EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:52 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Besoeker wrote:
Not my point. Starvation continues. A supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity, if such existed could stop it.
But, that it continues in huge numbers every day is, at the very least, evidence that no such supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity exists.


How so?

Quote:
I'll accept absolutely anything that can be objectively replicated and objectively documented by unbiased observers.
You're comment suggest that you have no such evidence.
And that's fine with me.


Of course I have no such evidence. Many of my life experiences don't fit those criteria and yet, I believe in them. Same applies to you.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:27 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:14 am
Posts: 85
Fosgate wrote:
Besoeker wrote:
Not my point. Starvation continues. A supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity, if such existed could stop it.
But, that it continues in huge numbers every day is, at the very least, evidence that no such supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity exists.


How so?

As I posted earlier, the supernatural entity, if such existed, could do something about it. That it continues is at least absence of evidence of such an entity.

And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:56 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Besoeker wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Besoeker wrote:
Not my point. Starvation continues. A supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity, if such existed could stop it.
But, that it continues in huge numbers every day is, at the very least, evidence that no such supernatural, omnipotent omnibenovelent entity exists.


How so?

As I posted earlier, the supernatural entity, if such existed, could do something about it. That it continues is at least absence of evidence of such an entity.


If you could do something and didn't, is it absence of evidence of your existence?

Quote:
And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?


I'd agree that it's the simplest conclusion, though not the most logical.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Quote:
And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?


I'd agree that it's the simplest conclusion, though not the most logical.


Why is the simplest conclusion not the most logical? Occams razor would tend to support the more simple conclusions being the more logical.

Example: I see no other entity in the room, is it more logical to assume there are none or that there are aliens cloaked in an invisibility screen that move at a great speed with no noise to prevent my touching them?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:55 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Quote:
And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?


I'd agree that it's the simplest conclusion, though not the most logical.


Why is the simplest conclusion not the most logical? Occams razor would tend to support the more simple conclusions being the more logical.


Because the underlying assumption in the conclusion is that an omnipotent being makes its presence known by specifically solving the human-perceived problem of starvation.

Quote:
Example: I see no other entity in the room, is it more logical to assume there are none or that there are aliens cloaked in an invisibility screen that move at a great speed with no noise to prevent my touching them?


Just you? Guess I'd have to take you at your word. But let's say I and a few others didn't see anything either. Of course I'd conclude that there was nothing there. At the same time, most of the folks on Earth believe in some form of god, gods, afterlife, or that they've experienced the power of such.

A blind person can still be perfectly logical.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Quote:
And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?


I'd agree that it's the simplest conclusion, though not the most logical.


Why is the simplest conclusion not the most logical? Occams razor would tend to support the more simple conclusions being the more logical.


Fosgate wrote:
Because the underlying assumption in the conclusion is that an omnipotent being makes its presence known by specifically solving the human-perceived problem of starvation.


But the statement was much more broad and covered the totality of evidence lacking, not just that one aspect.

Quote:
Quote:
Example: I see no other entity in the room, is it more logical to assume there are none or that there are aliens cloaked in an invisibility screen that move at a great speed with no noise to prevent my touching them?


Just you? Guess I'd have to take you at your word. But let's say I and a few others didn't see anything either. Of course I'd conclude that there was nothing there. At the same time, most of the folks on Earth believe in some form of god, gods, afterlife, or that they've experienced the power of such.

A blind person can still be perfectly logical.


Or illogical. The point was about the more simple explanation being the more logical one, which you said was not the case.

I have experienced some things I cannot explain. I call them unexpalined events and do not consider them evidence of anything other than my ability to discern an explanation. There may have been an intelligent action behind them, but the odds are not in favor of that conclusion. So they serve to make me think more closely about what I can and cannot explain.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But the statement was much more broad and covered the totality of evidence lacking, not just that one aspect.


Of course, the totality of lacking evidence, every bit of which assumes we know something when we do not necessarily.

Quote:
Or illogical.


Point being, you see what you see and logically conclude based on whatever that is.

Quote:
The point was about the more simple explanation being the more logical one, which you said was not the case.


What do you do when the simplest explanation doesn't make any sense?

Quote:
I have experienced some things I cannot explain. I call them unexpalined events and do not consider them evidence of anything other than my ability to discern an explanation There may have been an intelligent action behind them, but the odds are not in favor of that conclusion. So they serve to make me think more closely about what I can and cannot explain.


