Terry, where's your "Bible etc.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>BRIDEAN

>Of course you know that a *partially armored* car would not protect you

>from a powerful explosive underneath the car.  The up and down force of 

>such an explosion, if it does not hurt the car, would be enough to hurt

>you since your body would not be able to take the stress.


Yes, I know. That's why it's called *partially*. Mine has
no protection on the floor at all, so it wouldn't even
need up and down, just grenade fragments. The weight and
cost of a fully armored car was just too much and not
needed. I don't anticipate any bombs or any hand grenades,
just hunting rifles, only 30.06's so far. It's more of a
gesture since anyone determined enough can kill anyone,
whether a president or a king. These fools are attempting
to scare me, not kill me, and I don't want some bad aim
to get me accidentally. The car's also a status symbol.

BRIDEAN
What need do you have for a "status symbol"?


>Oh, I forgot,

>you are just a bunch of data stored in a computer chip aren't you? 


DICK
The minds of all living things are nothing but a bunch
of data stored somewhere. Whether it's an organic brain
or an inorganic chip doesn't much matter. Do you imagine
you're more than a few bits of data, like a spirit or soul
maybe?


>In

>that case, since computer chips can not handle electrical voltages of

>greater than 6 volts very well, a strong electrical shock should do the

>trick.


Well, in my case, it's not that sort of chip. The soul
catcher was a very early primitive design. Much later
models are a plasmatic state not disturbed by electric
shocks at all. Immortal, in fact.

And this was your fallacy of false generalization. Some
chips can stand many thousands of volts. Your soaking
wet organic brain can't take much voltage either.

BRIDEAN
I don't know any chips that can withstand "many thousands of volts"
The voltage of a car has to be reduced using resistors in order for a
computer chip to work.

DICK
BTW, you've suggested two ways to kill me. Is that what
a moral person spends his time doing?

BRIDEAN
If even a so called "fool" like me can think of those ways, without much
effort I might add, then it doesn't sound like you really have that much
protection.


>DICK

>But then you have no idea of what the word 'evidence'

>means, do you, since it NEVER has anything to do with

>words. And you seem to fail to realize that when no one

>ever presents any logic for me to answer, then I can only

>content myself by responding in kind with the same sort

>of fallacies being used by the fools. Only I do them better.



>BRIDEAN

>Well, since you spend all of your time doing this, I am sure

>you do better than people who have other things to do.


DICK
Not all my time, your fallacy of false generalization. I
read my customary three books today, spent nearly four hours
debugging a cruddy Window 95 bug, 

BRIDEAN
Why waste your time with Windows 95 when there are better operating systems
out there?  



>BRIDEAN

>Gee, and I thought in a previous post you said that the only TRUE

>Christianity is the Roman Catholic version of it.  Sounds like a 

>defense of Catholicism to me.


DICK
But then you don't know the meaning of the word defense
do you? The Catholic Church needs no defense from me, being
protected by Christ and all the Heavenly Host. 

BRIDEAN
Why would Christ and the "Heavenly Host" want to defend the 
Catholic church?  Do these things even exist?

DICK
What I said was that there is only one Christianity and that one is
headed up by the Pope, just as Christ commanded. 

BRIDEAN
The Pope does not head the Orthodox churches.  The Orthodox are
typically even more anti-Catholic than the Lutherns are.



>BRIDEAN

>Well, considering that I have material like:



>>DICK

>>The Catholic WAS and IS the ONLY form

>>of true Christianity, and the ONLY basic Christianity. 



>And then:

>>DICK

>>I have never defended ANYTHING, much less the Holy

>>Roman Catholic Church, saying all religions are manmade

>>foolishness created to have power over human beings. 



>Which view of yours should I logically and rationally think about?


DICK
Well, since you know neither logic nor reason, it doesn't
really matter. If you knew logic and reason, then you might
see that both are not only logically and reasonably true,
but true in reality where it counts. Before I could defend
anything there would first have to be an attack but none
has been presented, only the sounds of fools gnashing.

Do you really see some sort of conflict between these
statements you quoted? Here I'll say the same thing.

The Utah Mormons WERE and ARE the ONLY form of true
Mormonism, and the ONLY basic Mormonism. I have never
defended ANYTHING, much less the Mormon Church, saying
all religions are manmade foolishness created to have
power over human beings. 

Does this sound like a *defense* of Mormonism to you?
Need I say you're a fool?


BRIDEAN
Yes, because you are defending Utah Mormons against OTHER forms
of Mormonism.  Similarly when you say that Catholicism is the only
TRUE form of Christianity, you are defending it against OTHER forms
of Christianity.

• Previous message: Brian Dean vs Dick Jones
• Next message: Terry, where's your "Bible etc.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]