Atheism versus God

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

That is a one-sided sword which cuts only one way.

It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.

Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Question

by Norm Deplume Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Note how Polyglide drops in, posts ridiculous and palpably false claims, then leaves all the questions for evidence unanswered, only to return a while later and make exactly the same claims as if the questions that demand evidence for his claims have not been asked at all.

Yep, he's a seagull. And an ultracrepidarian.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:00 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Note how Polyglide drops in, posts ridiculous and palpably false claims, then leaves all the questions for evidence unanswered, only to return a while later and make exactly the same claims as if the questions that demand evidence for his claims have not been asked at all.

Yep, he's a seagull. And an ultracrepidarian.

His posts would suggest he more resembles a parrot than a seagull. As for him being an ultracrepidarian, it's a given since his posts indicate he has no expertise in anything, despite his bombastic claims at the start of this discourse to have expert debating skills. I'm sure we're all in awe of those by now as well.

by polyglide Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:55 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I do wish you would learn to spell, the word is ulraism.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:58 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I do wish you would learn to spell, the word is ulraism.

I'm not sure what word you're claiming is "ulraism" (sic), but I'm pretty sure that's not a word. Not in English anyway. Any chance you're going to address any of the points that have been put to you?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:11 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I do wish you would learn to spell, the word is ulraism.

When you're done trying to invent new words and proving you can't look up existing ones in the dictionary, perhaps you can finally address some of the questions you've ignored just in this thread?

polyglide If something exists it has both a cause and a reason.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
So God had a cause then? What was that in your humble opinion?

polyglide: Evolution has no explanation whatsoever how material was created from atoms, nor how atoms themselves were created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
True enough, but then neither does calculus, or Pythagoras's theorem, or Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, are they all wrong as well then? Or is it perhaps that like evolution they are not making any claims about the origin of life?

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
1. If Darwinian evolution had been refuted then why hasn't science discarded it? Also the person falsifying evolution would be a household name and a Nobel prize winner. So please tell us why they're not?
2. Why have the largest christian churches on the planet been forced to accept Darwinian evolution as a fact if it is already falsified?
3. Attaching supernatural causation to evolution requires YOU to cite the peer reviewed scientific evidence. Where is it?

by polyglide Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:27 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The word is ultraism, I thought you would have known.

Right, let's sort out the questions.

I have never ever said that Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

I have said they do not in any way answer the origin of life.

I am not realy interested in what the pagan churches think about anything.

The reason we are unable to prove how life came about is because we have a limited knowledge regarding what is and what is not possible.

I agree entirely that I can only base my own opinion on faith and that which I have experienced along with probabilities etc; etc;

This to my mind is far better an explanation than life to have come about by chance.

Just as there is no scientific evidence that life came about by chance there is also no other evidence to support my claim regarding God.

Other than life is so complicated in all it's forms and interdependantcies that the only intelligent conclusion I can come to is that there must be an intelligence of some kind involved that is aware of all the requirements for the existance of life and it's continuity.

I trust this answers where I stand on these matters.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:40 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, The word is ultraism, I thought you would have known.

So you misspelled the word in the post where tried to insult my spelling, well done. However ultraism is not a word in the English language either, so you're really outdoing yourself here.

Are you by any chance talking about ultracrepidarian? If so I didn't use it Norm did, I merely quoted it, and both he and I spelled it correctly, and we both used it in the correct context as well. So you were completely wrong, and the word you offered doesn't exist, and you misspelled it, well done champ.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ultracrepidarian
ultracrepidarian
adjective
1. noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise:

You're priceless, you really are.

by Norm Deplume Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:43 pm

polyglide wrote:
The word is ultraism, I thought you would have known.

Ultraism is a new word for me. If you think that ultraist is a synonym for ultracrepidarian then you are wrong.

Ultraist: One who holds extreme opinions; an extremist.

ultra-crepiˈdarian, a. and n.
A. adj. Going beyond one's proper province; giving opinions on matters beyond one's knowledge.
B. n. One who ventures beyond his scope; an ignorant or presumptuous critic.

(It can be written with or without the hyphen.)

An ultra-repidarian ultraist is, therefore, someone who hold extreme opinions on subjects of which he or she knows nothing.

by Norm Deplume Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
ultraism is not a word in the English language either, so you're really outdoing yourself here.

You are mistaken, here.
It has been recorded from 1821, and ultraist from the 1840s. (See my last post, source=OED)

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:51 pm

polyglide wrote: I have never ever said that Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

Post by polyglide on Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:44 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
If you want scientific evidence against evolution, regarding creation, then just put it on your computer and you will have numerous uncontradicted references, that prove to believe in evolution relative to creation is like believing in Santa Clause.

Post by polyglide on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:11 pm
DR. Sheldon, The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;

You're neglecting your ten commandments again, well the one about lying anyway, and that's just in this thread.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:53 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
ultraism is not a word in the English language either, so you're really outdoing yourself here.

You are mistaken, here.
It has been recorded from 1821, and ultraist from the 1840s. (See my last post, source=OED)

Thank you Norm, I stand corrected. What's impressive here is you manage to spell it correctly, show the context of my mistake, quote the OED, provide a link, and avoid using a childish supercilious insult as well.

Polyglide take note....

by polyglide Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:05 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Collin's dictionary 30th anniversary eddition.

Page 1769 second column forth word down.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:17 pm

polyglide wrote: I have never ever said that Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes you have, more than once. You even did it earlier today claiming it was mathematically disproved.

I have said they do not in any way answer the origin of life.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It doesn't tell you how to make apple crumble either, what's your point?

I am not realy interested in what the pagan churches think about anything.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Two l's in really this is a few times now, and after your pompous and erroneous claim ultraism fiasco that's quite an own goal. I'm sure we could fill a library with things you don't care about, but again your point escapes me as you offer no context whatsoever. Instead of useless and irritating double line breaks why not try quoting the relevant part of a post you're responding to? Who knows you might not have to insult people so much for not being unable to understand your posts.

The reason we are unable to prove how life came about is because we have a limited knowledge regarding what is and what is not possible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again your point escapes me, but two things are obvious, you are the one claiming to know how life cam about, not me or science, so you're defeating the claim of your own faith here. Secondly the whole purpose of science is to study the unknown offer hypothesis, then collect evidence and construct testable models to validate it. So if science proves how life started and it has an entirely natural explanation, as science has done with numerous other theistic claims for supernatural causation then there is one less gap to insert god into.

I agree entirely that I can only base my own opinion on faith and that which I have experienced along with probabilities etc; etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Except faith is either a valid source for uncovering truth or it is not, if it is then every religions and every claim by every nutcase based on faith is true, now that's axiomatically spurious. So we're left with you making a subjective claim based on your faith. Science in contrast is designed precisely to remove subjectivity.

This to my mind is far better an explanation than life to have come about by chance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's not an explanation as all you've done is posit something you have no evidence for, besides and for the trillionth time NO ONE HAS CLAIMED LIFE CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE.

Just as there is no scientific evidence that life came about by chance there is also no other evidence to support my claim regarding God.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Except no one has claimed life came about by chance, whereas you are claiming that your version of your deity exists.

Other than life is so complicated in all it's forms and interdependantcies that the only intelligent conclusion I can come to is that there must be an intelligence of some kind involved that is aware of all the requirements for the existance of life and it's continuity.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Nice quote, but it uses nothing but assumption based on argumentum ad ignorantiam, this is a logical fallacy, I believe I've explained this one enough times now, you can' base claims on what you don't know, it's god of the gaps and nothing more. Lastly the diversity of life is amply and elegantly explained by the scientific FACT of evolution.

I trust this answers where I stand on these matters.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not really, so you have claimed that evolution has been refuted, and now are trying to wriggle out of the claim. You're even claiming it is wrong here, based on nothing more than personal subjective conjecture. Science trumps personal opinion, especially when that opinion is based on faith and no evidence.

So to recap:

1. Evolution is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence, thus the biblical account of creationism is an erroneous myth. Glad we got that sorted as you seemed to be suggesting otherwise.
2. No one has received a Nobel prize for falsifying evolution because of 1.
3. It hasn't been in the news for the same reason (1).

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Collin's dictionary 30th anniversary eddition. Page 1769 second column forth word down.

Unlike you I already acknowledged my error, I have never had a problem admitting a mistake. Will that ref contain the apology you owe for your mistake and an admission of that mistake in claiming I'd incorrectly spelled a word when I had not, since the word both Norm and I had used was:

1. Not the one you were claiming.
2. Spelled correctly.
3. Used in the correct context.

You really need to start quoting post as well, as this is the reason people so often haven't a clue what you're talking about. Simply posting a response with no context is often indecipherable. Look how much bandwidth has just been wasted on this when you were completely wrong, but it wasn't clear what you were talking about.

by polyglide Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:45 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I apologise for not making clear to which post I am replying to, however, I find typing hard enough and when half way through a post it vanishes it does not help, so I type as fast as I can and post it as fast as I can and cannot check the spelling etc;

I do not have my own computer and the library one has a limited usage.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:00 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I apologise for not making clear to which post I am replying to, however, I find typing hard enough and when half way through a post it vanishes it does not help, so I type as fast as I can and post it as fast as I can and cannot check the spelling etc;

I do not have my own computer and the library one has a limited usage.

Then why make derisory and insulting comments in almost every post about the ability of others to read, write and understand English? You are inviting comment on your spelling and grammar by doing so, so why not focus on the content of people's posts?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:08 am

You missed this with your obfuscating diversion about a word that you were entirely wrong about, so perhaps you can address them now?

polyglide wrote:
I have never ever said that Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

Post by polyglide on Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:44 pm
If you want scientific evidence against evolution, regarding creation, then just put it on your computer and you will have numerous uncontradicted references, that prove to believe in evolution relative to creation is like believing in Santa Clause.

Post by polyglide on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:11 pm
The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;

by snowyflake Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:53 am

You spend an inordinate amount of time at the library, polyglide. You must be there for hours. What does your wife think you are up to? And why would you go out of your way, out of the comfort of your house to argue about god, the existence of god, the characteristics of god with strangers on the internet.

Do you think this will get you into heaven? Being such a staunch believer? I'm curious as to what denomination of Christianity you subscribe to. You may have told me before but I've forgotten so please forgive me if I'm asking again.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:23 am

To be fair Polyglide's posts have shown no indication that he desires any kind of discussion about God, or religion. He preaches his own doctrine and beliefs, but he is entirely disinterested in any discussion on the topic and either completely ignores all points and questions put to him, or simply repeats his dogma with some childish ad hominem directed at anyone who dares disagree with his claims.

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:10 pm

snowyflake,
My wife is a very understanding lady and appreciates my belief and also shares it regarding God.

I will not have a computer in the house because I feel I would spend, or be tempted to spend, more time on it involving things of no importance.

My children have computers as do my grandchildren and I could afford half a dozen if I wanted to.

As for my belief, I believe in God and that Jesus came to save God's people.

As for any established Church I have little or no time, every one has to some degree compromised their own belief to satisfy the wishes of a section of their congregation.

There is only one church and that is attended by those who pray and believe in God and Jesus and can be any place and any where.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:15 pm

You've gone and ignored these again, so I'll repost them.

polyglide wrote:
I have never ever said that Darwin's theories have been proven wrong.

Post by polyglide on Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:44 pm
If you want scientific evidence against evolution, regarding creation, then just put it on your computer and you will have numerous uncontradicted references, that prove to believe in evolution relative to creation is like believing in Santa Clause.

Post by polyglide on Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:11 pm
The way in which Christians refute evolution is as a means of creation and not the improvement or betterment of a species etc;

by snowyflake Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:22 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
My wife is a very understanding lady and appreciates my belief and also shares it regarding God.

I will not have a computer in the house because I feel I would spend, or be tempted to spend, more time on it involving things of no importance.

My children have computers as do my grandchildren and I could afford half a dozen if I wanted to.

As for my belief, I believe in God and that Jesus came to save God's people.

As for any established Church I have little or no time, every one has to some degree compromised their own belief to satisfy the wishes of a section of their congregation.

There is only one church and that is attended by those who pray and believe in God and Jesus and can be any place and any where.

polyglide, why do you believe in god? What is it about belief that is attractive to you? What does the bible say that convinces you it is true?

by polyglide Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:53 pm

snowyflake,
I think I have told you previously that when I was young, some 79 years ago, I was subjected to threats of hell and burning in a large pit etc; and to say I was terrified at times would be an understatement.

Following a lifetime of experience including many, many, in different parts of the world I began to look at all the possibilities regarding life and it's meaning.

This in stages and involving many different aspects of life, including the theory of evolution.

Then I began to look in terms of possibilities,

On no account could I believe that all the life on earth came about by chance.

The only other alternative was a creator.

by polyglide Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:10 pm

snowyflake,
I have split this post into two as I am afraid of it disappearing as it often does.

I looked back at what Pastor Hughes had frightened the life out of me with [ I still have the New Testament he signed in 1945 and I use it to this day]

So I again looked at the Bible only in a different light.

I did not and do not understand much of the Old Testamnet.

However, I came to the conclusion that statements regarding matters like the Ark must have some reverlance or why would anyone wanting to deceive use such an example if there was no truth in the matter. this along with other such examples.

Everyone has doubts at times and I am no different, however, every time a doubt has arrisen I have prayed for an explanation and believe me I have never been disappointed.

I have seen life in circumstances one would find hard to believe in a world where everyones needs could be met and this could only be explained by humans not behaving in a manner that one would think they would without outside influences playing a part.

Then I looked for the possible source of of the influence and the Bible gave me the answer in the form of Satan.

snowyflake, I have attempted to answer honestly your request and trust you will understand my reply.

Dr, Sheldon,
Keep out.

by Norm Deplume Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:25 pm

polyglide wrote:
However, I came to the conclusion that statements regarding matters like the Ark must have some reverlance or why would anyone wanting to deceive use such an example if there was no truth in the matter. this along with other such examples.

Then I looked for the possible source of of the influence and the Bible gave me the answer in the form of Satan.

There you have it. Put those two sentences together and the most obvious explanation from your point of view is that Satan wrote parts of the Bible, or that Satan invented Yahweh as a disguise.

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:30 am

Norm Deplume,
What palnet are you on?.

You miss the whole point regarding the Ark.

If the Bible was not a correct history of what actually happened and was written to fool people then it would all be lovey dovey and give no one the chance to say God was this or that.

The Ark proves that the events involved did indeed occur and there is evidence to support the fact, choose how you try to alter the intention of a statement does not alter the relevance when considered in the manner presented.

Satan had nothing to do with the Bible and there has never been any suggestion as far as I am aware other than yourself who would put forward such a nonesense, the only thing he has to do with it is the role he is presently playing in using people like you to pull his strings in an attempt to denounce it.

The fact that the Bible tells us that Satan is a beast of the most henious kind should be proof that had he had notning to do with the Bibles contents or he would be a good little boy.

So please try to understand the meaning and implications of what is written and intended rather than try to be a clever Dick.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:09 pm

Polyglide wrote: On no account could I believe that all the life on earth came about by chance.

The only other alternative was a creator.

Who has claimed life came about purely by chance? Other than you of course. I suspect this is either another silly assumption you've made or some piece of creationist propaganda you've swallowed in your fervent desire to convince yourself that your beliefs are valid.

God is certainly Why not the only other choice, which why your assumptuons are spurious. It also shows why your claims in that post are simply not true as you'd know this to be the case if you really had spent a lifetime objectively studying the things you claim.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:12 pm

Polyglide wrote: I came to the conclusion that statements regarding matters like the Ark must have some reverlance or why would anyone wanting to deceive use such an example if there was no truth in the matter.

The same claim could be made for all other religious claims. You're not applying the same reasoning to anything as you do to your own beliefs. I'm surprised you need anyone to point out how subjective your thought process is here.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:18 pm

Polyglide wrote:
I have seen life in circumstances one would find hard to believe in a world where everyones needs could be met and this could only be explained by humans not behaving in a manner that one would think they would without outside influences playing a part.

Then I looked for the possible source of of the influence and the Bible gave me the answer in the form of Satan.

What you believe isn't evidenced. The problem is you're simply making a subjective assumption based on a priori beliefs. There are other simpler explanations, and these are supported by evidence. Whereas there is no evidence of supernatural causation for anything.

One last word. Who exactly do you think you are to tell others what they can and cannot respond to in a public forum?

If you don't want to take part in a discussion that involves opinions that differ from your own then leave. Otherwise keep such childish comments to yourself.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:28 pm

Polyglide wrote: The Ark proves that the events involved did indeed occur and there is evidence to support the fact, choose how you try to alter the intention of a statement does not alter the relevance when considered in the manner presented.

