Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion
Subject: Re: Samuelson's response to the time capsule (part 5.1)
Message-ID: <490@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 10:26:48 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.490
Posted: Fri Feb  8 10:26:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:25:53 EST
References: <418@pyuxd.UUCP> <705@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.flame:8253 net.religion:5541

> Various reasons why people believe in God.
> Note:  Even though I use the first person below, I do not claim
> that all of the reasons listed below are airtight (I made this
> statement in the original article, but Pesmard conveniently didn't
> quote that part; in a 335 line article, one would think that nothing
> would be left out).

The "335-line article" was, with the addition of bracketed capitalized portions
and the opening and closing comments, *EXACTLY* the same article that was
posted n+? months ago.  You frequently omit sections of articles you excerpt
from, no?  If I had included ALL of your articles followed by my own commentary
in each followup, by now we'd both be writing articles of infinite length, thus
disproving many modern accepted laws of mathematics. :-)

> More important note:  I am not going to provide serious replies
> to Pesmard's responses, for the following reasons:
> (1)  This is net.flame, not net.religion.

Remember, Gary, that *you* chose the newsgroup in which to followup.  I have
been sending followups to net.religion where the subject was meant to be
discussed.

> (2)  I did that before; Pesmard claims, I guess, that I have
>      not answered his questions; what he means is that he didn't
>      like my answers.  But I did try.

You certainly did try.  The whole article of yours which I was responding to
consisted precisely of your answers to my questions.  I spent hundreds of lines
pointing out what I felt to be holes in your answers, either faulty logic or
erroneous assumptions that you choose to make while others do not (I feel,
with good reason).  It means much more than "I did not like your answers."
It means I found fault with them.  Something you can't seem to accept.  Why?

In the next article (part 5.2), I try to respond to Gary's specific points and
reiterations about his earlier answers.
-- 
"I don't understand.  Is it modern?"		Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr