NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16548

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!fedfil!news
From: [e-mail] (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (2 of 4)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:18:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]^ <[e-mail]^<[e-mail]>
Organization: HTE
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stan Friesen) writes:
^In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (news) writes:

^|> ^     When the poster posts an article a second time without reguard to
^|> ^ any of the criticisms or errors discovered in the original post by other
^|> ^ members of t.o, then he (or she) is indeed a liar because the person is
^|> ^ posting material containing known errors.

^|> This then is the rationale for Merrrrrittttt, Frog, Rufus Day, and all the
^|> others to calling me, Bob Bales, and others liars.  This then is the
^|> state to which scientific debate in America has sunk.

^Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be false.
^When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be incorrect you are
^indeed being a liar (since you have been given every opportunity to discover
^that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this you must either correct the
^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.

I have provided such evidence over and over again, and adequately refuted all
of the counterclaims being made by yourself and others.  Nonetheless, you and
others simply go on posting the same tired old rubbish;  obviously, by your
own standards, you and a number of the others are lairs.



--
Ted Holden
HTE