From: "james g. keegan jr." 

In article , flaviaR{at}verizon.net wrote:

> On 23-Mar-2007, "james g. keegan jr."
 wrote:
>
> > In article , flaviaR{at}verizon.net wrote:
> >
> > > On 22-Mar-2007, "james g. keegan jr."
 wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article ,
> > > >  duke  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:50:48 -0400, "james g.
keegan jr."
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> No one believes you if you don't
offer some substantiation.
> > > > > >> >then prove the god you claim exists
does, in fact, exist.
> > > > > >> I can't.
> > > > > >therefore your claim that such a thing exists
is proven to be
> > > > > >false.
> > > > >
> > > > > What thing?
> > > >
> > > > you claimed a thing you call god exists. you could not
support your
> > > > claim. therefore your claim is deemed to be false.
> > >
> > > Er, that's not quite right.
> > > His claim is deemed unproven.
> > > Slight difference.
> > > It's also unprovable - I freely admit this, too.
> >
> > when someone makes a claim in a usenet newsgroup, is called on to
> > support that claim, and and can not do so, and still refuses to
> > withdraw the claim, or reframe it as a personal belief rather than a
> > fact, usenet convention suggests that the claim is false.
> >
> > so does natural human behavior.
>
> Okay - given THESE perameters, you are/were correct :-)

i know.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag