🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <393BB642.952F6591@flashcom.net>,
Bob  <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
>Yes, this is your opinion. But unless you are "Universal Authority", you may be as
>wrong as you suspect the Theses are. As has been requested before, why not just
>simply refute one of them and by this you will show the vulnerability of the
>author.

All of the theses have been utterly dismembered here, refuted, and
destroyed, beyond any question or doubt. Why do you then ask ME to
do it again?

>Your denunciation is probably the tenth/twelfth. Where are the arguments?

They have gone by.  Your disingenious replies are tiresome, as is
your purely propagandistic, utterly false claim that nobody has
refuted your heap of nonsense.

It's time to fess up and admit it.

You're wrong, your "theses" are nonsense, and you're simply
refusing to accept each refutation as it comes along. 

Your "theses" are carefully worded to avoid the many mistakes,
false assumptions, etc, that are their base, but each of these
has been exposed here.

Why don't you just admit it?
-- 
Copyright jj@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted.   This notice must be included.  Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.