report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Science Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #37  
Old 07-13-2009, 08:18 PM
Blue Crab of PAIN!!!'s Avatar
Blue Crab of PAIN!!! Blue Crab of PAIN!!! is offline
Preying upon the weak and stupid.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,082
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Junior, have you graduated from high school yet? You jabber as if you have not.

I did NOT "quote people at random," but rather selected passages from a very compelling, and thoroughly documented book that you no doubt never even heard of before I brought it up here.

Anything that is contrary to your leftist fairytales is "invalid." I can only lead the ignorant to the Perian Spring, I cannot make you even sip therefrom.
And you have, as usual, completely missed the point. You may have "selected passages from a very compelling, and thoroughly documented book" (even though its all bullshit anyway), but that does not change the fact that you are still accountable for them if they are wrong (which they are) because you still believe them to be true and meaningful (which they are not).


Reply With Quote

  #38  
Old 07-13-2009, 08:39 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

I love it how he only replies to one of my 3 posts and it's the least important one :)
It's also hilarious how he feels the need to constantly remind people of his age in assumed relation to them, it's clear he is a very insecure person who needs to constantly attempt to undermine people in order to have a fleeting moment of inner satisfaction.
The truly pathetic thing is he thinks we have an image of him other than that of a sad and lonely old man with outdated ideals who sits on a forum as the world passes him by.


Last edited by SubJunk : 07-13-2009 at 08:43 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #39  
Old 07-14-2009, 12:26 AM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
Lol. Did you mean the Pierian Spring?
Lol. Was just reading over another thread and he made the same mistake. This one isn't even a typo, he just likes pulling out obscure references to Greek mythology without even knowing how to spell them.


In the other thread he did so in the very same paragraph as insulting another poster for their spelling.

http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=770989&postcount=14



Reply With Quote

  #40  
Old 07-19-2009, 04:47 PM
BibleCode BibleCode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 40
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

To many answers. Not enough questions.

Answers are boring!!!!!!!!!

Reply With Quote

  #41  
Old 08-03-2009, 08:57 PM
BarackZero's Avatar
BarackZero BarackZero is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 724
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
What an incredible way of looking at it. You quote someone therefore you aren't held accountable for what you said. Amazing!
You desperately need to "moderate" more and comment less. You're really not doing your job.

Here's a thought for you. Hold me "accountable" for what scholars at universities said in citations I reproduced. Go ahead.


Quote:
So basically you're saying that you just quoted people at random because they back up your beliefs, regardless of whether they are even right. To me that seems to invalidate your entire post.
No, these are not "people at random." You really should pay attention.

These are scholars, from universities, from laboratories and hospitals. They know whereof they speak, unlike so many people here at this left-wing cesspool which is moderated so very incompetently and with a hard left-wing atheist bias.

You see, I quote people like you with whom I disagree vehemently, and I do so to show why I disagree and how they/you are wrong.

Now please feel free to be ignored.

Like Kazza and the blue boy with crabs, you have nothing constructive to add.
You're a terrible waste of my, and everyone else's time.

Reply With Quote

  #42  
Old 08-03-2009, 09:15 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

You're right, it is a waste of time to talk to you. Enjoy your ignorance.

Reply With Quote

  #43  
Old 08-04-2009, 01:22 PM
Blue Crab of PAIN!!!'s Avatar
Blue Crab of PAIN!!! Blue Crab of PAIN!!! is offline
Preying upon the weak and stupid.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,082
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Like Kazza and the blue boy with crabs, you have nothing constructive to add.
You're a terrible waste of my, and everyone else's time.
Wow, clever. The whole of your previous post is absolute bullshit. When you quote someone to support your argument you are accountable for the truth value of the quote. When the quotation is shown to be a pile of crap so does your argument.

"The moon is made of cheese because my daddy says so"

"The moon is not made of cheese. You're an idiot"

"You can't call me an idiot because I didn't say the moon was made of cheese, my dad did".

Reply With Quote

  #44  
Old 08-04-2009, 01:32 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
Wow, clever. The whole of your previous post is absolute bullshit. When you quote someone to support your argument you are accountable for the truth value of the quote. When the quotation is shown to be a pile of crap so does your argument.

"The moon is made of cheese because my daddy says so"

"The moon is not made of cheese. You're an idiot"

"You can't call me an idiot because I didn't say the moon was made of cheese, my dad did".
Exactly. That's the point I tried to make before but he couldn't wrap his head around it, let's hope he can now :p

Reply With Quote

  #45  
Old 08-06-2009, 02:48 PM
BarackZero's Avatar
BarackZero BarackZero is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 724
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
You're right, it is a waste of time to talk to you. Enjoy your ignorance.
Lad, I made two offers to leftists just like you. I offered to pay for I.Q. tests for both of us. The loser would pay the winner $10,000.


The first leftist I so wagered was a big-mouth disc jockey on Los Angeles talk radio. The station is KFI. Ken Minyard was his name. He didn't back up his big mouth with his money.
That was in 2004.

The second big-mouth was Josh Mankewicz, of NBC (Dateline). That was in 2006.
He passed as well. Lucky for him.

You've never seen $10,000, so it would be pointless of you to pretend you could take me up on it.

Reply With Quote

  #46  
Old 08-06-2009, 02:51 PM
BarackZero's Avatar
BarackZero BarackZero is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 724
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post



The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it. - Edwin Gordon Selwyn, noted scholar - page 216


I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. - Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford - page 217


Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. - Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) regius professor at Cambridge


the Resurrection of Christ is a fact… - Benjamin Warfield of Princeton - page 218
We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” - Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England - page 219


There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the fructification and rupture of the heart. - Samuel Houghton, M.D., great physiologist from the University of Dublin - page 224


This is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the main arteries, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death. It is all the more impressive because the evangelist could not possibly have realized its significance to a pathologist. the “blood and water” from the spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead. - Michael Green - page 225
Note that atheists and their Christophobic allies pick and choose only one or two quotes from the original post. when anyone else does this, Christophobes call it "quote mining" and lampoon them.

But when THEY do it, well, no problem.

Why is it that nobody challenged the remarks of renowned physiologists and historians?

It is the anti-intellectual and dishonest nature of atheists. They can only promote their lies with more lies.

Reply With Quote

  #47  
Old 08-06-2009, 02:57 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Lad, I made two offers to leftists just like you. I offered to pay for I.Q. tests for both of us. The loser would pay the winner $10,000.


The first leftist I so wagered was a big-mouth disc jockey on Los Angeles talk radio. The station is KFI. Ken Minyard was his name. He didn't back up his big mouth with his money.
That was in 2004.

The second big-mouth was Josh Mankewicz, of NBC (Dateline). That was in 2006.
He passed as well. Lucky for him.

You've never seen $10,000, so it would be pointless of you to pretend you could take me up on it.
Hahahahahahaha :)



Reply With Quote

  #48  
Old 08-06-2009, 02:59 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Note that atheists and their Christophobic allies pick and choose only one or two quotes from the original post. when anyone else does this, Christophobes call it "quote mining" and lampoon them.

But when THEY do it, well, no problem.

Why is it that nobody challenged the remarks of renowned physiologists and historians?

It is the anti-intellectual and dishonest nature of atheists. They can only promote their lies with more lies.
I'll reply to every one of those quotes right now. I wasn't going to because you have ignored every single bit of evidence I've posted, but hey I'll address yours regardless just because it's fun for me

Reply With Quote

  #49  
Old 08-06-2009, 03:00 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Note that atheists and their Christophobic allies pick and choose only one or two quotes from the original post. when anyone else does this, Christophobes call it "quote mining" and lampoon them.

But when THEY do it, well, no problem.

Why is it that nobody challenged the remarks of renowned physiologists and historians?

It is the anti-intellectual and dishonest nature of atheists. They can only promote their lies with more lies.

No, quote mining is quoting only a small part of a larger passage in order to misrepresent the point the author was making. If I were to quote mine your original post it would be something like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero
the evangelist could not possibly have... proof positive that Jesus was already dead. - Michael Green - page 225
See how I've misrepresented the author?

Responding to only a few of your points is not quote mining. You make the same points over and over again ad nauseum, and there are a finite number of hours in the day. You're also competing for attention with intellectual giants like TerryP, and his posts deserve at least as much as yours.

Reply With Quote

  #50  
Old 08-06-2009, 03:03 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Lad, I made two offers to leftists just like you. I offered to pay for I.Q. tests for both of us. The loser would pay the winner $10,000.


The first leftist I so wagered was a big-mouth disc jockey on Los Angeles talk radio. The station is KFI. Ken Minyard was his name. He didn't back up his big mouth with his money.
That was in 2004.

The second big-mouth was Josh Mankewicz, of NBC (Dateline). That was in 2006.
He passed as well. Lucky for him.

You've never seen $10,000, so it would be pointless of you to pretend you could take me up on it.
Your insecurities are showing again Barack. Another subtle attempt to persuade us all that you're very, very rich and successful, and have a high IQ, and have a great big penis. Just like you drop the fact that you recently visited Greece in another thread. Or that you like to pursue expensive hobbies. Or that you fly a plane. Or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Guess what? No gives a shit.

Reply With Quote

  #51  
Old 08-06-2009, 03:06 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
Your insecurities are showing again Barack. Another subtle attempt to persuade us all that you're very, very rich and successful, and have a high IQ, and have a great big penis. Just like you drop the fact that you recently visited Greece in another thread. Or that you like to pursue expensive hobbies. Or that you fly a plane. Or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Guess what? No gives a shit.
It's hilarious! I couldn't even respond because it made me laugh so much

Reply With Quote

  #52  
Old 08-06-2009, 03:14 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
It's hilarious! I couldn't even respond because it made me laugh so much
Lol.

You know, I once offered a creationist $1,000,000 if he could tie his own shoelaces. After I won he ran off with my $1,000,000, but that's ok, I just went into my gigantic money vault (a la Scrooge McDuck) and grabbed another million. Then I went skiing on the martian polar ice caps.

Reply With Quote

  #53  
Old 08-06-2009, 05:07 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
by Josh McDowell

The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the whole, there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respect of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents. The confirmation is both general and specific. - Millar Burrows of Yale - page 100
He was the Professor of Biblical theology at the Yale Divinity School and I don't see any specific examples in this quote, so there is nothing to refute here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Some writers may toy with the fancy of a “Christ-myth,” but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. - F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester - page 120
Frederick Fyvie Bruce was a Christian Apologetic and author of many books such as "Jesus: Lord & Savior". His entire career goal was to reconcile religious texts with history, so it's funny to read a quote of his talking about "unbiased historians".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
The world-renowned historian, Jaroslav Pelikan makes this clear: “Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries. If it were possible, with some sort of super magnet, to pull up out of that history every scrap of metal bearing at least a trace of his name, how much would be left? It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.” - page 155
Let's look at his points. Firstly, Jesus has not been a dominant figure for nearly 20 centuries, it's more like 16 centuries. There were hundreds of years after his death (if we are assuming that happened at all) when Christianity was a minor religion.
There are roughly 1.6 billion people who believe in Christianity, and 1.5 billion for Islam, so if the amount of people who pray to a deity is evidence in favour of the existence of that deity, does the God of Islam also exist because it has nearly as many adherents? And if we're addressing your quote directly, he says "in his name millions pray", well Buddhism and Hinduism and other religions have millions of followers too, so by Pelikan's logic they must all be right as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe examine what has happened in history that displays the influence of the (Christian) church. Here are “a few highlights” they cite (in their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?):
D. James Kennedy was a televangelist and Jerry Newcombe wrote the book "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy" which claims Darwin influenced Hitler vicariously through Francis Galton.
So we have a televangelist (religious scam artist, pretty sure we have a thread here for them) and a conspiracy theorist teaming up to write a book. It's no wonder I'd never heard of it until now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
· Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
· Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
· Literacy and education of the masses.
· Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
· The separation of political powers.
· Civil liberties.
· The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times.
· Modern science.
· The discovery of the New World by Columbus.
· Benevolence and charity; the Good Samaritan ethic.
· Higher standards of justice.
· The elevation of the common man.
· The high regard for human life.
· The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
· The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
· The greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
· The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
Here we have a large list of things that have happened in the past, a past in which Christianity existed. Whether or not these things would have happened were another religion more popular or not is never addressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
In the nineteenth century, Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist, challenged a Christian man to debate the validity of the claims of Christianity. The Christian, Hugh Price Hughes, was an active soul-winner who worked among the poor in the slums of London. Hughes told Bradlaugh he would agree on one condition.


Hughes said, “I propose to you that we each bring some concrete evidences of the validity of our beliefs in the form of men and women who have been redeemed from the lives of sin and shame by the influences of our teaching. I will bring 100 such men and women, and I challenge you to do the same.”


