omg WTH is this op? wow, anyone who debates atheists without referring to this thread must be floged lol.

99% of nl atheists fits into this list well well

toba:

omg WTH is this op? wow, anyone who debates atheists without referring to this thread must be floged lol.

99% of nl atheists fits into this list well well

perhaps you mean the remaining 1% are those who simply show up to cheerlead since they are not intelligent enough to think of something to say?

This is a manual for atheism right here. Failure to reference this when speaking with an atheist should be a felony.

Deities and 'transcendental beings' of the Evangelical atheists*

1. Flying spaghetti monster
2. Invisible pink unicorn
3. Sky daddy
4. Russell's teapot
5. Flying dragons
6. Fairies
7. Zeus
8. Banana god
9. Sussicorn



* To be updated as and when another one comes to mind or attention.  

, peeks in OMG what a debauched ambiance we've got here - this must be a religions orgy - Fire Burn dem all

Evangelical Atheist Mantras that many of them do not realise actually point back to themselves!*   

1. The Dunning-Kruger Effect
2. No true Scotsman fallacy    (one of them was going on recently about 'no true atheist' - much to my silent amusement  )
3. Burden of proof is on you
4. You are religionists      (well, evangelical atheists are religionists too - proven conclusively  )
5. Religion is evil  (well, that includes the also conclusively proven evangelical atheism religion too  )
6. Define god  (our friends are too ignorant or dishonest to see that they can themselves "define" god!)
7. God of the gaps   (hmmm, as if "evolution" and theories on the origin of the universe are proven "facts"
8. Infinite regress  (hmmm, as if evangelical atheists have an explanation for what is behind the "singularity" or the "first cause"!  )




* To be updated as more come to mind or attention.

david, may be the 1% are those that are still struggling with their conscience and always being pricked by same daily with notions like 'what if God is seeing my mind' l may be doomed forever if i failed to believe in him having been warned'

You guys are actually mocking yourselves without knowing it. For some odd reason, You are under the illusion that if you can categorize or compartmentalize all the simple arguments that athiests make, then that somehow validates your own silly beliefs. What a joke.

Religious beliefs(at least the ones i read on this forum) are sooo far out ridiculous that even a 7 yrd old athiest can muster 30 easy arguments to debunk those purile religious claims. 30 or 100 points are sooo easy and so common sense that Buda atum or anyone can easily list and stereotype them. He is actually mocking you . he is just showcasing how easy it is to debunk religious nonsense.
I still cant figure why religious folks think athiesm is some kind of competing religion.
@davidlan:
the first time I debated with you, I sensed so much bitterness in you and I pointed it out. Your posts on this thread is very scary, to say the least. I hope there are just one or few of you in this world. You have tried to define love in your own warped view. Na wa o. I am lost for words.
If there is a god , he had better deliver humanity from people like davidlan.
@toba: You are an interesting guy, but you just love to categorize people into this segment or that segment. Do You have problems appreaciating diversity of beliefs(or unbelief)?

Occasionally, I will make interjections or general observations.

This particular interjection is necessary to make clear the distinction between regular/ordinary or 'passive' (in a nice sense) atheists on the one hand and the invariably obnoxious evangelical atheists on the other hand. Here is another one I made earlier:

Enigma:

^^^ In every day life we have dealings each day with atheists. Amicable, no friction; some we can even call friends.

The problem is with the evangelical atheist, usually ignorant and dishonest and maybe also suffering some kind of angst, who comes fulminating out of his ignorance and dishonesty. They then get angry and petulant when their conceit is punctured and they get shown up for the dumbasses that they are for the most part.

"Wise sayings" (as if! ) of Evangelical atheists (Part 1)*


1. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby
2. A child is born an atheist
3. Bald is not a hair colour
4. Are there any similarities between a dog and no dog?
5. The absence of colour is not a colour



* To be updated, refined etc as and when . . . .

@Enigma
C'mon, come to think of it, are we not all athiests in one way or another. The same list of athiest arguments that you are all so gong ho about are also used by religious people to repudiate the gods and beliefes of other religions. Not so? I am sure you are not a believer of god anubis or or the egytian pantheon of gods or the greek or roman pantheon of gods. How about or shiva or Ahura mazda or the Babylonian marduk(their creator of the universe). If so, are u not an athiest?
It seems that you people confine athiesm only when the rejection or repudiation of the abrahamic diety is involved.
If athiesm is a rejection of an idea that does not tally with one's common sense, does one need to write a thesis to defend it?
i just dont get you guys.

plaetton u are obviously an oldbie with a new handle. How come u know about me or my kinda threads

toba:

plaetton u are obviously an oldbie with a new handle. How come u know about me or my kinda threads

Yes my old friend. I 'm reborn into Plaetton, my nom de plume.

plaetton:

You guys are actually mocking yourselves without knowing it. For some odd reason, You are under the illusion that if you can categorize or compartmentalize all the simple arguments that athiests make, then that somehow validates your own silly beliefs. What a joke.

Religious beliefs(at least the ones i read on this forum) are sooo far out ridiculous that even a 7 yrd old athiest can muster 30 easy arguments to debunk those purile religious claims. 30 or 100 points are sooo easy and so common sense that Buda atum or anyone can easily list and stereotype them. He is actually mocking you . he is just showcasing how easy it is to debunk religious nonsense.
I still cant figure why religious folks think athiesm is some kind of competing religion.
@davidlan:
the first time I debated with you, I sensed so much bitterness in you and I pointed it out. Your posts on this thread is very scary, to say the least. I hope there are just one or few of you in this world. You have tried to define love in your own warped view. Na wa o. I am lost for words.
If there is a god , he had better deliver humanity from people like davidlan.
@toba: You are an interesting guy, but you just love to categorize people into this segment or that segment. Do You have problems appreaciating diversity of beliefs(or unbelief)?

oyb:

do some tweaking, and it sounds like a manual written up for davidylan and noetic

Chrisbenogor:

That was funny, its good to see the religious folks happy, not that it lands any credibility to the existence of a God who is constantly relying on cheap shots from humans.

And while we are on the topic, let us not also forget the infamous atheist response when confronted with glaring evidence of his elementary or caricaturish understanding of the theistic concepts he seeks to disprove or denounce--the COURTIER'S REPLY.

I can't tell you how many times this hilarious non-argument is trotted up in discussions with atheists, whether or not they recognize its actual name.

1Godfather:

And while we are on the topic, let us not also forget the infamous atheist response when confronted with glaring evidence of his elementary or caricaturish understanding of the theistic concepts he seeks to disprove or denounce--the COURTIER'S REPLY.

I can't tell you how many times this hilarious non-argument is trotted up in discussions with atheists, whether or not they recognize its actual name.

are you serious?? Do YOU even know what the term means because the people who love to use that argument are you and your ilk!!!

When you say  atheists don't understand the bible and other "spiritual things" because they haven't read enough of it or are ignoring other "evidence" or scholars, that's the so called Courtier's reply. It was coined by an atheist biology professor at the University of Minnesota.
lol. Common Man!!!

[b]Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of Unclothedness.[18]

Dawkins himself quoted the Courtier's Reply in a debate with Alister McGrath.[19] He also referenced the Courtier's Reply in the preface to The God Delusion's 2007 paperback edition.[20][/b]

He probably said it after tiring of arguments from christians claiming atheists don't kow enough to say that their god doesn't exist. You don't neeed to read a thousand books to discredit the loch ness monster, do you?

To be an effective atheists is quite simple, stop thinking, just blindly accept anything and everything that as fallacial as they may sound , requires no analysis , no research and no logic.

Anything but God no matter how stupid it may sound.

Martian:

are you serious?? Do YOU even know what the term means because the people who love to use that argument are you and your ilk!!!

When you say  atheists don't understand the bible and other "spiritual things" because they haven't read enough of it or are ignoring other "evidence" or scholars, that's the so called Courtier's reply. It was coined by an atheist biology professor at the University of Minnesota.
lol. Common Man!!!

[b]Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of Unclothedness.[18]

Dawkins himself quoted the Courtier's Reply in a debate with Alister McGrath.[19] He also referenced the Courtier's Reply in the preface to The God Delusion's 2007 paperback edition.[20][/b]

He probably said it after tiring of arguments from christians claiming atheists don't kow enough to say that their god doesn't exist. You don't neeed to read a thousand books to discredit the loch ness monster, do you?

Keep following the white man's religion, Muhahaha

....

Read my other post, you lazy atheist, do you research and come back to me , I just might have a few minutes to spare educating you on fact and not hearsay nonsense.

1Godfather:

And while we are on the topic, let us not also forget the infamous atheist response when confronted with glaring evidence of his elementary or caricaturish understanding of the theistic concepts he seeks to disprove or denounce--the COURTIER'S REPLY.

I can't tell you how many times this hilarious non-argument is trotted up in discussions with atheists, whether or not they recognize its actual name.

All the different thiestic concepts even conradict each other. Which one do subscribe to? I sincerely want to elevate my elementary understandingup in discussions with atheists, whether or not they recognize its actual name.

....

frosbel:

Keep following the white man's religion, Muhahaha

Intersting revelation from frobel again. So christianity is now the black man's religion. I see. It makes a lot of sense. But it used to be white mans religion , right? So the white man no longer needs it and we are all gong ho about it. You have made my case.
I guess we are so primitive that we keep ourselve busy trying to undersand the contents and value this used and discarded douche bag that the white threw our way.
That , to me, sums it all up. Thanks Frosbel for making it soooo clear.

Martian:

are you serious?? Do YOU even know what the term means because the people who love to use that argument are you and your ilk!!!

When you say  atheists don't understand the bible and other "spiritual things" because they haven't read enough of it or are ignoring other "evidence" or scholars, that's the so called Courtier's reply. It was coined by an atheist biology professor at the University of Minnesota.
lol. Common Man!!!

[b]Myers has voiced the position that many of the responses to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion are what he calls "Courtier's Replies". Replying to critics who felt that Dawkins ignored sophisticated versions of modern theology, Myers compared them to courtiers fawning on the legendary emperor who had no clothes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of Unclothedness.[18]

Dawkins himself quoted the Courtier's Reply in a debate with Alister McGrath.[19] He also referenced the Courtier's Reply in the preface to The God Delusion's 2007 paperback edition.[20][/b]

He probably said it after tiring of arguments from christians claiming atheists don't kow enough to say that their god doesn't exist. You don't neeed to read a thousand books to discredit the loch ness monster, do you?

Case proved. Let me make this much simpler for you to understand since it is clear, despite your quote up there, that you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The Courtier's Reply, which is a retort by atheists against detailed and sophisticated theistic arguments, is a non-argument. It is basically a dodge, a flight from sustained intellectual engagement, and in the final analysis, it is fallacious or erroneous reasoning. I've seen this exasperated atheistic waffling amusingly called the Myers Shuffle. Your assignment is to find out why the 'Courtier's reply' canard is anti-intellectual and bereft of merit. I choose to file this as one of these polemical sleights of hand employed by atheists when they clearly have no superior arguments.

Apart from hubris and their inevitable dishonesty borne of intellectual weakness and deliberate self-blindness borne of rebellion to God, it is unimaginable that any person with an iota of intelligence will raise things like the flying spaghetti monster, unicorns etc in discussion of the existence or otherwise of God - religion or no religion! To the clear thinker, a person who raises such things immediately marks himself out as an utter fool! Unfortunately, the type of evangelical atheists that constitute themselves into nuisance trolls on forums like this are too poor to see this. Anyway, even the people who do their thinking for them - the Dawkins, Dennetts, Harrises etc that they parrot robotically and copy and paste to boring length here - do the same, though for obvious somewhat "more concrete" self-serving reasons.

Anyway, a propos The Courtier's Reply and the Myers Shuffle: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism

Per Edward Feser

Well, the New Atheists have incorporated this “‘give-it-a-name’ maneuver” into their own rhetorical bag of tricks, and the name they’ve chosen is “The Courtier’s Reply.” The label comes from Dawkins’ fellow biologist and atheist P.Z. Myers, and it refers to an imagined defense a court sycophant might give of the nake.d emperor of Hans Christian Anderson’s famous story: “Haven’t you read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots?” etc. The idea is that complaining about a New Atheist’s lack of theological knowledge is no better than the courtier’s complaint that the nake.d emperor’s critics haven’t read the works of Count Roderigo. In other words, it is just the same old question-begging “Leprechology” and “Pastafarianism” pseudo-defense, now tarted up with a clever marketing tag.

How does it work? Well, suppose you confront a New Atheist with the overwhelming evidence that his “objections” to Aquinas (or whomever) are about as impressive as the fundamentalist’s “chicken/egg” objection to evolution. What’s he going to do? Tell the truth? “Fine, so I don’t know the first thing about Aquinas. But I’m not going to let that stop me from criticizing him! Nyah nyah!” Even for a New Atheist, that has its weaknesses from a PR point of view. But now, courtesy of Myers, he’s got a better response: “Oh dear, oh dear … not the Courtier’s Reply!” followed by some derisive chuckling. One’s intelligent listeners will be baffled, wondering how shouting “Courtier’s Reply!” is supposed to excuse not knowing what one is talking about. And one’s more gullible followers—people like the www.infidels.org faithful {and the Nairaland Union of Evangelical Atheists  } who have been buying up The God Delusion by the bushel basket—will be thrilled to have some new piece of smart-assery to fling at their religious friends in lieu of a serious argument. In the confusion, the New Atheist can slip out the back door before anyone realizes he hasn’t really answered the question. Call it “the Myers Shuffle,” and feel free to fling that label back at the next fool atheist who thinks yelling “Courtier’s Reply!” should be enough to stop you in your tracks.

Heck, I'll include the quote below anyway so that the misguided local evangelical atheists who like to copy and paste Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Huber etc at boring length here thinking they are impressive can maybe begin to see what some of us have been saying effectively about the work of the bishops and apostles of evangelical atheists.

The intellectual frivolousness of the New Atheist literature is by now an open secret. Philosopher and prominent Darwinian Michael Ruse has said that Dawkins’s book made him “ashamed to be an atheist” and that Dennett’s book is “really bad and not worthy of [him].” Another atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel, has described Dawkins’s “amateur philosophy” as “particularly weak,” and his attempts to counter the philosophical difficulties inherent in his own position “pure hand-waving.” Literary critic Terry Eagleton—yet another atheist, and a Marxist to boot—characterizes Dawkins’ writings on religion as “ill-informed,” “shoddy,” and directed at “vulgar caricatures.” The list of the New Atheists’ fellow intellectuals and even fellow atheists who are critical of their work could easily be extended.

Enigma:

To the clear thinker, a person who raises such things immediately marks himself out as an utter fool!

^^ The above alone, speaks volumes.

Another interjection:

It is useful to remind ourselves that the false (and often even dishonest) claim of the evangelical atheists to knowledge of Christian ideas or of the Bible relates only to some general knowledge as well as knowledge of the same set of crammed "difficult Bible passages" that they like to throw around (e.g. passages in Leviticus, 'onanism', 'the bald prophet/bear' etc). They also like to refer to an opinion poll/survey on general knowledge of world religions.

However, when it comes to the truly intellectually rigorous discipline of theology, even the top apostles and bishops of the evangelical atheists are seriously ignorant with some of them being out and out dunces.

This is what one of Britain's top scientists says (not even from a Christian or theist perspective) of even Stephen Hawking: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/martin-rees-we-shouldnt-attach-any-weight-to-what-hawking-says-about-god-2090421.html

He {Lord Rees} is equally scathing about Hawking's more recent comments about there being no need for God in order to explain creation. "Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've known for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," he said.

And on the false dichotomy between Science and Religion, he observes further:

"I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains," Lord Rees said. "Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it's not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by."

^^^ Your point being ?

Some Evangelical atheists paradoxes*

1. Christianity is a white man's religion ------ ( of what colour are the apostles and bishops of the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris etc?)
2. Christian writings - especially New Testament writings - are stone/bronze age material (hmm, when did Socrates, Pluto, Aristotle etc live, work or write?)
3. When Christians discuss their faith, even only among themselves, they are evangelising and offensive, but when the evangelical atheists spam the forum with evangelical atheist codswallop even to cause offence deliberately, they are "providing education"! 
4. Christianity is an intolerant religion but the evangelical atheist religion cannot accept any viewpoint whatsoever that suggests the existence of God; in fact even holding such a viewpoint privately is not acceptable to evangelical atheists who see it as a duty to "disabuse" the holder of the viewpoint. Perhaps call it "enlightenment"! 
5. Lack of belief in God is substantively different from belief in the non-existence of God thus a dog, a cow, a monkey is as much an "atheist" as the evangelical atheist! (Very good company  ; and as a bonus: insist that man is an ape but become angry if called a monkey  )





* To be updated as and when etc

Enigma:

Some Evangelical atheists paradoxes*

1. Christianity is a white man's religion ------ ( of what colour are the apostles and bishops of the evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris etc?)
2. Christian writings - especially New Testament writings - are stone/bronze age material (hmm, when did Socrates, Pluto, Aristotle etc live, work or write?)
3. When Christians discuss their faith, even only among themselves, they are evangelising and offensive, but when the evangelical atheists spam the forum with evangelical atheist codswallop even to cause offence deliberately, they are "providing education"!
4. Christianity is an intolerant religion but the evangelical atheist religion cannot accept any viewpoint whatsoever that suggests the existence of God; in fact even holding such a viewpoint privately is not acceptable to evangelical atheists who see it as a duty to "disabuse" the holder of the viewpoint. Perhaps call it "enlightenment"!
5. Lack of belief in God is substantively different from belief in the non-existence of God thus a dog, a cow, a monkey is as much an "atheist" as the evangelical atheist! (Very good company ; and as a bonus: insist that man is an ape but become angry if called a monkey )





* To be updated as and when etc

Ha ha ha. There are no such things as athiests paradoxes. Frankly, i dont see how anyone that keeps a healthy sceptical mind can have paradoxes. Paradoxes occur when there are contradictions in a widely held belief or theory. I can point out moe than 2 dozen paradoxes inherent in your christian beliefs. Its all a figment of your imaginations.

Here are my Rebbuttals:

1. Yes, Christianity was spread all over the world by the white man. That is historical fact. The white man brought christianity to our shores while they came to loot the resources of land and other lands. Historical fact. It is worthy of note that christianity started to spread from Europe at the period when scientific knowledge and reason began to blossom and emasculate the long-held stranglehold of religion. For Christiandom, exporting christianity to the primitive heathen nations(where scientific knowledge had not taken root) was matter of survival. The The missinianaries did a lot of good things. Fact. But the overiding agenda was to soften our minds with this new seed, while they exploited our resources for the great empires of Europe.To that end they built churches and fed our people with incredible fables from the bible. They debased our cultural heritage and made to us despise our identities.
All the above are undisbutable facts.
On the other hand, Dawkins, Harris, et al, are hardly known all over the world. I have heard of Dawkins, I have never read his books. I have never heard of Harris. I am sure there are more of them, but the issue is that these are men writing and giving their opinions on the wieghty issues of religious belief, which they are well entitled to.
How Many million christian evangelists are out there in the wolrd traveling from one place to another writing about and preaching their versions of what is the truth? How many tv evangelist are out there, day in day out , night after night, spewing their own versions of devine truth?
It seems to you, Enigma , Frosbel, and others, that only christian people have the exlusive right to mount podiums anywhere and at any time, to preach whatever they consider to be the truth.
Anytime a Dawkins or Harris (just one out of a million) stand in a podium to challenge your truth and offer theirs,then everyone of you christians get upset and shift into a war mode. I really dont understand that. I guess its one of those things about religion that I dont seem to understand.

2. Socrates, Aristotles, Pluto, etc, were renowned historical figures who wrote about Philosophies. they questioned the human condition and debated about ideas and ideals. they did not write about fables, myths and did not offer beliefs about the supernatural. The writers of your bible are unanimous figures writing about characters and events(with conflicting timelines and conflicting moral compasses) that have little or no historicity.
Moreover,the fact that Aristotle, Pluto and Socrates are required readings in higher academic learning is testimony to the superiority of their ideals.

3. Anyone who lives in Nigeria knows what it is like to be constantly harrased and condemned to hellfire on a daily basis by chirstian evangelists.It happens in ur home, your neighborhood, your work place, inside the bus. everywhere.
i have never seen or heard of anyone being preached to , let alone harrassed, by an athiest. Athiests come to this forum to have healthy debates on religion and most times , to defend against attacks from religious folks who have misconceptions about what athiesm is about. I do not think that aniest come here to wage battles against anyone. That would be contradictory since freedom of thought and the soveriegnty of the mind are the essential underpinnings of athiesm.

4. Christianity and the other abrahamic religions are interlorant. that is is not in dispute. Interlorance is imbedded in your holy scriptures. i wonder how many athiests have approached in real life to ask you to ditch your belief in god. I bet Zero.Now, sincerely how many people in your life have you tried to convert to your belief system? So who is interlorant?

5. The belief in the non-existence of god is the opposite of the belief in god.
If you say that the sky is green and I say that it is not, its up to you to show me why you think its green. Its not my job to show you that it is not.

^^^ I'll only let you know why I don't generally bother to reply to your posts even in your previous incarnation as globexl or whatever it was.

You constantly lie through your teeth both deliberately and in sheer ignorance ---- witness some of the nonsense even in your post above; although I guess some will buy the lies.

Witness also e.g. your theatrics about the fake Willie Lynch letter.

I don't generally have time for people like you, mate.

Enigma:

^^^ I'll only let you know why I don't generally bother to reply to your posts even in your previous incarnation as globexl or whatever it was.

You constantly lie through your teeth both deliberately and in sheer ignorance ---- witness some of the nonsense even in your post above; although I guess some will buy the lies.

Witness also e.g. your theatrics about the fake Willie Lynch letter.

I don't generally have time for people like you, mate.

Good rebuttal, or non-rebuttal.

Kudos.