On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:55:16 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/8/2011 3:23 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:23:20 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/7/2011 10:40 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
He refuted your assertion, which was specifically about
Einstein's religious beliefs ("I think Einstein, absolutely,
considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong
possibility!"). And no amount of complaining about it will
change that.

Deal with it.

snip

Interesting new tact

That would probably be "tack", O Wise One:

"tact (t²kt) n. 1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and
appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to
speak or act without offending."

"tack1 (t²k) n. ...
1. Nautical. a. To change the direction or course of a
vessel: ready to tack on the captain's signal. b. To change
tack: The ship tacked to starboard. 2. To change one's
course of action. [Middle English tak, fastener, from Old
North French taque, probably of Germanic origin.]"

If not, thanks for the compliment.

, you have tossed in, agree with what I am pointing
out and, yet, claim it is differing ... still, just a version of the
strawman argument ... how limited ...

Do you have the faintest idea what you think you're talking
about?

You mean...

I mean exactly what I stated.

I guess you don't...

Dream on ... it is plain to see ...

Your assertion that Einstein professed to believe in a
personal deity, even though he specifically denied it?

Yes, it's quite plain.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless