Bottom line: No. We are NOT all "God's Children." In fact, every last one of us who has refused to repent are described as Satan's children, hated of God, and reserved for everlasting punishment. [Read...]
Quite by accident, I stumbled upon ExamineTheTruth.com. I wasn't looking for Islam teachings, or even anti-Islam teachings. In fact, I do not now even remember how I got there. But I did.
At first, I was quite pleased with the discovery. I have wondered often if there were any representation of Islam that took a reasoned, educated approach to offset what seemed like an otherwise duplicitous religion. On the one hand are the very few Muslims who claim that theirs is a religion of peace. These are the "Jihad is an inner struggle" crowd. These are the ones that I really WANT to believe. I WANT to believe that there really is a side of Islam that views it's jihad as a personal conquest of the self. But on the other hand there is the murderous, blood-thirsty, throat-slitting crowd which seems to account for 90% of what I see passing itself off as Islam.
It is possible - even highly likely, in my view, that the 90% negative coverage is due to the selection criteria of the major news networks in America. It is my opinion that if you lived in America, and watched nothing but American news, you would get the distinct feeling that we are the only country in the world with paved roads. But the major news networks don't control the internet, and the internet is also full of radical, violent Muslim views.
So I was quite pleased that perhaps I had finally found a source of SANE Islamic representation.
While I have not found anything overtly condoning or encouraging the beheading of infidels, I still cannot say that I have found a sane representation of Islam. So, what did I find?
Essentially, I found a megalomaniac. A single man with an enormous ego and a bad sense for what "logical" means, and an even worse sense of what "truth" means.
I found a guy called "Nadir Ahmed." I have no idea if that's his real name. It's not really important to me. I would assume that he would be intelligent enough to not use his real name. Not because of any danger, but because with the kind of "logic" he employs he might never know when he will want to completely reverse himself, walk away from his past, and start over. Using your real name would kind of stunt that opportunity. But then again, if you were intelligent enough to think that far ahead, you wouldn’t write the things Nadir writes. So I guess it is his real name.
Nadir's main interest is debate. There's nothing wrong with that I suppose. It's not my venue. I'm known for never, ever saying anything without having taken much too much time to think it over. I never give immediate answers. I always think things over for a long time before really deciding anything. Even when it's a decision I may have made a half dozen times already in the past.
But beyond that, the format of Nadir's preferred debate is, to me, a recipe for failure. Internet debates using something analogous to an "audio chat room."
It's quirky, often interrupted, poor audio quality - which when combined with the thick accent of many of the participants leaves me spending most of my time trying to figure out what people are actually saying rather than on reflecting on the content of their meaning. It's futile and I would never agree to such a debate because the format is itself counterproductive.
And, aside from that, I'm just plain not amenable to debate. I really do not care enough about the man to be bothered. It might not be so if the man were an honest seeker of truth, but in my opinion, he just isn't. And there's a difference.
I will take all the time in the world to discuss and even argue with someone who is interested in the debate for the sake of discovering the truth.
Unfortunately, the scoffers and mockers
He... is in it for nothing more than the soundbite orgasm.... And as soon as he has it, he rolls over and goes to sleep intellectually...
in the world have no such interest. And Nadir seems to me to be one of these. He is interested in debate for the nothing more than the soundbite orgasm. And as soon as he has it, he rolls over and goes to sleep intellectually.
I will not entertain such people. They are more than capable of entertaining themselves. (Note: For more on that topic, see my article entitled “Let Them Alone.”)
There's not really any way to systematically go about addressing the contents of the site other than to systematically get on with it. At first, I intended to read everything and answer it all – at least comment on it. But as I waded into it, I found that Nadir has a gazillion articles and about three main points.
So I chose to just visit a representative sample and comment on those.
Some pages I just skipped over without comment out of sheer lack of anything substantial to say about them, either due to their unremarkable character (such as the Ravi Zacharias article), or because their nonsense is completely self-evident. By doing so, I’m sure he will claim that he has "stopped my mouth by refuting with sound logic" and has therefore "got me on the run" or "brought me to justice." Whatever, man...
In truth, I just gave up out of boredom.
So, in no particular order, here are a sample of pages from his site, and my comments.
