}>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  
}>
}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
}>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.
}
}Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
}of red herrings and smoke screens.  
}
}You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

How about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:
In 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu
	- but no "threat" produced 
	- display of telepathy
	- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)
	- in spite of claimed threat never being given
	- in spite of it never happening.  telepathy or precognition?
	- unsubstantiated and untrue.  more telepathy?  Or maybe telempathy?
	- unsubstantiated again.  Seems to be a habit...

Having more trouble with reality, it appears.  Why get bothered with the facts when
you appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?
