In article <BtFPN.509822$vFZa.464902@fx13.iad>, ted.street@gmail.com
says...
Maximus wrote:
Ted wrote:https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-beatles-1st-tv-appearance-in-the-u-s-wasnt-the-ed-sullivan-show.html/
Michael Christ wrote:think >>Ed >>>>>>Sullivan >> was a >> > myth too?
On 4/04/2024 3:00 pm, Ted wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:10:50 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<u29PN.128050$_a1e.117460@fx16.iad> wrote:
exists. >> >> >> >> > > > > > >I have yet to see any
evidence that any soul
that >> >> holds >> you >>>>>> up, man??OMG, you're kidding, right?
WTF do you think it is
isn't. >> >> Good >> class, >>> well done.muscle >> and >> bone >>>> collapse to the ground because >>>>>>>>> they're >> no >> longer >> being >> supported by the >>>> soul. >>>>>>>>> That's obvious. >> >> >> >> > > >Muscle and bone.
How ridiculous. When your soul
leaves your body, your
and the muscle and bones are still
there but the soul
The first time the question was asked:
them >> on >> > Ed Sullivan. They were quite real. Do youApparently you are unable to provide aYou are assuming there was a "soul"the beatles
there in the first place. What is
your basis for that assumption?
rational answer so you resort to attempted
deflection and redirection.
You can't claim the Beatles weren't real. I
remember seeing
The second time the question was asked:The actual issue is the question I asked above andI remember seeing them on Jack Parr, theirThe "actual issue", as I see it, is your
first American appearance, but that has
nothing to do with the existence or
non-existence of a soul. They even don't
accomplish a misdirection or attempted change
of subject very well.
They do however strongly emphasize a complete
and total failure to address the actual issue
as well as a failure to even attempt to
answer the question asked.
implication that Ed Sullivan was a myth!
will repeat here:
" You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the
first place. What is your basis for that
assumption?"
Again, what is your basis for that assumption?
BTW, the Ed Sullivan Show was not the first
appearance by the Beatles in the US?
"Teenage music fans comprised a large part of The
Beatles? fan base. The news magazine show The
Huntley-Brinkley Report likely didn?t register
with them. But anyone watching the show on Nov.
18, 1963, saw The Beatles? first TV appearance in
the U.S."
"The Beatles showed up on American TV again a few
weeks before their first live TV appearance in the
U.S. On Jan. 3. 1964, talk show host Jack Paar
aired clips of the Fab Four performing live
versions of ?From Me to You? and ?She Loves You?
to the ever-present audiences of screaming
teenagers, per The Trivia Book of The Beatles."
I saw that show on TV. They were greeted with
hysterical laughter.
Ed Sullivan was on Feb. 9, 1964.
I doubt it minimus dickus will answer that excellent question,because it's not a legitimate proposition. the soul is not inYou have made that assumption clear. I am asking for theI already told you. Your soul is what holds you up.Thanks for straightening that out, Attila. I wasOnce again you ignored the basic question but I can
just a kid then, so I don't remember.
repeat it - again - for the third time:
" You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the first >>>>>>>>>>> place. What is your basis for that assumption?"
That's obvious.
basis you use for that assumption.
Or did you just make it up?
The basis is simple observation. When someone's soul leaves
their body, they fall down. Because there's no longer
anything holding them up. As I said, it's obvious. So
obvious that I don't understand why you're not getting it.
evidence. you have to establish first that a soul exists
before you can posit any arguments about it.
If the soul doesn't exist then why are there still monkeys?
Ted.
LOL!
He is not about truth, he is about lifestyle.
Michael Christ
And just as you predicted, he sidestepped the question instead of
answering it.
no I did not liar. I requested clarification of it. and I or anyone
is under no obligation to answer your questions anyway, liar.
What question? About the monkeys? I'd just like to know what exactly it
is you have against monkeys. Makes no sense to me.
There better not be anyone dissing monkeys. You know how I live monkeys.
% wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
In article <BtFPN.509822$vFZa.464902@fx13.iad>, ted.street@gmail.com
says...
Maximus wrote:
Ted wrote:https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-beatles-1st-tv-appearance-in-the-u-s-wasnt-the-ed-sullivan-show.html/
Michael Christ wrote:think >>Ed >>>>>>Sullivan >> was a >> > myth too?
On 4/04/2024 3:00 pm, Ted wrote:
Maximus wrote:
Ted wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:10:50 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<u29PN.128050$_a1e.117460@fx16.iad> wrote:
exists. >> >> >> >> > > > > > >I have yet to see any
evidence that any soul
that >> >> holds >> you >>>>>> up, man??OMG, you're kidding, right?
WTF do you think it is
isn't. >> >> Good >> class, >>> well done.muscle >> and >> bone >>>> collapse to the ground because >>>>>>>>>> they're >> no >> longer >> being >> supported by the >>>> soul. >>>>>>>>>> That's obvious. >> >> >> >> > > >Muscle and bone.
How ridiculous. When your soul
leaves your body, your
and the muscle and bones are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there but the soul
The first time the question was asked:
them >> on >> > Ed Sullivan. They were quite real. Do youApparently you are unable to provide aYou are assuming there was a "soul"the beatles
there in the first place. What is
your basis for that assumption?
rational answer so you resort to attempted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deflection and redirection.
You can't claim the Beatles weren't real. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember seeing
The second time the question was asked:The actual issue is the question I asked above and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will repeat here:I remember seeing them on Jack Parr, theirThe "actual issue", as I see it, is your
first American appearance, but that has
nothing to do with the existence or
non-existence of a soul. They even don't
accomplish a misdirection or attempted change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of subject very well.
They do however strongly emphasize a complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and total failure to address the actual issue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well as a failure to even attempt to
answer the question asked.
implication that Ed Sullivan was a myth!
" You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place. What is your basis for that
assumption?"
Again, what is your basis for that assumption?
BTW, the Ed Sullivan Show was not the first
appearance by the Beatles in the US?
"Teenage music fans comprised a large part of The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beatles? fan base. The news magazine show The
Huntley-Brinkley Report likely didn?t register
with them. But anyone watching the show on Nov.
18, 1963, saw The Beatles? first TV appearance in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S."
"The Beatles showed up on American TV again a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks before their first live TV appearance in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. On Jan. 3. 1964, talk show host Jack Paar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aired clips of the Fab Four performing live
versions of ?From Me to You? and ?She Loves You? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the ever-present audiences of screaming
teenagers, per The Trivia Book of The Beatles."
I saw that show on TV. They were greeted with
hysterical laughter.
Ed Sullivan was on Feb. 9, 1964.
I doubt it minimus dickus will answer that excellent question,because it's not a legitimate proposition. the soul is not in >>>>>>>> evidence. you have to establish first that a soul existsYou have made that assumption clear. I am asking for the >>>>>>>>>> basis you use for that assumption.I already told you. Your soul is what holds you up.Thanks for straightening that out, Attila. I wasOnce again you ignored the basic question but I can
just a kid then, so I don't remember.
repeat it - again - for the third time:
" You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the first >>>>>>>>>>>> place. What is your basis for that assumption?"
That's obvious.
Or did you just make it up?
The basis is simple observation. When someone's soul leaves >>>>>>>>> their body, they fall down. Because there's no longer
anything holding them up. As I said, it's obvious. So
obvious that I don't understand why you're not getting it.
before you can posit any arguments about it.
If the soul doesn't exist then why are there still monkeys?
Ted.
LOL!
He is not about truth, he is about lifestyle.
Michael Christ
And just as you predicted, he sidestepped the question instead of
answering it.
no I did not liar. I requested clarification of it. and I or anyone
is under no obligation to answer your questions anyway, liar.
What question? About the monkeys? I'd just like to know what exactly it >>> is you have against monkeys. Makes no sense to me.
There better not be anyone dissing monkeys. You know how I live monkeys. >>
'i live monkeys'
https://postimg.cc/cuSJ4pty LOL
you typo'ed
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:54:05 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,198 |