If this is the way your personal experience compels you to function, who am I to question it?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But the statement was much more broad and covered the totality of evidence lacking, not just that one aspect.


Of course, the totality of lacking evidence, every bit of which assumes we know something when we do not necessarily.


No, it does not. It deals only with what we know, which is there is nothing in evidence to support said existence.

Quote:
Quote:
Or illogical.


Point being, you see what you see and logically conclude based on whatever that is.


Or not, which is the point I was making.

Quote:
Quote:
The point was about the more simple explanation being the more logical one, which you said was not the case.


What do you do when the simplest explanation doesn't make any sense?


It would not be an explanation if it did not make sense. But, in this case the simple explanation does make sense, yet is implied to be illogical.

Quote:
Quote:
I have experienced some things I cannot explain. I call them unexpalined events and do not consider them evidence of anything other than my ability to discern an explanation There may have been an intelligent action behind them, but the odds are not in favor of that conclusion. So they serve to make me think more closely about what I can and cannot explain.


If this is the way your personal experience compels you to function, who am I to question it?


No, it is my logic that compels me to treat my personal experiences as I do otherwise I would use them to claim something that is not logically supported by the evidence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:35 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Of course, the totality of lacking evidence, every bit of which assumes we know something when we do not necessarily.


No, it does not. It deals only with what we know, which is there is nothing in evidence to support said existence.


Then how do you know that which constitutes evidence OF existence?

You know what it sounds like? It sounds like a former believer that got pissed off at God for not living up to their expectations. Hell of a coincidence, I’m sure. :problem:

Quote:
Quote:
Point being, you see what you see and logically conclude based on whatever that is.


Or not, which is the point I was making.


Exactly, you don't. Yet here we are doing it.

The question becomes, do you, more often than not, find that for which you aren’t looking? Do you generally expect that for which you are looking to find you?

Quote:
It would not be an explanation if it did not make sense. But, in this case the simple explanation does make sense, yet is implied to be illogical.


It isn’t logical to conclude anything in the absence of evidence.

Quote:
No, it is my logic that compels me to treat my personal experiences as I do otherwise I would use them to claim something that is not logically supported by the evidence.


Have you logically concluded that believers--most of humanity--are deluding themselves?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Of course, the totality of lacking evidence, every bit of which assumes we know something when we do not necessarily.


No, it does not. It deals only with what we know, which is there is nothing in evidence to support said existence.


Then how do you know that which constitutes evidence OF existence?


It would be anything which directly indicates existence.

Quote:
You know what it sounds like? It sounds like a former believer that got pissed off at God for not living up to their expectations. Hell of a coincidence, I’m sure. :problem:


Not in my case. I have never been able to reconcile the contradictions in religion as much as my mother wished me to do.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Point being, you see what you see and logically conclude based on whatever that is.


Or not, which is the point I was making.


Exactly, you don't. Yet here we are doing it.


huh? You may be doing something based on no logic, but I am not.

Quote:
The question becomes, do you, more often than not, find that for which you aren’t looking?


Of course. We find much more than we seek every day. I never seek mosquitos yet I often find them in close proximity to me. How does this make things any more or less logical?

Quote:
Do you generally expect that for which you are looking to find you?


Not unless it is alive and either seeking me or moving about.


Quote:
Quote:
It would not be an explanation if it did not make sense. But, in this case the simple explanation does make sense, yet is implied to be illogical.


It isn’t logical to conclude anything in the absence of evidence.


Actually it is logical. If there is a sufficient period of time without positive evidence of existence that begins to constitute evidence on whatever does not exist.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it is my logic that compels me to treat my personal experiences as I do otherwise I would use them to claim something that is not logically supported by the evidence.


Have you logically concluded that believers--most of humanity--are deluding themselves?


No, but I have concluded that the believers have been deluded into belief based solely on faith in what someone else told them. How many children raised without human contact have concluded the gods of the modern religions exist as they are portrayed? Unless that happens there is a factor resulting from peer pressure and communication.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Quote:
Quote:
Then how do you know that which constitutes evidence OF existence?


It would be anything which directly indicates existence.


Like stopping starvation?

Quote:
Not in my case.


No, not you.

Quote:
I have never been able to reconcile the contradictions in religion as much as my mother wished me to do.


Not talking about religion.

Quote:
huh? You may be doing something based on no logic, but I am not.


You’re drawing a conclusion based on no evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
The question becomes, do you, more often than not, find that for which you aren’t looking?


Of course. We find much more than we seek every day. I never seek mosquitos yet I often find them in close proximity to me. How does this make things any more or less logical?


We’ve had this discussion before, remember? Try showering. :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
Do you generally expect that for which you are looking to find you?


Not unless it is alive and either seeking me or moving about.


Point is, if you’re not looking for God, you probably will not find him.

Quote:
Quote:
It isn’t logical to conclude anything in the absence of evidence.


Actually it is logical. If there is a sufficient period of time without positive evidence of existence that begins to constitute evidence on whatever does not exist.


Really? How long is that?

Quote:
No, but I have concluded that the believers have been deluded into belief based solely on faith in what someone else told them.


You don’t take anyone at their word…ever?
Quote:
How many children raised without human contact have concluded the gods of the modern religions exist as they are portrayed?


Like I said, if you don’t know to be looking, you won’t look. But humor me. How many?

Quote:
Unless that happens there is a factor resulting from peer pressure and communication.
[/quote]

No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then how do you know that which constitutes evidence OF existence?


It would be anything which directly indicates existence.


Like stopping starvation?


If starvation ceased all over the world without the intervention of humans, yes, I would think that would be evidence of existence of such an entity.

Quote:
Quote:
I have never been able to reconcile the contradictions in religion as much as my mother wished me to do.


Not talking about religion.


Kind of hard to do when discussing supernatural entities and the possible existence thereof.

Quote:
Quote:
huh? You may be doing something based on no logic, but I am not.


You’re drawing a conclusion based on no evidence.


No, I am drawing a conclusion based on the LACK of evidence which is significantly different. The lack of evidence infers a lack of existence and that is a logical conclusion. The extended time without said evidence of existence creates a greater logical probablility
of the lack of existence. Being a negative it can never be completely determined, but the amount of evidence without positive indications is evidence in and of itself.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The question becomes, do you, more often than not, find that for which you aren’t looking?


Of course. We find much more than we seek every day. I never seek mosquitos yet I often find them in close proximity to me. How does this make things any more or less logical?


We’ve had this discussion before, remember? Try showering. :razz:


Ahhh, you also confuse mosquitos with flies... no wonder you are confused. :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you generally expect that for which you are looking to find you?


Not unless it is alive and either seeking me or moving about.


Point is, if you’re not looking for God, you probably will not find him.


I do not have to find the evidence just have to see it.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It isn’t logical to conclude anything in the absence of evidence.


Actually it is logical. If there is a sufficient period of time without positive evidence of existence that begins to constitute evidence on whatever does not exist.


Really? How long is that?


Well, for a diety a century would be a good minimum period.

Quote:
Quote:
No, but I have concluded that the believers have been deluded into belief based solely on faith in what someone else told them.


You don’t take anyone at their word…ever?


On minor issues, but evidence of a supernatural entity would require more than just the word of someone I did not know.

Quote:
Quote:
How many children raised without human contact have concluded the gods of the modern religions exist as they are portrayed?


Like I said, if you don’t know to be looking, you won’t look. But humor me. How many?


I looked and found none.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless that happens there is a factor resulting from peer pressure and communication.


No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.[/quote]

For some perhaps, but not all.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If starvation ceased all over the world without the intervention of humans, yes, I would think that would be evidence of existence of such an entity.


I’m glad to know there is at least some threshold, but I’m still out on exactly why it would be something like this as opposed to unexplained occurrences that have happened already. Further, how would you prove existence if it did happen?

Quote:
Quote:
Not talking about religion.


Kind of hard to do when discussing supernatural entities and the possible existence thereof.


Not really. Perhaps that’s part of your problem. You’re equating religion with faith.

Quote:
Quote:
You’re drawing a conclusion based on no evidence.


No, I am drawing a conclusion based on the LACK of evidence which is significantly different.


If you lack evidence, then you have no evidence. Same thing.

Quote:
The lack of evidence infers a lack of existence and that is a logical conclusion.


That is illogical. Nothing doesn't infer anything at all.
Quote:
The extended time without said evidence of existence creates a greater logical probablility
of the lack of existence. Being a negative it can never be completely determined, but the amount of evidence without positive indications is evidence in and of itself.


My point is supported by the fact that we’ve made discoveries of things for which we had no evidence of existence, some for hundreds of years. That alone is evidence that things do indeed exist, even affect us, despite how long we remain ignorant of it.

Quote:
I do not have to find the evidence just have to see it.


If you’re not looking for it, you probably won’t find it. Mosquitoes may seek you out, turtles likely don’t care one way or the other, and some things are just going to all out make a point of avoiding you. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Quote:
Well, for a diety a century would be a good minimum period.


Why is that?

Quote:
Quote:
You don’t take anyone at their word…ever?


On minor issues, but evidence of a supernatural entity would require more than just the word of someone I did not know.


What of someone you did and trusted implicity?

Quote:
[quoteLike I said, if you don’t know to be looking, you won’t look. But humor me. How many?


I looked and found none. [/quote]

That must mean none exist, right? At least you saw fit to look.

Quote:
Quote:
No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.


For some perhaps, but not all.


That’s okay. I won’t tell anyone you leave tic-tacs under your pillow to fool the tooth fairy. 8)

Seriously, is there some requirement that all do so?

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:10 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If starvation ceased all over the world without the intervention of humans, yes, I would think that would be evidence of existence of such an entity.


I’m glad to know there is at least some threshold, but I’m still out on exactly why it would be something like this as opposed to unexplained occurrences that have happened already. Further, how would you prove existence if it did happen?

Quote:
Quote:
Not talking about religion.


Kind of hard to do when discussing supernatural entities and the possible existence thereof.


Not really. Perhaps that’s part of your problem. You’re equating religion with faith.


Not equating them but pointing out the correlations between the two where supernatural entities are involved.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You’re drawing a conclusion based on no evidence.


No, I am drawing a conclusion based on the LACK of evidence which is significantly different.


If you lack evidence, then you have no evidence. Same thing.


No, that is where you fail. The lack of evidence over time is then evidence itself that something might not exist. It is never conclusive as it is a negative proof, but it is evidence non-the-less.

Quote:
Quote:
The lack of evidence infers a lack of existence and that is a logical conclusion.


That is illogical. Nothing doesn't infer anything at all.


Yes it does. You cannot prove the lack of existence of the tooth fairy, however if you gather enough evidence for failed attempts to prove said existence the preponderance of the evidence does begin to infer the lack of existence. The longer this evidence accumulated the more the lack of existence is inferred. Of course, it is not going to be conclusive forobvious reasons, but it is the only way to prove a negative to any degree.

Quote:
Quote:
The extended time without said evidence of existence creates a greater logical probablility
of the lack of existence. Being a negative it can never be completely determined, but the amount of evidence without positive indications is evidence in and of itself.


My point is supported by the fact that we’ve made discoveries of things for which we had no evidence of existence, some for hundreds of years.


Yes, and that lack of evidence was evidence of the lack of existence, until the existence was proved.

Quote:
That alone is evidence that things do indeed exist, even affect us, despite how long we remain ignorant of it.


Yes, and that is why there is always the chance of new evidence changing the way we view anything, but CURRENTLY we only have the evidence we have.

Quote:
Quote:
I do not have to find the evidence just have to see it.


If you’re not looking for it, you probably won’t find it. Mosquitoes may seek you out, turtles likely don’t care one way or the other, and some things are just going to all out make a point of avoiding you. Out of sight, out of mind, right?


I may not be looking, but someone will be or the supernatural entity is not very popular.

Quote:
Quote:
Well, for a diety a century would be a good minimum period.


Why is that?


It is sufficient time for improvements in technology that would allow improved search capacity.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You don’t take anyone at their word…ever?


On minor issues, but evidence of a supernatural entity would require more than just the word of someone I did not know.


What of someone you did and trusted implicity?


If they had no evidcence to support it, I would still question it.

Quote:
Quote:
[quoteLike I said, if you don’t know to be looking, you won’t look. But humor me. How many?


I looked and found none.


That must mean none exist, right? At least you saw fit to look.[/quote]

It means there is no evidence I can find to support the existence and thus there is a high probability there is none.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.


For some perhaps, but not all.


That’s okay. I won’t tell anyone you leave tic-tacs under your pillow to fool the tooth fairy. 8)


I don't since I set the trap for the tooth fairy many years ago and discovered there was someone else involved.

Quote:
Seriously, is there some requirement that all do so?


No, but some are naturally gullible and cannot be trusted to make a logical conclusion based only on facts.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What a waste ....
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:19 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Touche'. You get the last word.

Hope you had a great weekend. 8)

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group