On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the
>>> wise can answer in seven years.”
>>>
>>> I really need to try to remember that one. lol
>>
>> That is a good one, yes.
>>
> How about:
> If women's tongues can cease for an answer Macheath, The Beggar's Opera
> Act II
> 
> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.

Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>
> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>

If at all :-)
But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging 
look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
BTW This product may contain nuts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>>
>> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>>
>>
> If at all :-)

Oh, no, there would be a wake-up period.  Otherwise there's no point to 
the exercise. ;)

> But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging
> look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

Now *that* I have been known to do.  Usually a smirk does it.

> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
> BTW This product may contain nuts.

*may*? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/20/2012 12:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>> theory
>
> IMO there is only one:
> F' off you idiot.

That and this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the
> scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily
> restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and
> deities.

Funny thing is, no, it doesn't. It only doesn't admit those things without 
evidence.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 4:20 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/20/2012 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> That and this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
>
That works for me, too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/08/2012 7:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
>> >BTW This product may contain nuts.
> *may*?;)

Okay, this nut may contain products.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> IMO there is only one:
>> F' off you idiot.
>
> That and this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

0wn3d.

(Que inevitable string of YouTube comments seriously claiming the moon 
landings were fake. Some faggots really crave attention...)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2012 04:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The bit that really gets me is where he points to the definition of the
>> scientific method and starts complaining that it's "unnecessarily
>> restrictive" because it doesn't admit magic, supernatural forces, and
>> deities.
>
> Funny thing is, no, it doesn't. It only doesn't admit those things
> without evidence.

The trouble is, if you get an experimental result and say "it must have 
been caused by magic"... that explains EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT. Which is 
to say, it's in irrefutable claim.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Science is not the study 
of things which are TRUE, only things which are PROVABLE. So even if God 
DID create the universe, we can never prove nor disprove this, so EVEN 
IF IT IS TRUE, it's not science. And never will be.

Behe basically argued that limiting science to things which can be 
explained rationally is "too limiting". By which he means "doesn't allow 
me to claim that the Christian Holy Bible is science". :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:35:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/08/2012 7:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
>>> >BTW This product may contain nuts.
>> *may*?;)
> 
> Okay, this nut may contain products.

LOL

Is it a peanut?

Jim

Post a reply to this message