It's risible nonsense. What's more it was plagiarised from an earlier Babylonian religious myth. There isn't enough water in the earth's atmosphere to flood the planet in anything like the manner described.

The Babylonians wouldn't have known this of course anymore than the Israelites when they plagiarised the myth. That's before we even contemplate the impossible task of a family of no more than two dozen people gathering at least two of every air breathing creature let alone the diverse food required to sustain them and to cater for the widely differing environments they'd need. All on a wooden ship made entirely by hand. It's laughable nonsense and anyone who literally thinks it true must need specialist help.

Did god warn all the babies he drowned beforehand by the way. As you claim elsewhere he always warns humans he kills beforehand.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:31 pm

Polyglide wrote: So please try to understand the meaning and implications of what is written and intended rather than try to be a clever Dick.

Perhaps you could try to be a little less pompous when your risible arguments are disabled as this one was by Norm. Who merely pointed out the logical consequence of your laughable claims.

by Norm Deplume Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:29 pm

polyglide wrote:
What planet are you on?.

Most of the time I call it Earth or "the world". Are you aware of any other planets that support intelligent life?

polyglide wrote:
If the Bible was not a correct history of what actually happened and was written to fool people then it would all be lovey dovey and give no one the chance to say God was this or that.

How does the Bible's picture of a vengeful, jealous, angry, mass-murdering deity lead to a conclusion that there must be a good god?

The book of Leviticus contains much about what to do if the religious laws are transgressed. Most seem to involve donating goods to the priests, Are you really so naive that you can't see a scam here? Invent a few restrictions, set out penalties for failure to comply and collect the penances. It helps if you can point to a powerful figure ready to enforce payment.

The Levitical laws derive their name from the tribe of Levi which contianed the heriditary priesthood. What a coincidence!

polyglide wrote:
The Ark proves that the events involved did indeed occur and there is evidence to support the fact,

What evidence? Strop, strop, slash. Hitchens's razor makes another appearance.

polyglide wrote:
Satan had nothing to do with the Bible

Satan does not exist and cannot have anything to do with the Bible. For the same reason. God cam have nothing to do with it either. People exist and are capable of making up stories, so they can.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:47 pm

I meant to edit the post above as my phone chose the word disabled when I meant dismantled.

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:22 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You are not infalable after all, you are forgiven.

Just log on to The Ark and there are numerous explanations etc;

Satan is more alive than any human and the evidence is clear in the present state of the earth and it's inhabitants.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:02 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You are not infalable after all, you are forgiven.

Just log on to The Ark and there are numerous explanations etc;

Satan is more alive than any human and the evidence is clear in the present state of the earth and it's inhabitants.

Hitchen's razor applies again. Slash.

Please address my post as otherwise I'll not deal with yours.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:46 pm

What's this Ark, polyglide is babbling about all over the forum? You'd think he'd have the courtesy to provide a link.

by Norm Deplume Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:50 pm

snowyflake wrote:What's this Ark, polyglide is babbling about all over the forum? You'd think he'd have the courtesy to provide a link.

There was some sort of raid and it was lost.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:24 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You are not infalable after all, you are forgiven. Just log on to The Ark and there are numerous explanations etc; Satan is more alive than any human and the evidence is clear in the present state of the earth and it's inhabitants.

I've never claimed to be infallible, though in this instance it was my smartphone's predictive text that was to blame. Satan is a fiction, and like all fictions there is not one shred of real evidence to support it. The present state of the earth requires nothing supernatural to explain it, nor does anything that is occurring or has ever occurred require supernatural causation. Furthermore every single time humans have claimed supernatural causation for events which they couldn't explain they have been disproved. Not once has such a claim ever stood up to proper scrutiny.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:01 am

I see no response to the points made or the questions put in my post above on Wed Apr 01, 2015 at 2:28 pm?

Any thoughts Polyglide, as I took the time and trouble to read and respond to your post it's fairly rude for you to ignore my response whilst continuing to address points at me.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:07 am

Perhaps Polyglide could also address my posts:
on Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:12
on Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:09
on Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:15

Just for starters, as you have reposted after each of these addressing me directly, but ignoring those posts almost entirely?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:10 am

All those posts are on this page btw.

by Sponsored content