On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0000, in alt.astrology, ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
>In article <1183510734.038321.8310@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Edmond Wollmann PMAFA <alchameth2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> You've seldom actually discussed much astrology, though you've posted
>>> a lot of your essays. Discussion mostly went on around you.
>
>>Not true, from 1996 on you can find very long discussions with all
>>sorts of people with me that are reasoned and mature.
>
>I've looked at those and found your claim to be wrong. You tried
>to preach to people and you pretended to be some be expert; you
>never discussed anything.
>
>>So you won't be satisfied until I spend money to prove you or spinics
>>wrong?
>
>You have no money.
>
>>I am a Taurus Moon in Capricorn, pragmatism comes first, not
>>matter what the Leo ascendant wants to do.
>
>Sorry, astrology doesn't work. All you "pragmatism" is doing
>it getting you laughed at.
>
>>I answer QUESTIONS, dolt!
>
>But the answers are wrong.
>
>>I was presented with a false statement by the spinics.
>
>Which was?
>
>>You see the problem here is that every time the spinics
>>try to make me look bad it backfires on them
>
>The only person that is making you look bad is you, Wollmann, and
>you are doing a damn fine job of it.
>
>>because I simply tell the truth
>
>Liars always say that.
>
>>A sig??? Duh! I am allowed to have a sig.
>
>And we're allow to laugh at your sig. Why is that concept so
>tough for you?
>
>>>As long as people agree with you.
>>
>>Oh bull****, that crap is so ****ing old its pathetic.
>
>That "crap" is sup****t by an overwhelming pile of *evidence*,
>Wollmann. Here is some: http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
>
>>The archives
>>are full of me discussing with all sorts of people and ending on an
>>agreeing to disagree note--both those people were mature.
>
>The archives are full of you running away *every* time you try
>to discuss anything. You are unable to admit to being wrong and
>when the debate shows you to be, you just vanish.
>
>>If you **** with me I take offense, yes, if you are sincere, I can
>>discuss forever with patience.
>
>You take offense when you are disagreed with. That's not discussion.
>
>>You can't inform me sonny.
>
>No, you're too stupid to be informed, Wollmann. That's why you
>are such a failure.
>
>>Into aam where it died from boredom.
>
>It's quite alive. You just can't handle having someone else judge
>your posts.
>
>>Well you certainly can't be a professional, if so your client base
>>must be disappointed.
>
>How is that relevant? Once again we find you trying to turn the
>tables and evading the issue.
>
>>You sure give a lot of credence to a usenet newsgroup nobody reads,
>
>Ok, nobody reads it. Therefore you have no reason to be whining
>about what is posted.
>
>>have you any comments on my Fate VS Free will paper?
>
>No, the paper isn't worthy of discussion.
Several people have made comments. Edmond shows his missed the boat
when he attempted to discuss "Fate" verses "Free Will" is if you only
have "Fate and Free Will" as the only inclusive options. When One
examines the whole situation, there is not truly just two Distinct
and separate options, but a sort of grayscale mix between "Free Will"
and "Fate".
--
Ak'toh'di
|
