On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:51:16 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following >appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper ><grahamcooper7@gmail.com>: > >>On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >>> >>> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point >>> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather .... >> >>> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head? >> >>[BOB] >>> There are enough >>> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one >>> next week for the following week. >> >>[BOB] * >>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point >>> involve the daily weather .... > >Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or >GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has... > >>[HERC] >>How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it? > >Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable >prediction... > ><snip irrelevantia>
Still waiting... --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
