The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
this universe. And as a result can have no direct
contact with anything within this universe.

How can one prove the existence of anything before time began?
So all we can do is use reason and logic to discuss the
existence and characteristics of God. No direct evidence
will EVER be possible.

For instance, if the universe displays creative characteristics
A,B and C, it stands to reason these properties are also
inherent within the ultimate source of creation, and in
an idealized form. Just as the properties of a parent
are often reflected in their children.

And since religious philosophy attributes the intrinsic
creative properties we observe in the universe to
define God, then the definition of God becomes reliant
on our observations of reality.

And it's science that does the observing, so it's science
that defines God for religious philosophy.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, notice how they assert
/analogies/ between observed reality and God are the
only paths forward on these questions. The logic of
religious philosophy as expressed by the Vatican is
not just well-reasoned, but bulletproof.

At least to those with an open mind.

The Nature and Attributes of God

(iii) Finally it should be observed that, while predicating pure
perfections literally both of God and of creatures, it is always
understood that these predicates are true in an infinitely higher sense
of God than of creatures, and that there is no thought of coordinating
or classifying God with creatures. This is technically expressed by
saying that all our knowledge of God is analogical, and that all
predicates applied to God and to creatures are used analogically, not
univocally. I may look at a portrait or at its living original, and say
of either, with literal truth, that is a beautiful face. And this is an
example of analogical predication. Beauty is literally and truly
realized both in the portrait and its living original, and retains its
proper meaning as applied to either; there is sufficient likeness or
analogy to justify literal predication but there is not that perfect
likeness or identity between painted and living beauty which univocal
predication would imply. And similarly in the case of God and creatures.
What we contemplate directly is the portrait of Him painted, so to
speak, by Himself on the canvas of the universe and exhibiting in a
finite degree various perfections, which, without losing their proper
meaning for us, are seen to be capable of being realized in an infinite
degree; and our reason compels us to infer that they must be and are so
realized in Him who is their ultimate cause.

Hence we admit, in conclusion, that our knowledge of the Infinite is
inadequate, and necessarily so since our minds are only finite. But this
is very different from the Agnostic contention that the Infinite is
altogether unknowable, and that the statements of Theists regarding the
nature and attributes of God are so many plain contradictions. It is
only by ignoring the well-recognized rules of predication that have just
been explained, and consequently by misunderstanding and misrepresenting
the Theistic position, that Agnostics succeed in giving an air of
superficial plausibility to their own philosophy of blank negation.
Anyone who understands those rules, and has learned to think clearly,
and trusts his own reason and common sense, will find it easy to meet
and refute Agnostic arguments, most of which, in principle, have been
anticipated in what precedes. Only one general observation need be made
here — that the principles to which the Agnostic philosopher must appeal
in his attempt to invalidate religious knowledge would, if consistently
applied, invalidate all human knowledge and lead to universal scepticism
— and it is safe to say that, unless absolute scepticism becomes the
philosophy of mankind, Agnosticism will never supplant religion.

(ii) Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak
of God as if He were a magnified creature — more especially a magnified
man — and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or
hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if
subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or
less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to
prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that
it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever
truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions,
or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is
untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same
reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in
other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of
average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the
metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than
he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a
cunning one a fox.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>
>
> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
> contact with anything within this universe.

Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in news:slrvl0$bm7$1
@dont-email.me:

> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>> contact with anything within this universe.
>
> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>
Are you surprised? He clearly *needs* attention, and the only way he
can get it is by being an asshole.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[Blah]

Another nym goes <plonk.>

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:r1yLMp.wCs@kithrup.com:

> In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> [Blah]
>
> Another nym goes <plonk.>
>
You know, if everybody would stop announcing they were killfiling
him, he's probably stop the nym shifting. He's used to nobody
replying (except himself); he just can't stand the thought that
nobody even sees his name.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <XnsADD6825E9A54Ctaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:r1yLMp.wCs@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [Blah]
>>
>> Another nym goes <plonk.>
>>
>You know, if everybody would stop announcing they were killfiling
>him, he's probably stop the nym shifting. He's used to nobody
>replying (except himself); he just can't stand the thought that
>nobody even sees his name.
>
Point. I think I shall take up the habit of doing so.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <XnsADD67D1A1D6AFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in news:slrvl0$bm7$1
>@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>
>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>
>Are you surprised? He clearly *needs* attention, and the only way he
>can get it is by being an asshole.
>

Perhaps we should make a habit of killfiling him Yet Again
without commenting.