One of Nadir's primary tactics is to take an isolated biblical scripture and either make a misrepresentative claim about what it says, or assign attributes to it that are not actually there, such as who is making the statement, or why. Once he has constructed this "straw man" he then sets out to methodically debunk the nonsense he has himself created. In my estimate, I’d say that about 90% of everything he does employs this methodology. Rework the thing into an obviously ludicrous parody of what it actually is, and then amaze everyone with your ability to debunk it with “sound logic” and “irrefutable proofs.”
Of course you can refute it, Nadir. You made the thing self-refuting.
Of course, the problem is not that he is being illogical - many times he is, in fact, being logical. It's just that what he is debunking is almost never actually claimed by either Christianity, the Bible, nor his opponent in the debate. It's always his own interpretation of things that he is refuting. Nobody in Christianity or in the Scriptures ever claims 99% of the nonsense that he supposedly "refutes with logical argument."
It's odd that one of his first assertions about the fallacy of others is exactly his own preferred M.O. Namely that of "The Fallacy of Multiple Interpretations" or "Reinterpretation" which I have basically described above.
There are lots of examples of it on his website. Here's just one example:
During a debate on the topic of does Islam teach men to have sex with animals (which he sufficiently proves that it does not - God only know why his opponent was even trying to argue that) he makes the following counter-claim:
He quotes Psalm 137:8-9 which says "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
And then he claims that "If Jesus is God, then Jesus is encouraging his followers to slam babies up against rocks."
With only a little research, he would find that this scripture says nothing more than that Babylon is going to be destroyed, and says nothing at all about who will be doing it. With a bit more research, he would have saved himself some embarrassment. It is generally known that Babylon was brought down by an alliance of the Medes and the Persians - both ancestors of modern day Iran.
So if Nadir wants to be technical about it, the people taking pleasure in smashing babies on rocks were a bunch of pre-historic Iranians. All God said In Psalm 137 is that it was going to happen – he never mentions who, or even when. But Nadir does – he provides that non-existent context out of thin air.
So, yes, "Multiple Interpretation" is an already known fallacy. If Nadir had stayed away from it, he would have prevented himself from being both wrong and a hypocrite (perhaps unwittingly) at the same time.
Nadir's entire M.O., points up a certain lack of sufficiency in "logic arguments", in my opinion. You can employ perfectly sound logical arguments to refute the claim that the moon is made of blue cheese. But if no one is making that claim, it doesn't matter, doesn't change your tactic, and you are still 100% correct and logically sound. This is how Nadir continues to trump up his tripe.
He can correctly claim "I am refuting with sound, logical arguments" so long as no one is willing to pull back the curtain and look at exactly what it is that he is supposedly refuting.
I get the feeling that during a debate with him, I would constantly find myself saying "Hey, we're over here..."
Nadir often likes to claim that his opponent has "run away" when in fact it usually seems to be he himself who is always leaving - off on some tangential tip that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Nadir will run away with his self-constructed misrepresentation, deftly "refute it with genuine, authentic 100% logic" until blue in the face and then look up to find everyone in the room (figuratively speaking) staring at him and wondering if he, now that he's done with his mental masturbation, would like to come back to the table and finish the debate.
This is one of the reasons I would never engage in a debate over the Koran. I don't know it. I cannot speak authoritatively on what it says. Therefore I really have no right to do so and it would be intellectually dishonest for me to try. And frankly, I don't have the time nor the interest to do so.
I will gladly disabuse you of incorrect perceptions you may have about what the Bible says - but that's about it. However, I will make observations and even claims about Islam as it is presented to me and the world. But I will not make authoritative orthodox statements concerning what Islam believes and teaches.
I do not believe in witnessing by argument. Not because I do not believe that argument cannot win over an honest debater, but because it has been my experience that there are no honest debaters. It has been my experience that everyone goes into an argument having already chosen their side and they are only there to defend their position - not discover the truth of a thing. Perhaps in the days of Plato things were different. But we're way past those days. I've seen honest debaters, occasionally, when both are within the same camp and are debating some non-crucial issue. I’m sure that Muslims are honest and sincere when they debate their own doctrine amongst themselves. But between a fanatical Muslim and a Christian, I do not think honest debate is possible.
Nadir seems to be all the proof that claims needs.
Another common "Rule for Biblical Understanding" that Nadir frequently employs is this:
"If the Bible does not condemn something, then it is not a sin to do."
...and he means literally anything. He refers to this as a "fundamental truth" or "common sense." The fact that it is neither is completely lost on him.
It's wierd in the wierdest possible way, but I think he sincerely, actually believes it. I'd never have thought that anyone capable of even claiming to be intelligent could be that stupid, but he appears to be so. I'm not trying to be hateful or spiteful here, I mean, I really, really do believe that he believes what he is saying is "true" and "logical" and I really do find that to be weird in a really bad way.
The Bible does not specifically condemn raping children under the age of four while wearing a pirate costume. Does he seriously expect me to believe that the bible therefore teaches that it's OK? How about this one... I can't find any specific condemnation of nuking Mecca. Hmmmmn. I wonder....
Anyway... Dig this:
I explained very clearly that, the Bible does not condemn using a computer or driving a car, therefore, the logical conclusion is that it must be ok to drive a car or use a computer. Using the same common sense, if the Bible does not condemn drugs, then it is ok to do.
What if you used a car to kill your neighbor? Or what if you used your computer to steal money from the bank? Simply saying "use" without stating "for what?" is an open ended statement - it cannot be answered until finished...
Even things that actually ARE specifically addressed by the Bible cannot be answered until the question is done being asked:
Is it good to praise and worship?
Finish asking the question and the beginning of an answer will surely follow. "The devil?" No. "God?" Yes.
Nadir: Is it a sin to use a computer? Nadir: Well?
Kirby: Well what?
Nadir: Is it a sin to use a computer? Nadir: Well? Nadir: Are you going to answer?
Kirby: Answer what? You haven't asked a question yet. You keep beginning one, but then you get lost. Is it a sin to use a computer to do what?"
Nadir: no... just is it a sin to use a computer? Period.
Kirby: Maybe.
Nadir: That's not an answer!
Kirby: Well, that wasn't a question...
Following Nadir's "logic" I guess the best answer to the drugs question is "It's OK to use drugs... as paper weights if you smelt them down into a large enough block and encase them in acrylic."
And, to this twit, this all passes muster as "logic" and "proof" and "sound argument", etc. Nadir is the embodiment of the reason why I do not engage in debates. When your opponent is a twit, there's nothing to be gained by debate - either for you or him.
It goes to motive, yer honour…
A big difference between Islam and Christianity is the business of examining thoughts, intents, and motives.
Examine you OWN thoughts, heart, motives. Nowhere does it say examine the thoughts, hearts, or motives of others. Indeed, the bible says that only God can even do so. One exception is that we can and are expected to examine the ACTIONS or WORKS of others - the fruit - because we can see them objectively. But we cannot judge the motives of them, and it is not really necessary to do so.
There's a difference between correcting and simply contradicting.
Nadir makes, essentially, a single argument. Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus is God. He then proceeds to (what he calls) correct the mistake by quoting the Quran.
This is not correction. This is merely contradiction. You say - I say.
Correction goes way beyond that into territory that Nadir didn't even approach.
http://www.examinethetruth.com/modesty_hoax.htm
Sometimes it’s the obvious answer is so easily missed.
In certain Christian circles, "modest dress" has become almost a trademark. To this day, I can tell immediately a "Pentecostal holiness" woman because they all dress exactly alike. Long straight hair. A headband. A denim, full length dress, short white “bobby” socks and flat-bottom tennis shoes. And this is not limited to women. Men also are involved. I've met men who think they have to wear long sleeve shirts so as not to tempt women to lust after them.
This, to me, is arrogance of the highest order. It is the very opposite of modest. Does this Adonis actually think so highly of himself that he believes the mere sight of his muscular arms is going to drive women into a sexual frenzy?
In their zeal to NOT make holiness a matter of "outward adorning" they have in fact done exactly that. Holiness IS about the trademark denim dress. Holiness IS about the long sleeves. Holiness is about the short hair for men, or the long hair for women. And the inward holiness that Paul is striving for is nonexistent, because I've met some of them that were modestly dressed on the outside during the day but were drunken wife-beaters by night.
That's the Christian misinterpretation of the scripture.
On the flip side is the Islamic interpretation - the Burka or the veil. That's a real improvement. Beating a woman on the street because her ankle came into view. That's a real improvement.
Let me get this straight. Yougot a stiffy looking at some woman’s ankle, and that's somehow HER fault?
Nadir should have realized that this topic is discussed in more than one place. For it also says of wives:
"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price."
Modesty is a spirit that is meek and quiet. It's an inward thing, and the verses Nadir is quoting are only a part of the scripture. He's trying to define modesty by misquoting verses that are only giving an example of what modesty is NOT, and he is completely ignoring the verses that explain, in exact detail what modesty actually is.
This is an error of omission. But it is an error nonetheless.
Supposedly the question of modesty only "gets worse" (according to him) in the previous verse. (“I will that men pray everywhere.”) If you don’t pray when you go to the toilet, or to the bank, you have sinned.
I suppose it never occurred to him that the interpretation of this verse is really saying nothing more than "I would like men everywhere to pray." That's the obvious meaning. But a simple misreading gives him ammunition for another two full paragraphs of his own "fallacy of Multiple Interpretations" in which he so gleefully, and willingly "ensnares" others.
Says he: "I don’t believe there is a sane Christian alive on this planet who will reject this harmonization of verse 8 which I am offering."
Hey Nadir: I reject it. Read the words correctly.
[Side Note: Nadir is firing up his insanity-projector right now. Look for him to claim that I am not “sane” soon…]
Ultimately, Nadir ends up arguing that because 1 Tim 2:9 says “women should be adorned modestly” that this is therefore positive proof that “Christians do not have to be modest” (his words). Who’s the “riddler” here?
On this page there is also a link to another article where he suggests that lust only means “sexual intercourse” so therefore there are other types of sexual thoughts that are not lust (which is a complete non-sequitur), and thus Christians therefore have cart blanche to go lusting after women for sexual favours so long as it is not “sexual intercourse.” What this means can only be known by Nadir himself since it clearly depends upon a lot of his own personal interpretation of definitions.
Nadir is apparently a graduate of the Bill Clinton school of Theology.
An Aside Observation
Just because you have accurately stated another person's position doesn't mean that your position, by default, is therefore correct.
I've seen a lot of this.
They believe this, and they believe that, and they believe the other. Therefore I am right.
What?
http://www.examinethetruth.com/moralitydebate.htm
In spite of Nadir's claims of "logical argument" you can open up the Examine The Truth site to just about any page, stick your finger in and start reading and find an absolute logical error. Try this one.
On this page, he makes a few assertions. Here's one:
according to Biblical Christianity, ...all you have to do are the following:
1. Believe in Jesus.
2. Repent (acceptance of error, and remorse) every once in a while, visiting church a couple of times a year to repent, perhaps on Christmas and Easter is more than sufficient.
I'm not going to argue with #1 at all. That is correct (albeit to a depth that he cannot understand). However #2 is not taught anywhere in our scriptures. He has manufactured this straw man out of thin air.
In fact, our scriptures teach that without repentance, it is not likely that you actually believe. Repentance is the evidence of the belief. There are so many scriptures that teach this that I'm not even going to bother writing them. If you want to know, let me know. I'll be glad to provide you with a long list.
[Side-Note: Nadir is firing up Eudora right now to request this “long list.” Not because he’s interested in finding out, but to get more ammo for more debate. He’s not interested in finding out what the Bible really has to say about his idea. He just hopes to come back with a long list of “further topics of discussion” just to keep the debate going. – Not interested, dude. – Save your bandwidth quota.]
And then, for nothing more than believing and (what he calls) repenting there is:
"Complete Amnesty from questioning/judgment of sins committed in the worldly life. There is no individual accountability for the sins that a Christians commit according to the Bible. This is a stark contrast to Islam which teaches that each and every action a Muslim believer does, will be "played back" almost like a movie on the day of judgment and they will be questioned about it. Please see my references . There is no general summary or judgment of the Christians over all performance in regards to good and bad deeds. "
Every single sentence in this paragraph is just plain wrong, and is indicative of a severe level of ignorance on Nadir's part. There is no "stark contrast to Islam" here because our scriptures teach exactly the same thing that his do on this matter. On judgment day, every man will give an account of himself before God. Men will give an account for every idle word that they have ever spoken, and for the deeds both good and bad that they have both done and NOT done."
And if he wishes to criticize Christianity for what he thinks is nothing more than following a simple creed, or doing some simple mental task, then may I offer the following from his own scriptures?:
"He who offers the two Bardain Prayers will enter Paradise."