Hughes then said that if Bradlaugh couldn’t bring 100, then he could bring 50; if he couldn’t bring 50 then he could bring 20. He finally whittled the number down to one. All Bradlaugh had to do was find one person whose life was improved by atheism and Hughes - who would bring 100 people improved by Christ - would agree to debate him.
Bradlaugh withdrew! - page 156
I don't blame him for withdrawing, it was a preposterous proposal that wouldn't have proved anything either way. Christianity may benefit many people's lives and so may Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, all of them. That fact doesn't indicate that their historicity is accurate, just that they have good ideas and teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it. - Edwin Gordon Selwyn, noted scholar - page 216
I guess "noted scholar" means someone once wrote a note about him, because there isn't even a Wikipedia entry on him, unless you mean Edward Gordon Selwyn who was a Dean of Winchester (a title give by the Church of England) who had no noteworthy achievements I can find.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. - Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford - page 217
It's very strange for an American to quote an Erastian. Obviously the author places little importance on the entire reason the USA was created in the first place.
He was also born in the 1700s, a time when one had very, very limited access to information. Thomas Arnold is most famous for establishing public schools that chose to ignore science as a subject.
Regardless of the character flaws, he didn't present any evidence in that quote, so there really is nothing to refute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. - Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) regius professor at Cambridge
He was Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, to be exact. Strange for a man in that position to say something like that... ;-) You may also be interested to know that he was, as you would say, "a leftist". However, as seems to be the pattern with these quotes, they are very vague and present no real points to address at all. It's just some guy saying "Jesus existed" in a long-winded way. It's not very compelling without evidence. Evidence they may have had, but evidence that isn't presented in the quote itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
the Resurrection of Christ is a fact… - Benjamin Warfield of Princeton - page 218
He was principal of Princeton Seminary in the late 1800s. So again we have a religious person saying Jesus existed. Very compelling! I can walk down the street to get people saying that, maybe I should quote them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” - Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England - page 219
*yawn* no evidence presented... Apparently he has a lot of evidence, though. Good for him, I don't suppose he ever shared that with anyone, do you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
There remains, therefore, no supposition possible to explain the recorded phenomenon except the combination of the fructification and rupture of the heart. - Samuel Houghton, M.D., great physiologist from the University of Dublin - page 224
Well then, if some physiologist says so it must be true... Again, no evidence is given in the quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
This is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the main arteries, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death. It is all the more impressive because the evangelist could not possibly have realized its significance to a pathologist. the “blood and water” from the spear-thrust is proof positive that Jesus was already dead. - Michael Green - page 225
So he's saying there is proof that at some stage thousands of years ago someone stabbed a dead body with a spear. Ok sure, I believe that. People stabbed dead bodies with spears all the time to check they were dead. What I'm curious about is at which stage Michael Green made the huge logical leap to assume there was good evidence to support the assumption that anyone knows and has proven whose blood was on that spear.

There, I addressed them all.


Last edited by SubJunk : 08-06-2009 at 05:15 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #54  
Old 08-06-2009, 05:14 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazza View Post
Lol.

You know, I once offered a creationist $1,000,000 if he could tie his own shoelaces. After I won he ran off with my $1,000,000, but that's ok, I just went into my gigantic money vault (a la Scrooge McDuck) and grabbed another million. Then I went skiing on the martian polar ice caps.
Really? I thought I was the only one who made bets with minuscule amounts of money like that. I remember one time I bet a Moa $10,000,000 that it could fly if it really, really tried. I thought the chances of me winning the bet were slim at best but it was only $10,000,000 so it doesn't matter. I just gave the Moa the money and then went to the mirror to admire my huuuuuuge penis. I mean, this thing is massive, in order to have sex it has to be in a large room so that I can stand far enough away from the bed to get it in. Sometimes I even have to stand in the hall or I'll break a hole through a wall.

p.s. I took it too far, didn't I... :-p


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O.J. Verdict - GUILTY on ALL 12 COUNTS Connecticut Victim Political Chat 7 10-04-2008 09:25 AM
LOL!! KOOKCINICH demands a recount franKg Political Chat 2 01-12-2008 08:49 PM
Iran demands oil pay in yen not dollars Solve et Coagula Political Chat 0 08-16-2007 05:44 AM
A Harsh, Healthy Verdict in Israel sojustask Political Chat 7 05-03-2007 12:10 AM
Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict Grim17 Political Chat 34 04-26-2007 12:17 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.