Just a suggestion.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <r1yns1.1E4w@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <XnsADD6825E9A54Ctaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:r1yLMp.wCs@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [Blah]
>>>
>>> Another nym goes <plonk.>
>>>
>>You know, if everybody would stop announcing they were killfiling
>>him, he's probably stop the nym shifting. He's used to nobody
>>replying (except himself); he just can't stand the thought that
>>nobody even sees his name.
>>
>Point. I think I shall take up the habit of doing so.
>
Attention, killfile experts: If I just killfile the name
"Jonathan," would that work on all the nym-shifts?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 3/11/21 9:38 am, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <r1yns1.1E4w@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <XnsADD6825E9A54Ctaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:r1yLMp.wCs@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [Blah]
>>>>
>>>> Another nym goes <plonk.>
>>>>
>>> You know, if everybody would stop announcing they were killfiling
>>> him, he's probably stop the nym shifting. He's used to nobody
>>> replying (except himself); he just can't stand the thought that
>>> nobody even sees his name.
>>>
>> Point. I think I shall take up the habit of doing so.
>>
> Attention, killfile experts: If I just killfile the name
> "Jonathan," would that work on all the nym-shifts?
>

Good question. Mozilla seems to look at the email address not the "From"
name displayed as Jonathan. My filter currently has 6 addresses for him.

On 2021-11-02 12:17 p.m., Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in news:slrvl0$bm7$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>
>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>
> Are you surprised? He clearly *needs* attention, and the only way he
> can get it is by being an asshole.
>

You really are immune to irony, aren't you?

On 11/2/2021 2:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>
>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>> contact with anything within this universe.
>
> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>
> Lynn
>

This ng is full of stodgy old assholes like you.

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:r1ypCK.1Gxx@kithrup.com:

> In article <r1yns1.1E4w@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <XnsADD6825E9A54Ctaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>news:r1yLMp.wCs@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <jrKdnS693ss3_xz8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> Jonathan <Reply.Insteadto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [Blah]
>>>>
>>>> Another nym goes <plonk.>
>>>>
>>>You know, if everybody would stop announcing they were killfiling
>>>him, he's probably stop the nym shifting. He's used to nobody
>>>replying (except himself); he just can't stand the thought that
>>>nobody even sees his name.
>>>
>>Point. I think I shall take up the habit of doing so.
>>
> Attention, killfile experts: If I just killfile the name
> "Jonathan," would that work on all the nym-shifts?
>
Probably, along with anyone else named "Jonathan."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In <r1ypCK.1Gxx@kithrup.com> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>Attention, killfile experts: If I just killfile the name
>"Jonathan," would that work on all the nym-shifts?

That depends on the newsreader software you're using, but it would
probably work as long as he keeps that name with any new address(es).

However, if that does work it would also killfile anyone else who happens
to be named Jonathan, which might be a wider net than you want to cast.

- Steven
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Steven Winikoff |
Montreal, QC, Canada | No one enjoys /being/ wrong, but I do
smw@smwonline.ca | enjoy /having been/ wrong, because it
http://smwonline.ca | means I am now less wrong than I was
| before."
| - Daniel Kahneman

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 23:15:42 UTC, smw wrote:
> In <r1ypC...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >
> >Attention, killfile experts: If I just killfile the name
> >"Jonathan," would that work on all the nym-shifts?
> That depends on the newsreader software you're using, but it would
> probably work as long as he keeps that name with any new address(es).
>
> However, if that does work it would also killfile anyone else who happens
> to be named Jonathan, which might be a wider net than you want to cast.

And it's not going to be his real name.

A certain medical practitioner identified only one Jonathan.

A lunar osculation may be the solution.

On 03/11/2021 03:09, Jonathan wrote:
>
Nym-shifting scum - just fuck off.

