On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:33 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:40:25 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:54:59 -0700, probably Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>>>
>>>>>You know that Bob is not me.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>>>
>>>I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
>>>yours you know it,
>>
>> LOL!!! There's no way I could know
>
>Granted, there's probably no way *you* could know it.

Hmmm. Since I've never known Goo to be that honest in over a dozen years of
reading his lies, that's some evidence you're not Goo. Still you can't say what
you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you, and so
far only you and Goo are in that incredibly stupid position. It's hard enough to
believe even one person is that stupid, much less two people. Let's give you
another chance to try to defend your claim:

Do you think no prerequisites are benefits, or that some are but life is one
that's not? What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that
aren't, do you have any clue at all?