Page 1 of 1
Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:58 pm
by _cinepro
Ok, in a discussion about
Martha Beck's book and her claims over at MAD, Smac97 says....
So if she cannot be trusted about claims that are falsifiable, why on earth would we trust her about claims that are not?
-Smac
I've still got whiplash from my double-take.
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:03 pm
by _CaliforniaKid
Why does this argument sound so darn familiar? I just can't quite place it... oh yeah, that's right. It's the very same argument that the Mormons refuse to apply to their own leaders (or to Martha's father, himself).
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:06 pm
by _JohnStuartMill
Can I get an "lol FARMS methodology", anyone?
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:29 pm
by _Dr. Shades
LOL!!
You know, cinepro, it's too bad you're banned from there. I would LOVE to see you (or anyone else, for that matter) bring the implications of that post to their attention.
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:44 pm
by _cinepro
Dr. Shades wrote:LOL!!
You know, cinepro, it's too bad you're banned from there. I would LOVE to see you (or anyone else, for that matter) bring the implications of that post to their attention.
Look at post #15 in that thread...
I suspect that anyone who gets within 10ft of making a comparison would feel the wrath of the moderational cattle-prod.
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:03 am
by _SatanWasSetUp
And of course Smac doesn't get it.
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 3:29 am
by _Dr. Shades
LOL again! I don't know what's funnier; Smac97's initial statement or his epic failure to grasp cinepro's point.
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:51 pm
by _John Larsen
That line is an all time classic. I just added it to my sig line.
Re: Bump, Set...but no Spike over at MAD
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 2:42 pm
by _Dr. Shades
That's definitely signature line-worthy material, but I strongly suspect that unless someone SPECIFICALLY uses the name "Joseph Smith" in reference to his two sentences, Smac97 still won't get it.