I did not expect a discussion about it. But this is INGO. So here we are. I'm sure you understand that you've asked a mostly unfalsifiable question. The supernatural claims are not testable. Therefore the claims are not falsifiable. That doesn't guarantee that they're false. But it means I can't prove that negative, because the universe of discourse is unknown. Surely you understand this.Please cite evidence that it has ever been found to be lying
Exactly.
I still use scrolls
It seemed you wanted a site cite
Well "snarkless" is standard jamil, believe it or not. I snark when I perceive snark.Agreed. A remarkably sensible and snarkless reply. Bravo
Who is that ************'s boss? Because that ************ needs to be fired.Ohio judge adds COVID-19 vaccination as terms of probation • Ohio Capital Journal
“(A)t least some of these folks need to be encouraged not to procrastinate,” the Ohio judge said about requiring them to be vaccinated.ohiocapitaljournal.com
The voters? Don’t hold your breath.Who is that ************'s boss? Because that ************ needs to be fired.
Foz posted thisIf you can cite a site that's trustworthy 100% of the time that would be dyn-o-mite outta sight!
To which I replied ^, speaking to the 100% trustworthy requirementThe Word
Then Foz indicated he wanted digital content, so I posted a site where The Word was available, thus citing a siteFirst i was gonna object on grounds of Site but then I realized few probably read the book anymore
Then you proceeded to somehow conclude that I was citing the bible to prove the bible via this post string, when all I was doing is posting a site where The Word was available. In a different post I challenged you to prove that the bible contained any falsehood, which seems to be the current criteria for being a reliable sourceIt seemed you wanted a site cite
Were you drinking when you wrote this?Foz posted this
To which I replied ^, speaking to the 100% trustworthy requirement
Then Foz indicated he wanted digital content, so I posted a site where The Word was available, thus citing a site
Then you proceeded to somehow conclude that I was citing the bible to prove the bible via this post string, when all I was doing is posting a site where The Word was available. In a different post I challenged you to prove that the bible contained any falsehood, which seems to be the current criteria for being a reliable source
Perhaps if non-believers were not so quick to fall all over themselves in their desire to mock or discredit The Word they might seem better exemplars of that 'reason' that they claim to worship
No. I was not drinking when you wrote that. But I’m unsure why me drinking would affect your writing.Nope
Howz about you?
I drink to make other people more interesting.No. I was not drinking when you wrote that. But I’m unsure why me drinking would affect your writing.
I drink to make other people more interesting.
After months of wearing you out, you two are wearing me out!
In my mind, Cronkite was largely responsible for convincing the American public that the Tet Offensive was a huge military victory for the VC, and a corresponding defeat for American troops, when it was clearly the opposite. I will never forgive that admitted liberal for his contributions to the public relation victory he gave the Communists. I place him 3rd in line, behind Johnson and McNamara for the defeat and loss of thousands on American lives in Vietnam, when the war could have ended in '72, if Operation Linebacker II had been executed as planned, rather than being hamstrung by civilians. Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh was ready to throw in the towel, until he was made aware of American news and the public opinion it drove. Newsreels and the voice of Cronkite convinced him that, against all odds he could win.I can understand the Cronkite thing, he was a honest reporter who at least tried(and IMO mostly if not completely succeeded) to not to let his beliefs or opinions influence his reporting and verified and vetted what he was reporting on. And to the best of my knowledge that didn't change when he became a new anchor. Wish all news reporters would do the same and could be trusted to do so.
But I will agree with you on the opinions part. Which to the best of my knowledge he didn't share at least publicly till he retired.
I'm not saying I agree with his current actions, just that I don't have a problem with the "science guy" persona.