Bearcat (
Sat, 4 Feb 1995 23:59:29 GMT

Martin Hutchison ( wrote:

: >Most(if not all) textbooks in the world use the same system for specieal
: >classification, so that is the "we". Accept it or not, it is there. And
: >if you wish to refute it, you prove that it's wrong or shut up. The
: >burden of proof is : >always on the challenger, not the other
: >way around.

: you have a strange concept as far as the burden of proof goes.
: does that mean that if i claim god is a lesbian sadomasochist living
: in san francisco and i know her address, i have no burden of proof,
: but that you have to disprove it?
: ****
: You aren't very bright, babes. You are challenging the accepted
: ideas about god
: if you propose that it is really a "lesbian.....", so YOU prove
: your image of god if you want to change convention.



Let's see. You are completely ignorant about anthropology,
and yet you make up fatuous arguments.

You call other posters "babes", especially since you're incapable
of dealing with the substance of their post.

And not the least, you haven't a clue as to how to edit a
post, as you use some sort of newsreader (or not) that doesn't
provide any standard method of discerning your words from
those of the post you're following up on. Rather like AOL.

- Bearcat