"Allah has ninety-nine names, he who memorizes them will enter Paradise."
An Aside Observation
Christianity is different from just about every other world religion in that it saves only those whom it has first convicted, found guilty, and condemned to death.
Atonement and salvation are only offered to those found guilty under the law. That's why the Bible makes it so clear that EVERY man is found guilty.
Helpful Terms for Muslims. "The Church" has nothing to do with buildings, or anyone inside of them. The church is more like a boundary. The “church” is a definition. It defines a group of people - but not a local group with clearly defined membership lists. The people in the group do not define the membership - they are PUT there. They do not get to choose their fellow-members. There is no "initiation." You cannot "join." Again, you are put there.
The word Christian or Christianity is not self applied. We did not call ourselves this. This is a name that was given to us by others. We use it now only because it has been in common usage for so long that it is unavoidable. However, it should be remembered that what calls itself Christian and what actually is Christian are two very different things. According to the Bible, the vast majority of people are wrong about themselves.
The Bible is just a book - nothing more. It has no power, it holds no place of honour. It is a CONTAINER only. It contains a message that can be spiritually understood and received, but by itself it is nothing but ink on paper with about as much "sanctity" as a copy of the Wall Street Journal. We do not worship the book. Some people claiming to be Christians do, but we don't.
[Side Note: Nadir is right now drawing the connection between “Unius Libri” and that last statement of mine. Save it, pal. I’m way ahead of you]
We don't hold parades holding up our little books like they were some kind of magical shield.
The power in the Bible is the word of God. The word of God is whatever God says. SOME of it is in the Bible, but that does not give the Bible any unusual powers.
A Bible will not stop a bullet (except maybe the Thompson's Chain Reference edition), it will not drive out a demon, or provide drinking water in a desert.
The compact versions can make a useful flyswat.
If you peed on my Bible, I’d probably get mad, ‘cause that’s really gross.
The article is titled "Evangelicals claim Nadir DEMOMIC!" That's a bit of a stretch. And what happened to his mom, anyway? Is "demomic" like being demommified?" ;-) (Ok, I'll grant this is a cheap shot at a typo, but I DID warn him, and it is, after all, funny - and therefore, OK...).
The title of this article really out to be "A couple of guys once called me demonic, and a third guy had something negative to say about Allah."
Personally, I think the article should be entitled "I've made a name for myself, well, at least to a couple of folks... Hi Mom!"
That's about all I have to say on this page. This is basically his trophy room. It's kind of sparse.
[Side-Note: Nadir is right now furiously fixing his typos. He didn’t seem to think it important when I emailed him a month ago (as of this writing) and pointed out some of them to him. Bet he does now... Wait a sec... I got a side-side-note coming in right now.. Ah yes, there it is: Nadir is right now thinking, “I’ll leave it exactly the way it is rather than prove him right…” Ok, man, whatever… ;-]
This one is rather tricky for me. It is going to take an effort which at the beginning of this writing I suggested that I had no right to do. But I'm going to anyway - knowing full well that I may be wrong.
But I am working from the base assumption that the Koranic scriptures that Nadir quotes are the best and most authoritative that he can find. In other words, I'm not a complete hypocrite because I am not going to make authoritative judgments about what the Koran does or does not teach. Instead, I am going to defer to Nadir that he is correct in that what he is claiming it teaches it does in fact teach, and that his references are authoritative Koranic scriptures for the matter at hand.
Now then, having made that disclaimer:
One of Nadir's chief arguments against Biblical morality is that it falls short by not addressing every single possible moral or ethical issue, and that Islam does, and is therefore superior.
This is a non-sequitur (ie, a logical mistake – a jumping to conclusions not supported by the argument). A thing is not correct or incorrect because it does or does not address some particular issue. Strictly speaking, a claim either way in the case of an issue that a text does not address is not possible. Thus the non-sequitur. But lets grant it for a moment for a hypothetical discussion.
Nadir: Therefore, let me school Irshad. Homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin in the Quran [because] The Prophet said, "When the people of Paradise will enter Paradise and the people of Hell will go to Hell, Allah will order those who have had faith equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed to be taken out from Hell. So they will be taken out but (by then) they will be blackened (charred). Then they will be put in the river of Haya' (rain) or Hayat (life) (the Narrator is in doubt as to which is the right term), and they will revive like a grain that grows near the bank of a flood channel. Don't you see that it comes out yellow and twisted"
he then quotes another one that says, essentially the exact same thing.
I'm missing the lesson here. How is homosexuality condemned in Islam again? I missed that part.
The authority that Nadir appeals to as proof that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin does not, in fact, say anything at all about homosexuality. It just talks about sinners in general, and simply says that sinners in hell might get a reprieve from Allah if he so sees fit. Basically, people with so much as a grain of faith (belief) will be taken out of hell and granted access to paradise.
It turns out that Islam and Catholicism both believe in "purgatory."
This begs the question, then, "what are they doing there in the first place?" If people in hell for their sinful actions can be taken out merely by Allah's whim, then why does he not do so for everyone? In Christianity, people in hell are there, and remain there because true justice demands it, and God's nature is such that he cannot excuse them without being duplicitous even though it pains Him to do so.
And what then of his claim, in another article on "Christian Morality" that Christians are at fault for a simplistic "creed of belief" if Allah turns around and does exactly the same thing? He makes disparaging, even "smarmy" remarks about Christian's "free ticket" to paradise on nothing more than the mere claim of belief in a simple creed. And here he has just said that Allah does exactly the same thing for his people.
And what's this about "yellow twisted people" in Paradise?
That sounds like nonsense to me. People are either justly accused, or they are justly forgiven. But there's no twisting yellow road running in-between them in Christianity.
This article also claims that Muslims must "hide their sins" (underlined, bold faced, in a different colour with a (now dead) link to another complete article devoted to it).
This is one of the least convincing "sound logical refutations" yet utterly characteristic of them all to be found on Nadir's site.
And does he realize he plagiarising Jesus here? Jesus is the one who used the “faith as a mustard-seed” bit waaaay before this muhammed dude came along.
You will recall that I made a comment at the onset of this writing about Nadir running off and engaging in what I described as "mental masturbation." Here's the article that brought that to mind. This is a topic that is given a lot of coverage on his site. Several entire article/threads devoted to this gleeful fist pumping. I think he sees it as some kind of coup d'etat . All I see is a soundbite orgasm with a faulty basis. He thinks he has caught some fellow in a contradiction.
It's long. It's drawn out, and the whole thing hinges on a single (erroneous) interpretation of the word "took." Really! I'm not making this stuff up!
Here's the whole silly argument in a nutshell.
The Bible tells us that "...the devil took him to the holy city (or a very high mountain), and challenged Jesus to leap from it's heights to prove that he is the son of God, and that that he (Satan) will give him all this if Jesus will worship him."
The coup d'etat, here, believe it or not, is the word "took." Because Jesus went with him willingly, he has therefore obeyed Satan and has sinned, and is now Satan's buddy and pal.
The refutations of this nonsense from the scripture, and from just plain common sense are so numerous that I could not begin to state them all.
Nadir's whole basis is about as convincing as the old schoolboy taunt "Ha ha! Made you look... Made you look... booger eater..." But he believes so thoroughly in its logical soundness that he even boldly claims "I've got it on tape!"
BTW - if I'm not mistaken, even Islam regards Jesus as a prophet. What does Islam teach about ridiculing Islam's prophets? I wonder... anyway, I'd better go on...
Here's his summary of this non-event:
"The Bible does not say that there was any kind of fight or resistance on the part of Jesus when Satan appeared to him and invited him to follow him, therefore, we will have to assume that Jesus went willingly. Therefore, we see from this outrageous story in the Bible, that Jesus was clearly 'demon-possessed', so much to the point, that he took Satan as a comrade ... and a travelling partner. In addition to that, it is clear, that Jesus was NOT sinless. Answering the call of Satan, is a sin. This is simply a irreconcilable contradiction."
I feel I ought to just stop there and say "'nuff said."
But because he thinks it such a crushing argument, may I propose the following:
"Hey, Tom. c'mere and take a look at this, will ya?" "HA! You obeyed me! I'm your traveling partner from now on... I'm your daddy now!"
Sheesh.
Can I please be done with this nonsense?
There's more important things to be doing.
[Final Side-Note: Some of nadir's previously known email addresses are: nadirwashere@hotmail.com (maybe early 2004), and nadir@examinethetruth.com (most recently)]
