🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 5, 7:34�pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 6:42 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Aug 4, 9:39 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 4, 10:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 3, 9:31 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Aug 2, 1:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 1, 8:14 am, "Steve O" <nospamh...@thanks.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:f012c137-ec7a-4f41-acf8-81a047bcb82d@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> Smiler,
> >>>>>>>>> I never go to alt.atheism.
> >>>>>>>> Idiot - you are never out of it.
> >>>>>>>> Every time you hit that send button with alt.atheism in your headers, you go
> >>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>> All I am doing is responding to posts in
> >>>>>>>>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
> >>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>>>> And alt.atheism, cretin.
> >>>>>>> I don't care what is in the headers. I have already told you how to
> >>>>>>> avoid talking to me. Just take sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> >>>>>>> out of the header. I never go to alt.atheism.
> >>>>>>> Robert b. Winn
> >>>>>> The issue is really that some of us really object to lies. And when
> >>>>>> we see lies, we feel the need to publicly denounce them to the same
> >>>>>> audience as they were originally disseminated to.
> >>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> If you object to lies, then you should stop posting lies in
> >>>>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. Lies are off topic in these
> >>>>> newsgroups.
> >>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>> I haven't posted any lies. You however, have demonstrably posted many
> >>>> lies
> >>> It did not happen. I was the person who said that Hezekiah's tunnel
> >>> exists, which was demonstrated to be true.
> >> And King's Cross Station exists.
>
> > Does the Bible say that King's Cross Station exists?
>
> No, because, when the Bible was written, the station was not built yet.
> � When the Bible was written, it didn't even REFERENCE the entire
> country that would later be known as England.
>
Well, then you cannot prove the Bible wrong by using King's Cross
Station.  You would have to use something in the Bible.
Robert B. Winn