Re: 6 Die From Brain-Eating Amoeba in Lakes

John Q. Public II wrote:
> On Oct 17, 6:22 am, "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>> John Q. Public II wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:45 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
wrote:
>>>> "Merlin" <no...@here.net> wrote in message
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:27:22 -0400, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid>
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:46:17 GMT, Dubh Ghall
>>>>>> <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality
(as
>>>>>>> God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who
is
>>>>>>> not committed to believing in either the existence or the
>>>>>>> nonexistence of God or a god
>>
>>>>>> But one who doesn't believe in the existence of a god is an
>>>>>> atheist, so Webster's is giving a common (but incorrect) usage,
>>>>>> not the definition.
>>
>>>>> Let's see, should I believe the entire staff of a publication that
>>>>> specializes in defining words or some asshole from a Usenet
>>>>> group...
>>
>>>>> Sorry Pal, you lose. The staff of any publication of this kind so
>>>>> far outweighs you're fucked up opinion that it's actually pretty
>>>>> funny to see you try to say that they are wrong.
>>
>>>>> You're wrong.
>>
>>>> So why do you lie and deny their current "definition" ?
>>
>>> I haven't, you idiot. I've quoted the definition that I use.
>>
>> You're lying again. That "definition" never existed.
>>
>>> You really are that stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> Why do you lie? Lying won't make you an agnostic.
>
> You're the one lying. Check with Websters, dumbass.

I did check, your definition doesn't exist, liar.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

Merlin (19.10.2007 17:13)