that the evidence found me? I wasn't looking for evidence, it just happened, and as I watched it I felt the Holy Spirit telling me this is the way God designed animals.

Yep, sounds like you've got an open and shut case there - the evidence sought you out, then voices in your head told you God designed animals to seek out cars (which by the way don't resemble an ark) for shelter.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2017 9:33 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2017 5:08 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19879
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 227 of 899 (819301)
09-09-2017 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Faith writes:

The standard theory can't be known either.

Of course it can be known. We have evidence from which we've constructed frameworks of understanding called theories that are both explanatory and predictive.

And it's so utterly absurd I would hope some people would soon wake up and see it.

Having no argument, you engage in name calling.

Faith writes:

Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does;...

What you really mean is, "They disagree with me, so having no answer I shall impugn them."

...that's why they went with the so-called evidence of an ancient earth, which hardly deserves the term "evidence" at all, since until radiometric dating methods came along it was just a lot of stuff like Hutton's assessment of Siccar Point "Oh that must have taken a LONG time."

Once again, having no answer you impugn the source.

He was wrong, it wasn't formed in stages, it was formed all at once in the Flood, and the unconformity occurred after all the strata were laid down, just as similar formations occurred elsewhere after the Flood.

Having no evidence or argument, you just repeat your position.

Others in this thread have provided outlines of some of the scientific evidence for modern geological theory and identify some of problems with your views so I won't repeat them, but the messages are Message 215, Message 219
and Message 223. We can get into as much detail as necessary as long as you as you don't ignore evidence that in your view is too stupid or ridiculous or insane or too white, and you don't descend into insult mode and one-line answers, and you stick around.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020