In article , othmana@lycos.com says...
>
>d1818@... (michael) wrote in message news:<2fv2qfF2etb4U4@uni-berlin.de>...
>> In article <4099e578_2@news.tm.net.my>, buanginiothman58@streamyx.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"michael" wrote in message
>> >news:c7arhr$1p02g$1@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >> In article <4098cea5$1_1@news.tm.net.my>, buanginiothman58@streamyx.com
>> says...
>
>...
>
>> I understand English, of course.
>
>You think you understand English but that is not what I
>found out a few times in the past.
>
>> But I also understand your intention !
>
>No wonder. You interpret the perceived intentions
>instead of the exact words.
>Let me assure you that your perceived intentions
>have always been wrong.
It's important to assess and expose the intention of
a cunning liar.
That's why I reposted the flow of the debate
in my rebuttal which you repeatedly omitted.
>> The rebuttal was for your intention in the context
>> of the flow of that debate.
>
>That was what I was trying to do. To give exact dates
>is not relevant. What is relevant is to dispute the 200
>years later after the death of Prophet Muhamamd.
Have you disputed anything ?
How can a scientist dispute without giving factual
data ?
So how many years ?
Ya .. I remember.
Go read your books/websites.
Some scientist.
Some dispute ! LOL
regards,
michael ... afn21896@afn.org
|