Msg#: 925                                          Date: 04-07-95  17:16
  From: Larry Sites                                  Read: Yes    Replied: No
    To: All                                          Mark:
  Subj: Michael Hardy, hardly

Michael Hardy to Larry Sites on 04-05-95 10:20 re: apology

-> Sorry about the crappy formating of my posts lately. The bbs has a b
-> the offline upload and personal problems prevent the sysop from fixi
-> I'm learning to work around the online editor limitations.

MH>    Now if you could just improve the content ...

Cute, eh but HARDLY a thing of any substance. But then Michael 
Hardy's posts are HARDLY known for their content are they. Now 
that my sysop has things running smoothly again and I've put a 
generous check into the mail to express my appreciation for her 
efforts, let us turn our attention to Michael's record of HARDLY 
keeping up with the real issues, shall we?

After Michael's boast that there were no substantial 
contridictions in the bible, I posted Till's original discussion 
of the bibles hypocritial rule about mamzers. Michael HARDLY had 
an answer, merely listing out a few guesses about what a mamzer 
MIGHT be. After I came back with Till's latest discussion that 
explained how EACH and EVERY one of Michael's possible 
explainations introduced it's own set of corresponding 
contridictions in his Wholly Babble. Michael HARDLY defended his 
lists of explainations, in fact, he didn't respond at all. But 
then what else would we expect, there are no resonable 
explainations for the Wholly Babble's self contridictions.

I brought up the contridictory nature of his god being 
supposedly no respector of persons. Again Michael HARDLY 
replyed, and then fell silent.

After Michael bragged about getting all his ideas from his only 
book, I asked him how he came up with the non-biblical idea of 
the trinity on his own. He HARDLY had any thing to say, claiming 
that he didn't want to change the subject from the one he was 
HARDLY defending.

Michael claimed that his church was the keeper and transmittor 
of knowledge throught that same churchs own initiated dark ages. 
I asked him to explain just how this happened. He HARDLY 
replied, in fact the silence was deafening.

I've asked Michael specifically if his god is the author of 
confusion, suffering and death. No answer. In fact, he HARDLY 
believes any of christianity, replying to almost every statement 
about it with the claim that we don't really know what he 
believes. I think Michael HARDLY knows himself.

Michael claims to have references that support his claim of the 
dead sea scrolls illistrating unaltered transmission, but he is 
HARDLY sharing them.

Michael HARDLY cares that doctored prophecies call ALL prophecy 
into question.

Michael HARDLY cares that those who supposedly faithly 
transmitted the scriptures to us are documented liars, prefering 
to accept their statements that he likes as truth reguardless.

Michael claims that _Forgery in Christianity_ is "lame" yet he 
HARDLY explains himself, providing not ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in 
support of his assertation. That is critizism HARDLY worth 
considering.

Now if Michael HARDLY has any reason for believing his religious 
superstition and he HARDLY has any thing to say in defense of 
it, then I guess it is Michael that HARDLY has any content isn't 
it?

Michael reminds me of the Darth Vader character out to do his 
master's biding in the battery commercial, he HARDLY has any 
juice. I've created a new tag line just for Michael. See below:

 * WR 1.31 # 398 * Christian evidence bunny. Still...waiting!