On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by george <gblack@hnpl.net>:
>On Apr 11, 6:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:51:16 -0700, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>: >> >> >> >> >On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following >> >appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper >> ><grahamcoop...@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... > >In that case you have a lifelong wait...
Yeah, but that fact (his inability to predict anything) needs to be reiterated occasionally.
>The only thing out of that quarter is lies, damned lies and >unsubstantiated statistics ...
I'd go with "delusions" rather than lies; it's yet to be demonstrated that he has the faintest idea what the truth actually is. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
