Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: No More "Dr." Gastrich Until 2005
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:20:51 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 52
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <c1dlro$i6f$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <Wr%Xb.4041$Le2.571@twister.socal.rr.com> <ca3130pnj61gk2v4c5v66solrkqavq04jm@4ax.com> <yt0Yb.4053$Le2.1504@twister.socal.rr.com> <24713099p3ooujglpghqcmhcathib1j1ee@4ax.com> <7k1Yb.4064$Le2.3303@twister.socal.rr.com> <pan.2004.02.17.05.09.22.375006@mail.utexas.edu> <wilkins-AA94F0.16170417022004@news.fu-berlin.de> <c0skuh$l07$0@pita.alt.net> <1g9bm90.14owp6z948jb4N%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> <c0t8oe$aj7$0@pita.alt.net> <wilkins-AE3DB9.10054818022004@news.fu-berlin.de> <c0v6vr$a4v$0@pita.alt.net> <40336877$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com> <c11ndc$f0i$1@pita.alt.net> <1g9fnp3.dp73mj12lpsucN%see.sig@for.addy> <c150cd$vuo$0@pita.alt.net> <1g9g6ej.vp33qh1x9ymufN%see.sig@for.addy> <slrnc3cb6r.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem> <c15b9j$iv0$0@pita.alt.net> <slrnc3chdr.1c4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1077596451 49037 128.100.83.246 (24 Feb 2004 04:20:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:20:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2691
news:slrnc3chdr.1c4.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:02:42 +0000 (UTC),
> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > news:slrnc3cb6r.1hg.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> >> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:10:36 +0000 (UTC),
> >> Victor Eijkhout <see.sig@for.addy> wrote:
> >> > Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> news:1g9fnp3.dp73mj12lpsucN%see.sig@for.addy...
> >> >> > Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > In my opinion, a Biblical kind is
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you mean "in your opinion"? Shouldn't this sentence start
"It
> > is
> >> >> > one of the basic results of creation science that a biblical kind
is
> >> >> > .." ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I mean, this question has come up before, why don't you guys have
a
> > nice
> >> >> > consensus answer by now?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > V.
> >> >>
> >> >> Vic, for all I know there is one, and I just don't know about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm a freethinker, anyway, so consensus answers don't interest me
much.
> >> >>
> >> >> Uncle Davey
> >> >
> >> > You're not concerned with science, in other words.
> >>
> >> Only when he thinks he can bullshit the faithful with pseudo-science.
> >
> > Was that nice?
>
> Was it false?
Yes.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 |
|