On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 23:14:24 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

I dunno - according to the Christian gospels his record seems to be
1/2 and there's no record that the other guy asked.

On 11/2/2021 4:22 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 11/2/2021 2:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>
>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>
>
> This ng is full of stodgy old assholes like you.

Cool ! I just got insulted by the 15 year old in Mom's basement again.

Lynn

In article <slufhq$qu3$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/2/2021 4:22 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 11/2/2021 2:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>>
>>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>
>>
>> This ng is full of stodgy old assholes like you.
>
>Cool ! I just got insulted by the 15 year old in Mom's basement again.

<FX: dark-pelted rodents in slinky shoes form into a
line and dance sinuously back and forth, back and forth,
as the band plays to a hot-blooded rhythm that disturbs
the senses>

Conga rats.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 11/3/2021 2:13 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <slufhq$qu3$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2021 4:22 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2021 2:22 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This ng is full of stodgy old assholes like you.
>>
>> Cool ! I just got insulted by the 15 year old in Mom's basement again.
>
> <FX: dark-pelted rodents in slinky shoes form into a
> line and dance sinuously back and forth, back and forth,
> as the band plays to a hot-blooded rhythm that disturbs
> the senses>
>
> Conga rats.
>
>

DAMN! There goes another keyboard.

On 11/2/2021 4:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <XnsADD67D1A1D6AFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in news:slrvl0$bm7$1
>> @dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2021 11:09 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The source of creation of this universe must /predate/
>>>> this universe. And as a result can have no direct
>>>> contact with anything within this universe.
>>>
>>> Ah, the nymshifter troll has shifted emails again.
>>>
>> Are you surprised? He clearly *needs* attention, and the only way he
>> can get it is by being an asshole.
>>
>
> Perhaps we should make a habit of killfiling him Yet Again
> without commenting.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>

You'd read anyways, I know what plonking really means.
It means you'll read everything I write, while
pretending not to.

It's called small-minded hypocrisy.

You can't handle responding to the ideas I present
so you shoot the messenger, just like the knee-jerk
response of any typical high-school dropout.

What is it about the post 'Science defines God' can't
you understand or think is a troll? The post is
factually and philosophically CORRECT.

But name-calling is all people like you can muster to
ideas you can't, and even more pathetically, WON'T
even try to fathom.

Ignorance is bliss they say, you must be very happy.
And the criticisms of such empty headed replies
only reflects poorly on this ng.

As Copernicus said to the Pope about the criticism
of his new cosmology...'the complaints of the uneducated
masses is rather like that of a drone of bees.'

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 7:49:20 AM UTC-4, 98.6% wrote:
> On 11/2/2021 4:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> > Perhaps we should make a habit of killfiling him Yet Again
> > without commenting.
> >
> > Just a suggestion.
> >
> You'd read anyways, I know what plonking really means.
> It means you'll read everything I write, while
> pretending not to.

You hope. I haven't killfiled you, since I killfile no one.

However, my eyes skip over your overstuffed paragraphs
with great ease. I no longer bother to read them, since its
proved to be a waste of time.

You seem to be a prime case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
ie, you grossly overestimate your skill in areas you know little about.

For example, since you told me with utter certainty that my TSLA
stock was about to drop 20%, and stay lower for months or years,
since it matched a 'pattern' That stock has since RISEN about 60%,
bringing my playpen account above 100k.

Your 'patterns' don't work. Do you admit that?

Your overconfidence and bombast in areas where you are
demonstrably incorrect give good cause to believe your
claims in other areas are equally poorly thought out.

The one area you've shown some actual knowledge is
in amateur astronomy. I read your postings on that with
interest.

What I can't understand is why you're here. You've stated
that you don't read SF anymore. You show no familiarity
with current or classic SF. You don't go to cons.

There are only about 15 active posters here (average more
than 1 post a day). You'd literally reach more people
standing on a street corner with a crudely lettered sign.

I suggest you take a look at reddit. Its more your speed,
and you'd reach many more people.

pt

On 11/4/2021 10:48 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 7:49:20 AM UTC-4, 98.6% wrote:
>> On 11/2/2021 4:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps we should make a habit of killfiling him Yet Again
>>> without commenting.
>>>
>>> Just a suggestion.
>>>
>> You'd read anyways, I know what plonking really means.
>> It means you'll read everything I write, while
>> pretending not to.
>
> You hope. I haven't killfiled you, since I killfile no one.
>
> However, my eyes skip over your overstuffed paragraphs
> with great ease. I no longer bother to read them, since its
> proved to be a waste of time.
>

In other words, you don't understand what I'm saying.
Name one thing that you find in error that I've
written, and state why.

YOU WON'T because it would only display your own
ignorance.

> You seem to be a prime case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
> ie, you grossly overestimate your skill in areas you know little about.
>
> For example, since you told me with utter certainty that my TSLA
> stock was about to drop 20%, and stay lower for months or years,
> since it matched a 'pattern' That stock has since RISEN about 60%,
> bringing my playpen account above 100k.
>

Tesla?

Do you know what the term 'buy low sell high' means.
Tesla is high now, correct? How is that bad advice?
The pattern I was referring to is a well-known pattern
traders swear by, it's not...my pattern.

But like most people here I give you a book and you just
chew on the cover.

> Your 'patterns' don't work. Do you admit that?
>
> Your overconfidence and bombast in areas where you are
> demonstrably incorrect give good cause to believe your
> claims in other areas are equally poorly thought out.
>
> The one area you've shown some actual knowledge is
> in amateur astronomy. I read your postings on that with
> interest.
>
> What I can't understand is why you're here. You've stated
> that you don't read SF anymore. You show no familiarity
> with current or classic SF. You don't go to cons.
>
> There are only about 15 active posters here (average more
> than 1 post a day). You'd literally reach more people
> standing on a street corner with a crudely lettered sign.
>
> I suggest you take a look at reddit. Its more your speed,
> and you'd reach many more people.
>

Maybe you're right, this is a dead ng in every respect.

I was looking for an ng that might enjoy talking
about fresh ideas or cutting edge science as a means
of creating ideas for fictional stories.

But the effort appears to be as futile here as
asking Trump to speak the truth.

> pt
>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:39:46 -0400, "98.6%" <WhoMe?@AOL.com> wrote:

>In other words, you don't understand what I'm saying.
>Name one thing that you find in error that I've
>written, and state why.

/Nobody/ understands what you are saying [1], and total nonsense is
irrefutable.

This is not because it is true -- it is because it is so far from
reality that it cannot even be said to be wrong.

That is, we have (in descending order):
right
wrong
your stuff

[1] I am, of course, not referring to your astronomical expeditions
(which I did read, at least in part) or your stock market stuff (which
I ignored, it being of no interest to me), but rather to your
handwavium, which has /no/ basis in any conceivable reality.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

You're feeding his illness.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:6l28og5qsevesri49du2pe0kgrfi01bmsn@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:39:46 -0400, "98.6%" <WhoMe?@AOL.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In other words, you don't understand what I'm saying.
>>Name one thing that you find in error that I've
>>written, and state why.
>
> /Nobody/ understands what you are saying [1], and total nonsense
> is irrefutable.
>
> This is not because it is true -- it is because it is so far
> from reality that it cannot even be said to be wrong.
>
> That is, we have (in descending order):
> right
> wrong
> your stuff
>
> [1] I am, of course, not referring to your astronomical
> expeditions (which I did read, at least in part) or your stock
> market stuff (which I ignored, it being of no interest to me),
> but rather to your handwavium, which has /no/ basis in any
> conceivable reality.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 12:33:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:39:46 -0400, "98.6%" <WhoMe?@AOL.com> wrote:
>
> >In other words, you don't understand what I'm saying.
> >Name one thing that you find in error that I've
> >written, and state why.
> /Nobody/ understands what you are saying [1], and total nonsense is
> irrefutable.
>
> This is not because it is true -- it is because it is so far from
> reality that it cannot even be said to be wrong.
>
> That is, we have (in descending order):
> right
> wrong
> your stuff

Or, as Pauli put it, "Not even wrong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

pt