>>Actually the question is irrelevent since I am an atheist and therefore do
>>not subscribe to any religious beliefs/fairy tales. However, on reflection
>>one of the reasons why some may use this analogy is that you have yet to
>>admit that you are wrong in any of the claims which you make and since by
>>definition "to err is human" by never being wrong one must assume that you
>>are "above" the normal human state or to put it another way "Godlike".
>Being Atheist neither let's you off the hook or pronounces you perfect.
Actually in the context of the question to which I was replying my answer was
quite valid. Also I never, nor have I ever, stated that I was perfect. Why
do you insist on making these statements, eh?
Quote:>If you'd been around long enough, or have the ability to honestly
>comprehend what has been communicated, that you indeed have read, you'd
If you had any grasp of the language in which you write you would know that this
is not a valid sentence or statement, in fact it's just a peice of gibberish.
>>But whether or not others have likened you thus in the past is neither here
>>nor there. As I pointed out it is you who brought the subject of religion
>>into _this_ thread - two wrongs don't make a right, Tim. If you don't like
>>the analogy others have made in the past fine - but why rekindle it.
>Actually here (in this newsgroup) and there (in the archives of this
>newsgroup) is precisely the fact of which even you have contributed.
IIRC you are referring to the "Is Tim really 2000 years old" thread - come on
now Tim can't you see that this was a joke - no-one really believes you are any
sort of messianic figure. I believe it was sarcasm i.e we were taking the
p**s out of you.
Quote:>But then why are you pursuing it here, if this is what you "believe" about
>what you think I think? If it is so wrong, why are you continuing it here?
Oh right, Tim said something so best not critisise even if it is wrong.
Quote:>Atheist or not, you seem to be just as capable of distortion and
>dishonesty as anyone else. For your words above are certainly proof of
Yeah that's why you snipped the questions to which I was replying so that you
could concoct an argument out of context to suit yourself. However given your
track record for mistruth and deception in arguments I'll take your comments
as a compliment from a master of the art.
Quote:>>Furthermore since I joined this thread before you it would seem that your
>>accusation that I am following you around is just another of those little
>>untruths which you like to use
>And you say you are 42? Ok, exactly where was my first appearance in this
>thread? Or is such a thing invisiable to you?
A quick check of the archive shows that this thread was started by Joona on 2 Oct
I posted to it on the same date and you first posted on the 3 Oct. So what is
hard to understand about that proving that I did not follow you here. An attempt
at deception was it Tim? Oh and since you question my age I was born in Dec '58
so go figure.
Quote:>>>A teacher gives you homework, do you not take your study proof back to
>>>them, to be graded?
>>Yes of course one does but you are neither in actuality, nor in capability,
>can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. A student only by choice.
Firstly, you have to have something worthy of being learnt and secondly all
students are so through choice at least in my experience.
Quote:>you see what you want to John, and your reason shows within your comments.
At least I do not ignore that which I would rather not see or face up to.
Quote:>Being Atheist is no excuse to try and deceive, John. It only means that
>you have another word or phrase for "laws of god" that you are subjected
>to. Father Physics and Mother Nature just are, no matter how well you
>recognize them or not.
Physics governs everything including nature and apart from being genderless it
only shows your lack of knowledge that you should quote these as being separate
entities. Funny but this latest example of your lack of knowledge somewhat fails
to amaze me.
Quote:>Tell me who you think I am and what my "religion" is.
I actually don't care what your religion is. Who you are is a different question
I think you are a misguided individual who due to lack of education is unable or
unwilling to accept any fact which contradicts the beliefs which you hold.
Quote:>So many in the computer industry seem to want to say that the consumer
>doesn't want to program, yet the genuine science of computing is not one
>of creating such false biased contraints, but rather identifying and
>applying the computer logic that removes such false biased constraints.
Your view, and rather a sweeping generalisation which of course you are unable
to substantiate as usual.
Quote:>Perhaps the only support the industry gets for such a broad constrained,
>no exception handling, perspective, is that which is generated by applying
>over-complexity in programming language creation. Making certain that most
>users don't have the time to learn how to use it, and much less, would
>want to use such over-complexity.
As has been pointed out most users don't want to program they just want a tool
to use. Anyway, stop bleating about over complexity of programming languages; if
that's the case then create a language that's not complex - shouldn't be a problem
for an ace programmer like you.
Quote:>So tell me John, who do you think I am and what do you think my "religion"
Doh, bit silly posing the same question twice in the same post isn't it.
Okay I've answered your questions so how about some reciprocation. Where is
the proof that aliens are living on Earth as you previously asserted, (albeit in
a different thread), but then refused to substantiate?