|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2002 : 09:10:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer writes:
To be honest, I posted that for entirely selfish reasons. I would much rather continue reading a back-and-forth between you and Slater regarding this subject than someone like darwin alogos, whose entire argument consists of "Jesus existed because the Bible says so, period!". I don't want either one of you to throw their hands up and walk away.
Thanks, The comment is appreciated.
quote:
Tokyodreamer writes:
If one points to the authors' claims that they believe in an historical Jesus as an argument against this doubt, I think it is relevant to consider that the authors may feel they have to say that in order to even be considered for publication.
I seriously doubt that this is often the case. The people I've read, people like John Dominic Crossan, Earl Doherty, Burton Mack, Geza Verme, and G.A. Wells appear, at least to me, to be committed to serious scholarship. I tend to take them at their word.
quote:
Tokyodreamer writes:
I believe the relevancy comes in when Slater says "Look at what these authors are saying, their evidence jives with my ideas", and you say "But here the authors are saying that they believe in an historical Jesus, therefore your ideas have no merit."
Then, perhaps, you and he are correct. But please bare with me as I step through some statements ...
quote:
Slater - Statemet 1:
Your best bet for some historic bones to lay the Jesus myth on is Apollonius of Tyana.
quote:
Slater - Statemet 2:
I still am convinced that the whole thing is a Roman concoction. Not really "a conspiracy to defraud" because that would mean that they were trying to trick people. It was a rewriting of history that people were ordered to believe (just as slaves were ordered to worship their owners as gods) by "the Emperor of the World" filled with pro-Imperial government sentiment.
quote:
Slater - Statemet 3:
The current Christian scholarship makes assumptions that there were Pauline and the Palestinian 'Christian' communities in the first century CE. However the physical evidence dates only from the fourth. But Christian faith based scholarship is hardly all that there is.
quote:
Slater - Statemet 4:
Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position I espouse: G. A. Wells is one, Arthur Drews was another, Randel Helms a third. Helms is a rather dry writer and tends to belabor points with fact after fact after fact but his Gospel Fictions covers Apollonius more than well.
Statement 3 differs from the rest, so let me dispense with it here:
- Not only does "current Christian scholarship makes assumptions that there were Pauline and the Palestinian 'Christian' communities in the first century CE", to the best of my knowledge all scholarship dealing with, either, the historicity of Jesus or the history of Rome or the Synoptic Problem acknowledges such differences. If anyone knows of any serious scholarship that rejects such a distinction, I would very much appreciate reading sources and quotes.
- Slater may repeat his mantra re "physical evidence dates only from the fourth" century as often as he wants, but I would still like to see him support that statement. He would do well to begin with a scholarly expose of http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
In short, I believe Statement 3 is simple a case of wishful thinking, with Slater presuming that he knows more than he in fact knows.
More at issue, however, are Statements 1, 2, and 4. As I read them, Slater is asserting not only that there was no historical Jesus, but that the whole thing is a Roman concoction based on Apollonius and enforced as law. He then asserts that "Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position I espouse: G. A. Wells is one, Arthur Drews was another, Randel Helms a third." In my opinion, this goes far beyond asserting, as you suggest, that "their evidence jives with my ideas". In fact, I believe it is quite reasonable to conlude that:
these "serious secular historians" do not "hold the very position" espoused by Slater.
I am more than willing to be proven wrong in this matter.
As for Apollionus, the idea that he is the "bones" of the Jesus myth is simply unworthy of serious consideration. Rather than constituting some mythological substrate upon which some Roman Emperor fabricated Christianity, Apollionus was held up by Pagans in counterposition to Jesus, i.e., 'our miracle worker is better than your miracle worker'. So, for example, we read:
quote:
In spite of the incredible popularity and astonishing renown of Apollonius, his legend and his name would probably not have come down to us other than by maintaining himself in the strict limits of these hagiographies, more or less forgotten, of which the Lives of Pythagoras by Jamblicus and Porphyry offer us the most typical models, if a governor of Bithynia, then of Lower-Egypt, known under the name of Sossianus Hierocles, had not decided to use for the profit of the pagan reaction the vivid prestige of the wise man of Tyana. It was under the reign of Diocletian, nearly one century after the publishing of the Life of Apollonius. Anxious to assist the emperor in the struggle that he undertook to paralyze the extension of Christianity in the Empire, Hierocles, who was a sophist, addressed himself directly to the Christians. In an opuscule that he titled Discourse : Friend Of The Truth, this governor of Bithynia, says Lactancia, "tried to weaken the importance of Christ's miracles without however denying them, and wanted to show that Apollonius had performed some of equal importance and even more important ones." To refute such allegations, Eusebius of Caesarea answered with a |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 09:42:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would much rather continue reading a back-and-forth between you and Slater regarding this subject than someone like darwin alogos, whose entire argument consists of "Jesus existed because the Bible says so, period.
I don't want either one of you to throw their hands up and walk away.
Except for the better vocabulary I see precious little difference between Darwin Alogogs and this one. There's nothing here but appeals to authority and personal attacks.
In one thread I mentioned the homosexuality of this recent spate of criminal Catholic priests. Several people corrected me, saw that I did not have all the information and supplied me with it. RD attacked, carried the attack onto other threads. I was somehow in her twisted logic not uninformed but down right evil.
Same thing is happening again.
quote:
Perhaps you've "never heard of 50 CE" because you hold current scholarship in contempt, prefering to weave stories about Apollonius' Christianity.
No, "you've never heard of 50 CE" so you should look here and here to see why those who are making this claim have a firm foundation on which to base it.
The history of Apollonius becomes weaving a tale. Not, Apollonius doesn't fit the bill because of (A), (B) and (C)
I'm supposed to hold current scholarship in contempt because I question it. What bull shit. This completely ignores the fact that the way science works IS by questioning current scholarship. The fact that I AM a current scholar is also derided. I've never mentioned what my doctorate is in, nor where I received it, nor what I've done with it. But it's no damn good anyway because I'm an anti-intellectual/bigot and the Ph.D's RD finds acceptable, for whatever unstated reason, are not.
There is no intellectual "back-and-forth" going on here. Attempted discussion with RD is without profit.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 10:04:37 [Permalink]
|
ReasonableDoubt,
I am very interested in the evidence you claim to have.
Please give me an example of:
1. Any new testament document dated by modern methods before the fourth century. Please do not make assertations concerning the opinions of scholars, give me a concrete piece of evidence.
2. Any document dated before the fourth century that references the historic Jesus. There are plenty of existing documents from the period in question, all of which seem to have completely overlooked the wandering hebrew miracle man raising people from the dead.
3. Any example of Slater claiming his position, that the Jesus figure was a deliberate Roman concotion based on other popular figures such as Mithras and Appolonius, is shared by the scholars he references. I only recall him stating that their ideas supported his theory, not that they held the same opinion.
Sorry if this seems rather disrespectful, but I really don't care about the opinion of scholars. I care about the logic and evidence behind those opinions. At one time heliocentrism was touted by all the serious scholars, it's a common phenomenon known to us lay people as "being full of shit"
The popularity of an opinion makes it marketable, not valid.
Here's a thought. Go back and reread this topic from the begining, before the post was split. Most of the current thread has been rehashed to death already. I read to learn, but I don't need quite this much reenforcement.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002
Edited by - DVF on 06/12/2002 10:05:29 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 10:09:30 [Permalink]
|
I still think this whole subject would make a fascinating article and in that form it would be considerably more concise.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 10:21:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater writes:
I'm supposed to hold current scholarship in contempt because I question it. What bull shit. This completely ignores the fact that the way science works IS by questioning current scholarship.
You hold current scholarship in contempt, not because you question it, but because you dismiss it, substituting in its place a 'Roman concoction theory', and then assert, without attribution or support, that "Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position [you] espouse".
You continue to provide zero support for (1) your 'theory, (2) your assertion, or (3) your dismissal of current consensus.
quote:
Slater writes:
The fact that I AM a current scholar is also derided. I've never mentioned what my doctorate is in, nor where I received it, nor what I've done with it. But it's no damn good anyway because I'm an anti-intellectual/bigot and the Ph.D's RD finds acceptable, for whatever unstated reason, are not.
I have no example of your scholarship and no position on your Ph.D. I consider the rest to be a closed issue unless, of course, you wish to revisit it in another thread.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 10:28:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ReasonableDoubt,
I am very interested in the evidence you claim to have.
Sorry, but I simple don't find that statement credible. On what basis, for example, do you disregard http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html?
quote:
Sorry if this seems rather disrespectful, but I really don't care about the opinion of scholars.
And I'm sory if this seems disrespectful, but I do.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 12:05:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On what basis, for example, do you disregard http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html?
Dating methods used on most of the pieces were the comparing of the styles of writing and the material it is written on with pieces of known dates. A practice commonly used between 1930 and 1959. This leaves you with dates like "this piece could not have been written before 150 CE" However when the piece is presented it is presented as being from 150 CE and there is quite a difference.
To subject the pieces to the more accurate carbon dating requires the destruction of small pieces of them, which the curators are understandably loath to do. The idea of a late date of the origins of Christianity is held by only a few and it isn't worth the sacrifice of such expensive documents to check. No one is making any claims that these are documents that are from Jesus' time after all. A hundred years more or less really makes no difference.
Those pieces that have been carbon checked are the more recently found fragments like the Quran Vellum and the Magdalen Papyrus. The problem with them is that they contain pitifully few characters. Just look at the photos. Note that in the blurb for the Magdalen flakes there is a claim that the Greek letters KS mean "lord" which in turn means "Jesus".
Hmmmm...okay, if you say so.
It might also be noted that this web site was designed to present it's information and it's photography but not for the scholarly support of how it reached it's conclusions. Bible Facts © home page and TOC implies that it is owned by a Christian Fundamentalist group whose main concern is spreading the "truth" of the Lord and exposeing of cults. This may or may not detract from their reliability but it does show what their motives of creating this site are.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 12:41:28 [Permalink]
|
Slater: Do you know of any scholarship that supports your assertion that "However the physical evidence dates only from the fourth" century? Do you know of any scholarship that rejects the dates suggested in the earlier reference or, for example ...
quote:
In 1897 a major hoard of papyrus fragments from the first-to-ninth c. CE was discovered at the site of ancient Oxyrhynchus (Egypt). Scholars number papyri in the order in which they were discovered. Fragments from two papyrus scrolls of the non-canonical gospel of Thomas (pOxy 644 & pOxy 655) are among the oldest known texts containing sayings ascribed to Jesus (ca. 200 CE). Most other surviving Christian papyri, including fragments of another copy of Thomas (pOxy 1), are from codices. Only 5 papyri of canonical gospels can be dated to the same era or earlier. These are:
- p52 -- a fragment of John 18 (written ca. 125 CE)
- p90 -- a fragment of John (ca 175 CE)
- p66 -- portions of John 1, 6, 15-16, 20-21 (ca. 200 CE)
- p64; p67 -- fragments of Matthew 3, 5, 26 (ca. 200 CE)
Papyri containing more than one gospel date only after 200 CE. There are two mss. containing the texts of Luke & John, one of Matthew & John, and one of Mark & John. The oldest papyrus to present the four gospels in their current canonical order (p45) also comes from the 3rd c. Yet even this contains only fragments of Matt 20-26, Mark 4-12, Luke 6-13, John 10-18 & Acts 4-17.
[see http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papyrus.html - RD]
quote:
These three small fragments of the gospel of Matthew are the earliest ms. evidence of a synoptic gospel. Discovered at Luxor, Egypt in 1901, p64 was donated to Magdalene College, Oxford where it lay unexamined for half a century. P67 wound up in Barcelona. In 1953 they were published by Colin Roberts, who dated them to the late 2nd c. CE on the basis of handwriting analysis. The fragments are tiny, less the 1"x 2" each, containing only a few words from a few lines.
- P64 contains part of Matt 26:7- 8 with 31 on the back [from the stories of Jesus' anointing at Bethany & Peter's denial];
- P67 is two fragments. The first has a bit of Matt 3:9 with 15 on the back [John the Baptist & Jesus]; the second has more of Matt 5:20- 22 & 25-28 [the antitheses in the sermon on the mount].
The source of these fragments can be identified because they present passages contained only in the gospel of Matthew & not in the other synoptics. They can be dated because they provide good examples of a scribe gradually shifting from square letters to the rounded uncial book script. This development in handwriting took place in Egypt about 200 CE.
In 1994, however, Carston Thiede stunned the world by announcing that the ms. represented by these fragments could have been composed as early as the late 1st c. CE. Thiede reached this conclusion by comparing these fragments with 5 Greek mss. that had to be composed before 75 CE (from the Dead Sea scrolls & Mt. Vesuvius in Italy). Journalists reported this as evidence that the gospel of Matthew could have been written by an eye-witness.
Experts in Greek paleography (ancient handwriting), however, rejected Theide's conclusions on 3 grounds:
- His comparisons were not thorough; he stressed the similarity of the Matthew fragments to the 1st c. mss. but ignored their differences.
- He failed to demonstrate that Roberts was wrong. He did not compare these fragments to 2nd & 3rd c. mss. & simply ignored the bulk of paleographical evidence used to date the emergence of uncial script.
- Other research shows that these Matthew fragments came from the same codex as P4 (now at Paris), which contains a portion of Luke. This makes Thiede's 1st c. dating practically impossible, since the multi-text codex was not developed much before 200 CE.
P64/67 does not help date the composition of the gospel of Matthew. But its importance remains as the earliest copy of a synoptic gospel & (perhaps) as an example of the practice of publishing different gospels in the same book.
[see http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papyrus.html - RD]
quote:
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen
How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.
For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.
[http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html - RD]
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 06/12/2002 12:44:34 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 14:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/papyrus.html - RD]
That's Mahlon H. Smith of the Jesus Seminar saying that these pieces were dated before carbon dating. As I've already stated.
quote:
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen
... we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written.
And there is van Minnen agreeing with me about how they go about dateing these fragments.
As far as Papyrology goes van Minnen is your man. However if, in my field of expertise, someone said 'I have no way to test this and no way to comfirm my data but don't worry I can tell by just looking. Trust me!' ---well, they wouldn't be relied on.
Papyrology is more in the catagory of an art rather than a science.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 06/12/2002 15:00:34 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 17:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Your willingness to dismiss/discount others is less at issue than your credentials for doing so.
Slater: - can you reference any viable support for your contention that "we have no physical evidence that dates from before the Councile of Nicea."?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "The stories about Jesus in the bible are all taken from earlier Pagan myths. All of them."?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "The only people that the jury is still out for is one tiny group of fundys."?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "Your best bet for some historic bones to lay the Jesus myth on is Apollonius of Tyana."?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "the whole thing is a Roman concoction"?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position [you] espouse"?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "G. A. Wells is one" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "Arthur Drews was another" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
- can you reference any viable support for your contention that "Randel Helms [is] a third" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 06/12/2002 17:48:03 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2002 : 22:28:04 [Permalink]
|
can you reference any viable support for your contention that "we have no physical evidence that dates from before the Councile of Nicea."?
Prove that something ISN'T? When your last source was saying that the other methods of dating weren't accurate but his "look and compare" method was, what he was talking about was carbon dating. What's inaccurate about it (in reference to the bible, few researchers in other fields have a problem with it) is the dates are all later than the ones Xians traditionally give.
"The stories about Jesus in the bible are all taken from earlier Pagan myths. All of them." Done that again and again
"The only people that the jury is still out for is one tiny group of fundys. Josephus references haven't been used by main stream scholars for years, I've already explained why.
Your best bet for some historic bones to lay the Jesus myth on is Apollonius of Tyana."
That merely is suggestion. Eusebius, that paragon of Christian virtue, already did a tap dance over one of the first people to make that same suggestion sixteen hundred and fifty years ago. I already stated my opinion which is that there is no historic base for Jesus, only a mythological one. Can you really be as literal and as dense as you seem? Or are you just a well read "web troll" ?
support for your contention that "the whole thing is a Roman concoction"?
I've already written, over the past couple of years, what would amount to a small book on the subject here at SFN.
"Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position [you] espouse"?
Already gave them. But the position I am referring to is Christianity being made out of Pagan myths not by whom or when they did it. But that someone did do it.
support for your contention that "G. A. Wells is one" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
That is not what I was referring to.
He makes a strong case for Jesus not being historic in The Historical Evidence for Jesus
"Arthur Drews was another" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
That is not what I was referring to.
He makes a strong case for Jesus not being historic in The Christ Myth
"Randel Helms [is] a third" who shares this Apollonius/Roman-concoction view?
And this is also not what I was referring to.
A single question for you.
Where is the historic Jesus you are claiming?
Unlike you I don't feel that ideas only have merit if they have been parroted from a third party. In fact I would prefer to hear your own train of logic that you base your claim on.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 06/12/2002 22:30:33 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 09:19:32 [Permalink]
|
I'll take that as a "no".
quote:
A single question for you. Where is the historic Jesus you are claiming?
Claimed where?
quote:
Unlike you I don't feel that ideas only have merit if they have been parroted from a third party. In fact I would prefer to hear your own train of logic that you base your claim on.
No, you prefer to misrepresent my position while you squirm within the constraints of your own. Unlike you I don't feel that ideas only have merit if they flow from the unsubstantiated claims of someone promoting some Apollionus-inspired Roman concoction conspiracy theory and then claiming that "Any number of serious secular historians hold the very position I espouse".
You claim, for example, that there is no physical evidence predating the Council of Nicea. I've offered examples which you evidently discount. Fine, but then: - If you are an expert in the area, please note that fact and refer me to the relevant submittals offered for peer review.
- If, on the other hand, you are basing your opinion and dismissal on countervailing scholarship, please offer the references.
- If, as I suspect, you are simply making baseless assertions that you expect to be taken as truth, it didn't work.
Feel free to suggests anyone with relevant credentials who joins you in insisting on a 4th century CE date for the referenced manuscripts.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 06/13/2002 09:20:26 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 16:56:16 [Permalink]
|
A single question for you. Where is the historic Jesus you are claiming?...
Claimed where?
But, aside from conspiracy theories, I know of no satisfying way to simply discount as unworthy of investigation such things as the Babylonian Talmud:Sanhedrin 43a or, for that matter, Josephus or the letters of Paul.
If you are an expert in the area, please note that fact and refer me to the relevant submittals offered for peer review.
Hmmm...give out personal information to a web troll who posts under a phoney name or let her call me more names? Which to pick, which to pick...?
If, on the other hand, you are basing your opinion and dismissal on countervailing scholarship, please offer the references.
Your own reference already explained well enough. They compare the script styles with those of a known dates.
This can only give you the earliest possible date that a piece could have been written not when it actually was.
Take the much later volume the "Book of Kells" the body copy is writen in long lines of Insular majuscule which includes ocasionally some minuscule forms. It's though that there were three different scribes who worked on it at the same time. Ocassionally more than one worked on a single page. The guy who worked on Matthew used archaic letter forms for their beauty and style. The Y and the G are almost unrecognizable. But the fellow who worked on Luke used not only these old fashioned letters but now and then threw in more modern letterforms.
To date the piece by the process described you would use these "new" G's and Y's. However if "Luke" had been busy and hadn't made it to the scriptorium that day you would only have "Matthew" writing in a style many hundreds of years old.
Writing that way not to trick anyone but because the book was important and the old style lent it beauty and dignity.
anyone with relevant credentials who joins you in insisting on a 4th century CE date for the referenced manuscripts.
Show me the carbon dated pieces that come from before 325 CE and I'll revise my speculation. Or maybe I should just reread the CRI piece on why carbon dating is no damn good?
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 06/13/2002 09:20:26
[/quote]
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 17:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hmmm...give out personal information to a web troll who posts under a phoney name or let her call me more names? Which to pick, which to pick...?
This is truly juvenile and pathetic. Feel free to claim victory. You're not worth my time.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 18:27:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Hmmm...give out personal information to a web troll who posts under a phoney name or let her call me more names? Which to pick, which to pick...?
... truly juvenile and pathetic. ...
Ah...there we go, those are the names.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
