[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You got caught."


Um, no. I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

"You were trying to be sarcastic."

I succeeded, apparently. :)

"You are caught lying again."

No, you just got caught moving the goal posts. I never left it up to you to define what *forever* means.

I left it up to you to decide when this thread will die. As you obviously enjoy this, it won't die any time soon, apparently.

"Look at the immediately previous sentences, liar."

They show you to be mistaken. You have never proven me to be a liar. That would take brains, something you lack.

"Nope. You are getting closer to what "FOR" means, though."

Yes, it meant that you were speaking for yourself; it was YOU who was integrity challenged, not me.

"Were that true..."

...you would twist it to mean something the opposite of what my silence actually meant.

"Sure it does, you did use incomplete sentences and had the gall to criticise my use of them."

It wasn't that you used incomplete sentences; you used an incomprehensible sentence. I never criticized you for using *incomplete sentences*. This was the sentence I critiqued,

"Other of your blather previously answered."

That's more than just not having a subject and predicate. It looks like you've been hitting the bottle.
BTW, you spelled *criticise* wrong; it's spelled with a z. :)
"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

[AndrewC]

Um, no. I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.<

Name the obvious screw up in the sentence, liar. The obvious thing about it was that it came from Eliza ®. You got caught.

I succeeded, apparently. :)

To yourself, maybe. But you still don't know the difference between 4 days and years, nor between 2 years and forever.

They show you to be mistaken. You have never proven me to be a liar. That would take brains, something you lack.

They show people who are not deluded that you are a liar. Since you left it up to me when you would stop, "I left it up to you to decide when this thread will die.". I choose the parameters. The statement that stated that conditional was " I can do this forever if you want. :) ". The only "potentially" temporal word in that statement is "forever". That means, by your own admission, I get to decide when "forever" is. QED

Yes, it meant that you were speaking for yourself; it was YOU who was integrity challenged, not me.

So your delusions continue to tell you. "FOR" is not "OF".

...you would twist it to mean something the opposite of what my silence actually meant.

You are actually pretty much describing your actions with the word "FOR" and "OF".

It wasn't that you used incomplete sentences; you used an incomprehensible sentence.

To you, no doubt, you are, after all, an idiot. "Other" happens to be a pronoun, "of your blather" a prepositional phrase describing "Other", and "was" is the implied verb.

BTW, you spelled *criticise* wrong; it's spelled with a z. :)

BTW, I knew you were an idiot enough to criticise that spelling. It is just as valid with an "s" as it is with a "z". "Colour" is as valid a spelling as "color".

criticise

\Crit"i*cise\ (kr?t"?-s?z), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Criticised (-s?zd); p. pr. & vb. n. Criticising.] [Written also, more analogically, but less commonly, criticize.] [Cf. G. kritisiren. See Critic.] 1. To examine and judge as a critic; to pass literary or artistic judgment upon; as, to criticise an author; to criticise a picture.

2. To express one's views as to the merit or demerit of; esp., to animadvert upon; to find fault with; as, to criticise conduct. --Blackwood's Mag.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.