RIP Roger Boisjoly: He Tried To Stop Challenger Launch

[AV1611VET]

My opinion is no less valid, just because I don't spend half my life posting in counting threads, thank you very much. A seven figure post count is nothing to be proud of when 99% of it is tripe.

Then forget the post count and I'll use your join date; and if that bothers you, I can use your user title.

 

[Cromulent]

Then forget the post count and I'll use your join date; and if that bothers you, I can use your user title.

And these invalidate my opinions or belittle me as a person how, exactly?

 

[AV1611VET]

And these invalidate my opinions or belittle me as a person how, exactly?

I'm not going to argue with you, Cromulent.

No one in P&LS or C&E argues against the Crusades as effectively as I do -- (in my opinion).

In fact, when the Crusades are brought up, I have a very penetrating question I ask the person bringing it up, and VERY SELDOM will he/she answer it.

Instead, if you watch them, they'll quietly drop it and not mention it any further -- (to me, anyway; they know better).

The 30,000 sects junk (which I believe is really 33,000) is a figure that is, again in my opinion, pulled out of someone's imagination; and I'm not going to argue against all 33,000 of them and say which ones I think are true Christians and which ones I don't.

I would get moderated for that -- and rightly so.

The faith healer thing was answered by me years ago, when I mentioned that I too put on a demonstration* before an adult class that stunned one member to the point that she interrupted my demonstration, and I had to assure her it was fake, and that I would reveal my method at the end.

* The demonstration was I correctly reading what was written in a list of 25 sealed envelopes; one envelop at a time.

So you don't really know me, do you, newbie?

So just sit back down and be...

Oh, and one more thing, your 'double standards' remark.

You say I use the Challenger incident to condemn all of science; and I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.

So I won't.

 

[Cromulent]

I'm not going to argue with you, Cromulent.

No one in P&LS or C&E argues against the Crusades as effectively as I do -- (in my opinion).

In fact, when the Crusades are brought up, I have a very penetrating question I ask the person bringing it up, and VERY SELDOM will he/she answer it.

Instead, if you watch them, they'll quietly drop it and not mention it any further -- (to me, anyway; they know better).

So ask it then.

The 30,000 sects junk (which I believe is really 33,000) is a figure that is, again in my opinion, pulled out of someone's imagination; and I'm not going to argue against all 33,000 of them and say which ones I think are true Christians and which ones I don't.

I would get moderated for that -- and rightly so.

The faith healer thing was answered by me years ago, when I mentioned that I too put on a demonstration* before an adult class that stunned one member to the point that she interrupted my demonstration, and I had to assure her it was fake, and that I would reveal my method at the end.

* The demonstration was I correctly reading what was written in a list of 25 sealed envelopes; one envelop at a time.

So you don't really know me, do you, newbie?

So just sit back down and be...

Oh, and one more thing, your 'double standards' remark.

You say I use the Challenger incident to condemn all of science; and I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.

So I won't.

I'm sorry, you use the Challenger incident to justify your dishonesty in picking and choosing which science you like, and which you don't. I don't need two million posts to figure out that you're full of hot air, and your claims of multiple victories are probably either completely fictitious, or else you're blowing winning a little semantic game out of all proportion.

 

[Split Rock]

And you don't?

I'm glad you asked me that question. The answer is No. Another creationist a few years ago said the same thing to me. He admitted that he believed whatever fit his worldview, but he added "just like you do." He was wrong, however. I don't believe something, just because it fits my worldview, or because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Rather, I believe what the evidence leads to... even if I don't like the conclusion. It's called accepting reality. Something I know you don't like to do. I think this difference in thought processes is one of the reasons we wind up talking past each other so frequently.

 

[CabVet]

I'm glad you asked me that question. The answer is No. Another creationist a few years ago said the same thing to me. He admitted that he believed whatever fit his worldview, but he added "just like you do." He was wrong, however. I don't believe something, just because it fits my worldview, or because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Rather, I believe what the evidence leads to... even if I don't like the conclusion. It's called accepting reality. Something I know you don't like to do. I think this difference in thought processes is one of the reasons we wind up talking past each other so frequently.

Exactly, and that is precisely why scientists don't mind correcting theories if the new evidence is better than the old.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm glad you asked me that question. The answer is No. Another creationist a few years ago said the same thing to me. He admitted that he believed whatever fit his worldview, but he added "just like you do." He was wrong, however. I don't believe something, just because it fits my worldview, or because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Rather, I believe what the evidence leads to... even if I don't like the conclusion. It's called accepting reality. Something I know you don't like to do. I think this difference in thought processes is one of the reasons we wind up talking past each other so frequently.

 

[selfinflikted]

Let's let Boisjoly rest in piec... er ... peace -- shall we?

Aw, come on AV. That's a little much.

 

[Gath]

No, and I don't plan to.

How can you hope to understand something if you never see any of the evidence? You choose not to believe it and don't read information about it, but still somehow think you have a good understanding of what happened?

Scientists have a way of arguing with each other -- calling it peer review -- and dragging issues out for months and even years.

If reality was simple enough that it didn't take years to figure things out, we'd know everything by now.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad you asked me that question. The answer is No. Another creationist a few years ago said the same thing to me. He admitted that he believed whatever fit his worldview, but he added "just like you do." He was wrong, however. I don't believe something, just because it fits my worldview, or because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Rather, I believe what the evidence leads to... even if I don't like the conclusion. It's called accepting reality. Something I know you don't like to do. I think this difference in thought processes is one of the reasons we wind up talking past each other so frequently.

So you're saying I like the concept of Hell?

Hell makes me feel 'warm and fuzzy inside' (no pun intended), does it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Aw, come on AV. That's a little much.

 

[Split Rock]

So you're saying I like the concept of Hell?

Hell makes me feel 'warm and fuzzy inside' (no pun intended), does it?

As long as you aren't the one going to it .

 

[Freodin]

Okay, newbie, thank you for your opinion.

You are quite shockingly intellectually dishonest.

Now take a look at my join date and see how you like that.... newbie!

 

[AV1611VET]

As long as you aren't the one going to it .

Oh, I see -- so the thought of having loved ones in Hell, like my mom, is something I relish?

You guys can't think this stuff through, can you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are quite shockingly intellectually dishonest.

Now take a look at my join date and see how you like that.... newbie!

And you are quite [not so] shockingly wrong.

Now take a look at my post count and see how you like that.... newbie!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh, I see -- so the thought of having loved ones in Hell, like my mom, is something I relish?

You guys can't think this stuff through, can you?

What did your mum do to deserve Hell?

 

[Nabobalis]

What did your mum do to deserve Hell?

I assume she didn't share 100% the same views as AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

What did your mum do to deserve Hell?

It's what she didn't do.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It's what she didn't do.

A wild stab in the dark: did she fail to embrace Jesus as her saviour and so deserve eternal torment?

 

[AV1611VET]

A wild stab in the dark: did she fail to embrace Jesus as her saviour and so deserve eternal torment?

For the record, I'm bringing this up to pwn Rocky's statement here:

I don't believe something, just because it fits my worldview, or because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Rather, I believe what the evidence leads to... even if I don't like the conclusion. It's called accepting reality. Something I know you don't like to do. I think this difference in thought processes is one of the reasons we wind up talking past each other so frequently.

... not to discuss where my mother is.