On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:10:48 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>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.

It wasn't a compliment or anything similar, it was a note
regarding your many-times-demonstrated inabilities to
comprehend damn near anything.

> Still you can't say what
>you want people to think is preventing life from being a benefit to you

Already done so. The fact that you think there's some
nebulous "benefit" in being born with a painful heart defect
which kills you before the age of one, or born to abusive
addict parents who beat you to death at the age of two
(neither of which is any sort of "benefit"), is sufficient
to reject your conjecture. A short life of nothing but pain
isn't a "benefit".

>, 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?

Prerequisites are just that: Requirements that must be met
before something else can happen:

From the AHD:

pre·req·ui·site (pr¶-rµk“w¹-z¹t) adj. 1. Required or
necessary as a prior condition.

> What do you think distinguishes those that are from those that
>aren't, do you have any clue at all?

ben·e·fit (bµn“…-f¹t) n. 1.a. Something that promotes or
enhances well-being; an advantage.

What enhancement to well-being does either of the above
examples enjoy merely through existence?

Note that I generally try to avoid using dictionary
definitions in this sort of discussion unless it's become
obvious that the other party is ignorant of them.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless