>If we are going to play semantics, then I shall point out that
>this forum uses plain english. Thus trying to welsh out of
>a demand for proof by appealing to a technical sense of proof first
>used by Karl Popper in this century is underhand. You do have to =
>give some proof or evidence in support of your theory that Gods =
>require Sapient Worship. So far you have not given one single =
>solitary fucking iota. So put up or shut up.
I don't really care who is right or wrong (though I have an opinion) but I have to applaud Peters efforts in communication. =
Richard, given that you've never met Peter and given that you don't =
_know_ he exists outside of an email forum, I hearby declare that Peter is the Digest God of Potent Argument and is worshipped =
by all folk called Martin Laurie as such. =
However, as you don't know _I_ exist then you might not believe in me either and maybe I'm simply a creation of your desire to have someone believe in Peter Metcalfe...
You know, when I get round to getting me email fixed, I'm going to have some bloody good rows like in the old days. I used to get so hot under the collar. Now I'm simply boring an nice <sigh>
Martin "to nice to talk to" Laurie
Powered by hypermail