5th paragraph, Mark Smith, the master debater, is an expert at examining debates. He uses Michael Shermer as an example of how ungreat a debater can be. Which us brings us to...

The Great Grudge:

Shermer-VS-Mark Smith!

Mark writes:

I have also attended several Christian-vs-Atheist debates. One of these was on March 10, 1995 at UCLA between Duane Gish and Michael Shermer on Creationism.

WRONG! This was not a "Christian-vs-Atheist" debate! Shermer writes in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (WH Freeman and Company. NY, 1997. p.136): "I knew Gish had a lengthy section in his presentation on the evils of atheism as a technique to destroy his opponents (who typically are atheists), so I made a point of stating in my introduction, loud and clear, that I am not an atheist." (paranthesis his; emphasis mine)

See, how Smith tries to weasel his way out of this lie.

Mark writes:

I apparently managed to piss off Shermer to quite an extent, as he even wasted his time on the clock in a (failed) attempt to publicly humiliate me for having passed out leaflets, on a public sidewalk, before the debate began. And years later he was STILL having a hissy fit, for in one of his books he trashed me again but not by name! Talk about carrying a grudge!

WRONG! Shermer writes (p.136): "I even called the audience's attention to the man passing out anti-Christian literature, who was now sitting in the front row, and I told him that I thought he was doing more harm than good." Does that sound like Shermer was really carrying a grudge? Gee, it's easy to guess who really holds a grudge now! Anyway, thanks to you, Mark, we know who the mystery man is

6th paragraph, our master debater, Mark Smith, knows how great of a debater Dr. Craig is.

7th paragraph, master debater Smith enquires: "Debating is a skill that has to be learned and requires experience to perfect." Really?!

8th and 9th paragraph, Dr. Curley is not a master debater. The next time you send someone to debate Dr. Craig make sure he's a master debater like master debater Smith.

10th paragraph, master debater Smith cites Eddie Tabash among the few who actually beat Dr. Craig in a debate. Really?? Hmm, atheist Richard Carrier disagrees with Smith on that one. But, what does Carrier know? He's not a master debater like master debater Smith! Furthermore, Smith says:

"Strangely enough, this debate is ONE debate that seems to be lacking from Craig's website!"

Straw Man! Master debater Smith is making it look like Dr. Craig doesn't want anybody to know about this debate. As an avid fan of Dr. Craig's I can testify that there are many debates that are not listed on Dr. Craig's website. Here they are: Debate with Dr. Hector Avalos, Debate with Mr. Ron Barrier, Debate with Dr. Brian Edwards, Debate with Mr. Phillip Adams (and here), and Dr. Henry Morgentaller.

A Blonde Moment!

Master debater Smith says,

Eddie had a hard time getting Craig to debate in the first place, due to Craig's stupid self-made rule of not debating anyone who doesn't possess a PhD- I guess given that same rule, not one Christian within the New Testament would be "good enough" to debate Dr. Craig, including Biblegod's son, Jesus.

How to Beat Dr. Craig in a Debate

Atheists, Agnostics and the Freethinking community will continue to get their butts kicked by Craig unless and until they have the resources and intelligence to sponsor a full-time debater, such as Craig himself is. This debater should be someone with years of solid High School and College debate training and experience behind him. He should also be a former Christian, as it takes one to know one. He also needs to be brought up through the ranks, debating smaller fish for several years, to gain experience, before being set loose on Craig. AND- when the match finally arrives, he needs to be someone who has taken it seriously, prepared for it like a maniac, and has all his arguments and data organized and ready to go. Any academic qualifications take a distant back seat to his skills as a debater. Remember: debating is a SKILL, like plumbing or water skiing. It needs to be learned, practiced, and lived. Having a PhD in some obscure specialty, writing  a book, or being good at arguing with one's wife, does not qualify one as a debater. Would you send a PhD, or a plumber in, to fix a leaking toilet? You would send in the person who had the skill to fix it.  These geeky inept intellectuals have no business embarrassing the rest of us Freethinkers by trying to pass themselves off as debaters on a stage shared with Craig.

Welp, it doesn't seem Doug Krueger can debate Dr. Craig according to these rules.

Proof Mark Smith hasn't studied Dr. Craig's book Reasonable Faith

The topic under discussion comes from Chapter 1 entitled: "Faith and Reason: How Do I Know Christianity Is True?" It may interest some of you but we wanted to know if Mark Smith knew whether atheism was true or not. Doesn't seem likely.

Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig Page #37

Above is a photograph of page 37 from blondie's copy of Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" (pardon his childish scribblings in the margins). I have put this page from his book in here to document to everybody some of what Craig believes. Which brings us to...

Another Blonde Moment

Hard to believe? If blondie did some homework he'd know that Reasonable Faith was previously published as Apologetics: an Introduction where Dr. Craig practically repeats everything (and then some) in the first chapter! No, it wasn't a typo stupid! Furthermore, Dr. Craig uses the phrase "immediate experience of God" on page 32. Dr. Craig has used the "immediate experience of God" term in many of his debates. He used it with Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, Dr. Corey G. Washington, Dr. Douglas M. Jesseph, Dr. Michael Tooley, just to name a few. Also, notice on blondie's website he has a link to Dr. Edwin Curley's debate with Dr. Craig. This is presuming Smith actually read the debate. Not likely. Because Dr. Craig used the "immediate experience of God" in this debate, too! It's certainly hard to believe that Dr. Craig wouldn't believe this.

Blondie writes:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb. ... When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.

What else is new?! Dr. Corey G. Washington set up a similar scenario against Dr. Craig. This is what Craig said in response:

What about the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? Dr. Washington says, "Craig believes it is rational to believe in the resurrection, even if there is no evidence for it." Of course! I think this is perfectly rational. On the basis of my experience of Christ as a living reality today, I know he's risen from the dead. And that would be true, even if I lived, say, in Kyrgyzstan, where I never had the opportunity to look at the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and I never had a New Testament, and I only heard a missionary broadcast on a short-wave radio. I would still be rational on the basis of my experience to believe in the resurrection, even if I didn't have the chance to look at the evidence for it.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you are accused of a crime that you know you didn't commit, and all the evidence stands against you. Are you obliged to believe that you're guilty because the evidence stands against you? Not at all; you know better. You know you're innocent, even if others think that you may be guilty. Similarly, for the person who has an immediate experience of God, such as I described in my sixth argument, who knows God as a personal, living reality in his life, such a person can know that God exists, even if he's not a philosopher and doesn't understand all of these arguments, and so forth. God can be immediately known and experienced, Christ can be immediately known and experienced in your life today, and that is true even if you've never had the chance to examine the evidence.  

Blondie would have saved himself a lot of space had he studied Craig more meticulously. Or, he could have tried to counter Dr. Craig's argument but that's like a bumble-bee trying to do a physics equation.

**************

First off, Blondie has absolutely no clue what a proper basic belief is despite that being mentioned in the first chapter of Reasonable Faith . Alvin Plantinga popularized the phrase and it would be wise to study him some more to put things in perspective. But, briefly, this is what Dr. Plantinga says:

In "Reason and Belief in God," I suggested that such propositions as:

1. God is speaking to me.

2. God disapproves of what I have done, and

3. God forgives me for what I have done.

are properly basic for at least some believers in God; there are widely realized sets of conditions, I suggested, in which such propositions are indeed properly basic. And when I said that these beliefs are properly basic, I had in mind what Quinn calls the narrow conception of the basing relation. I was taking it that a person S accepts a belief A on the basis of a belief B only if (roughly) S believes both A and B and could correctly claim (on reflection) that B is part of his evidence for A. S's belief that there is an error in some argument against p will not typically be a belief on the basis of which he accepts p and will not be a part of his evidence for p. cont'd.

However, notice where Dr. Craig differs with Dr. Plantinga:

My final reason for theistic belief is that belief in (Christian) theism is properly basic both with respect to raionality and warrant for a person who has experienced the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and so come into personal relationship with God. Philosophers of religion will recognize this as the religious epistemology articulated and defended so ably by Alvin Plantinga in his epochal trilogy on warrant. My main differences with Plantinga are that I eschew any innate sensus divinitatis in favour of reliance solely on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (testimonium spiritu sancti internum) and that I construe the latter, not as a belief-forming process analogous to a congnitive faculty, but as part of the circumstances in which a person whose congnitive faculties are functioning properly forms for himself the relevant beliefs, such as 'God loves me.' The claim is that I am rational and warranted in holding such beliefs in the absence of any defeater of them. As a couple of our respondents remind us, such defeaters need not be rebutting defeaters, such as arguments for Gods' non-existence, but may be undercutting defeaters, removing any warrant I have for thinking my belief to be true. The goal of this argument for the proper basicality of belief in God is not, of course, to hold forth my experience as evidence to others of Gods' existence, but to invite others to embark on what Geivett calls 'a devotional experiment' with a view to finding the knowledge of God themselves: 'Tast and see that the Lord is good!'.(William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate, Stan N. Wallace(ed.), Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. P. 179.)

Now, on to the comments:

Dr. Craig is NOT Coming Out of the Mormon Closet, Stupid!

As we've seen, Mark Smith is not nearly competent enough to give a coherent criticism of the Proper Basic Belief in God, let alone a criticism on Dr. Craig. With the question of Mormonism, Dr. Craig writes:

The most significant objection to such a religious epistemology, as several respondents observe, arises from the diversity of the religious claims supported by religious experience. Since these claims are logically incompatible in many cases, the experiences cannot ground them all as properly basic with respect to warrant (assuming that truth is not pluralistic and person-relative, but is one and objective). Either at least some of the experiences are non-veridical or else veridical experiences of the divine have been conceptualized in false propositional claims. For example, while the Christian theist may claim to know the great truths of the Gospel through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, the Mormon polytheist will claim to know the truth of the Book of Mormon through the 'burning in the bosom' he experiences as he reads it. Does not the presence of the confident claim of the Mormon to know the truth of LDS doctrine based on religious experience serve to undercut the claim of the Christian to know the Gospel truth via a similar religious experience?

This is far from obvious. It is clear, I think, that false claims to an experience of God do absolutely nothing to undermine the veridicality of a genuine experience of the Spirit's witness, any more than the insistence of a colourblind person that there is no difference in colour between a red object and a green object undermines my veridical perception of their difference in colour. Even if I were utterly at a loss to show him that his faculties are not functioning properly or that mine are, that inability in no way affects the veridicality of my experience. So what the detractor of religious experience owes us here is what Plantinga calls a de jure objection to theistic belief: an objection, in this case, to the rationality or warrantedness of theistic belief even given the veridicality of my religious experience. (William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate, Stan N. Wallace(ed.), Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. P. 180.)

---

Nonthinker's Debate Strategy

Blondie writes:

In light of what Craig admits to here in his own damn book, as well as the thought experiment I put him thru regarding the time machine, why in the hell haven't the debaters going up against Craig in public been beating him relentlessly over the head with his own comments???

Because they already did! Here they are again:
Debate with Dr. Massimo Pigliucci
Debate with Dr. Corey G. Washington
Debate with Dr. Douglas M. Jesseph
Debate with Dr. Michael Tooley
Debate with Dr. Edwin Curley ...just to name a few.

You see, Blondie is only feigning rationality for the express purpose of deceitfully luring suckers into hell. There is no need to quibble with Mark Smith over minor petty details such as 

!!! OBJECTIVE REALITY !!!!

when he has already confessed in writing, AND SIGNED HIS JOHN HANCOCK TO, the fact that he just doesn't believe in objective reality.

---

Yes, Craig Will Only Debate PhD People, it Ain't a Ploy!

 

~ Homepage of *Dr. Craig ~   http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/ *(Note: Dr. Craig is the one in the middle)
Craig "Policy": Only Debate PhD's Therefore... Dr. Craig Will Only Debate Those With a PhD... With a Few Exceptions of Course. For Instance: "Jesus" (our Lord and Savior) "Biblegod" (God the Father) *Note:} On Mark Smith's website, he has this section entitled: "Some People Past & Present Whom Dr. Craig Would Decline to Debate." The Common Sense League:  ... And in that section, Mark Smith mentions at least these two people above. Gee, Mark, you'd have to be a moron to think that Dr. Craig would want to debate God or Jesus!

Dr. William Lane Craig has two masters and two PhDs, and he has a knack for beating his opponents (as Blondie would agree), I think it would be sensible to have someone equivalent to his academic background to debate him. I mean, why not have Willie the Pizza-delivery man debate Dr. William Lane Craig for crying out loud?! Yes, he has a policy of debating those with a PhD but he would make rare exceptions to debate those without such a degree. That's all. What's the big deal? Furthermore, is there anything new Doug Krueger can bring to the debate that an atheist hasn't already?

*********************

A Letter to Doug Krueger

(Note: This is NOT Doug Krueger although they have a striking resemblance: overweight, long-black-hair, glasses, mustached, and ugly)

Dear Doug Krueger,

I heard you debate before. You're quite a contender. After all, you seem to love debating 14 year-old teenagers. Man, that's impressive! I mean here's a student who's just about reaching puberty and here's you - a PhD candidate about three times that age! Musta been hard whipping that guy in a debate, huh? What's next? A six year-old with straight "A"s? Boy, that would be something. But I think you should do better than that. Try a 7 year-old honor roll student. I think that would impress the whole philosophical academia! There's a problem though. You mumble quite excessively. There were moments where I had to rewind my tape to re-hear what you just said in past recorded debates. This won't be good in a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig. Trust me. Yeah, I know, it's not about how you speak but what you speak about. Just a suggestion though, open your mouth when you speak.

Boy, were you pissed off when you missed your chance of debating Dr. Craig. You complain that he debated those without a PhD but he still won't debate you. Why is that? Take a moment to think about it. Maybe those without a PhD were worth debating because they were actually good, competent, and mature opponents. Furthermore, Ron Barrier, Frank Zindler, and Eddie Tabash strike me as better debaters than you. For one, they know how to speak well and project. Personally, I think Dr. Craig would smoke you like he did them.

You claim you were never "insulting" or "rude" and that you "never resorted to attacking any of my opponents personally." Gee, I guess you were complimenting Dr. Craig when you said, "He (Craig) knows I'd roast the crap out of him if his testicles were ever to descend and he actually agreed to debate me." You were quite right in rhetorically asking Kris, "And you say _I'm_ not nice?" You are so full of nice goody gum drops that you never seem to stop spreading love to your opponents. Like when you said: "Copan pulled this 'Hitler is an atheist' canard out of his a-- and I just told the truth about it, lubed it up, and left it to him to put it back where he got it from.... He is not some hack apologist like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind, hacks that deserve no respect from anyone." Well, if you still contend that you're still not insulting, or rude, or that you never resorted to attacking your opponents personally even after saying such statements, I guess it wouldn't hurt to share your sentiments by calling you a pathological, lying, hypocritical, moronic, idiot with the maturity level of a 6 year-old kid with a speech impediment. I hope you don't think I was just being rude or insulting or attacking you personally. Why, I was just being as nice as you are, you non-talking four-eyed freak. I'm not so sure why you have such a fixation on people's testicles, but at least you admit that Dr. Craig has a pair of them.

Anyway, we e-mailed Dr. Ronald Tacelli and you know what he said? Dr. Craig would debate you if you just get your PhD. It's that simple. But, it's been taking you a mighty long time. It's been at least 6 years now and counting! But no PhDs. What's worse is you're a PhD candidate! I guess, you got some more studying to do, huh?

Good luck,
Frank Walton

PS Peter Atkins has a PhD.

 

Will There Ever Be A ??? Debate ??? William Lane Craig --vs-- Douglas Krueger	Douglas Krueger  ([email protected])   holds both a B.A. degree, as well as a M.A. degree, in philosophy, but no PhD! Professor Krueger teaches philosophy courses at the Northwest Arkansas Community College and the University of Arkansas, Fort Smith where he continues to brainwash his students. Professor Krueger's articles have appeared in such fundy atheist organizations like American Atheist magazine and on the Secular Web online.  His book What Is Atheism?   A Short Introduction is a joke. He is also the cofounder of a skeptical organization, the Fayetteville Freethinkers, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where he is a regular mumbler on public radio and in the local newspaper All About Town.
There won't ever be a debate unless Dougie "not so fresh" Krueger  stops running away long enough to actually accept Dr. Craig's longstanding policy of getting his PhD. As long as Mr. no-PhD continues to make up bogus excuses, it seems like *Dougie Krueger's chariots of atheological wood are no match for Craig's chariots of Theistic iron. ATTENTION:  Could everyone who reads this and is about to attend a Krueger event, please help Krueger do the right thing, and stop embarrassing himself? Tell him in the public Q&A to stand up like a man and face Craig in public debate and get his PhD.    *Judges 1:19}  And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

 

This just in...

It’s Official! Doug Krueger Cannot Debate Dr. Bill Craig!

According to Mark Smith, he who debates Dr. Craig must have these indispensable traits:

1. "… be a former Christian".
2. "… be brought up through the ranks, debating smaller fish for several years, to gain experience, before being set loose on Craig."
3. "… be someone who has taken it (the match) seriously, prepared for it like a maniac, and has all his arguments and data organized and ready to go."
4. "… be someone with years of solid High School and College debate training and experience behind him."

Personally, we don’t think that Krueger qualifies according to rule #1, but we will grant it for argument’s sake (Krueger claims he used to be a Christian). We’ll also grant #2 and #3. But, I’m afraid, we cannot grant #4. Thus, Krueger doesn’t qualify to debate Dr. Bill Craig. Krueger started debating in College graduate school, but not in high school! Here’s his own words in an e-mail when asked if he debated in high school:

Dated: 8/31/2004

I didn't debate until graduate school. I never took a class on it and never attended debates.

There you have it folks! According to blondie, Doug Krueger does not qualify to debate Dr. Bill Craig. Hey Blondie, we'll forward you the e-mail if you want.

Links To Anti-Krueger Web Sites

Addressing Those Colossal Misunderstandings A Reply to Krueger's Critique of A Shattered Visage by Paul Copan http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=2

Doug Krueger Gets Divorced from Reality by JP Holding http://www.tektonics.org/divorce2.html

What is Atheism? Review by Mark McFall http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/krueger_atheism.htm

Weighing In From Left Field by RJ Traff http://www.trafftroupe.org/rjtraff/debate.htm

Book Review and Critique of What is Atheism? by Skeptical Christian http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_whatisatheism.htm http://www.skepticalchristian.com/ct_kruegerpreface.htm

 

---

Links in response to Anti-Craig Web Sites

Squalling to Raise the Dead A Reply to Price's By This Time He Stinketh by JP Holding http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pricer06.html

A Swift Response to Dan Barker's "Cosmological Kalamity" by Shandon L. Guthrie http://sguthrie.net/barker_response.htm

Glycon Speaks Again by JP Holding Not a direct respond to Lowder's Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story but deals with similar content http://tektonics.org/uz/vector01.html Also see: The Lowder They Protest

 

In conclusion...

We have shown how misplaced and deranged Mark Smith is. He still remains an iconic dork of all dorks. For instance, he thinks Dr. Craig should debate non-PhDs like God and Jesus.

And, Smith overlooks evidence when they are literally in front of his face. To illustrate, he overlooks Craig's debates on the "immediate experience of God" and makes the embarassing claim that nobody challenged him on this; yet links to a debate where Craig actually mentions the "immediate experience of God" and was challenged on it!

Furthermore, Smith's embarassing incomprehension of the proper basic belief in God (despite that being mentioned in Chapter 1 of Dr. Craig's book Faith and Reason - the chapter he critiques) is self-explanatory and for all to read and laugh at. I can go on and on but you get the point. He does nothing more than avert to smear tactics.

---

However...

Dr. William Lane Craig still remains to be one of the most important and scholarly authors, lecturers, teachers, and defenders of the faith. If the Protestant church adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of sainthood, Dr. Craig would surely be branded as such. God bless him!

---

7/6/2004

Hey Marky,

Thanks for being a sport by putting a link to our website. We were hoping you would respond. But, oh well... Anyway, we hope you didn't take any personal insults personally (like calling you a "moron" or that you're blind to objective reality). It was just a satiritcal jab at ya is all.

Anyway, since you've decided to not respond to our charges against your website - and instead you tried to "condescend" us with "why is Mark linking to a site that hopes to prove Mark is full of crap. Good question. I do so so that all may see the weakness of the Christian arguments. I do so so that all may realize that 'Hey, if THIS is the best they can come up with to refute what Mark has written, maybe what Mark has written is true after all.'" {this is question begging really - we're only to deduce that you have no real reply. Ah, but you had this to say, which isn't much: "Unfortunately, the college students that put up ContraSmith do NOT have any strong arguments, just more philosophical hot air that basically says that if Craig CLAIMS to have had a religious experience, that's all the evidence these college boys need, yessireebob."

You said, "I've changed things in this site before due to what some have pointed out to me, and I can change them again." For our sake, Marky, please don't change anything. We like the way the website is. Especially, the part where you "criticize" Dr. Craig's book. We want you stay as your arrogant self :)

You asked, "Where's the beef?" We have it for you, Marky. Do you want it well done? Because we pretty much cooked your arguments.

Anyway, now you're asking for miracles. Personally, we don't think that's the subject of Chapter 1 in Dr. Craig's book.

Thanks for enjoying our website. Personally, we find yours more amusing.

Yours in Christ,

Frank Walton and Friends

---

Uh-Oh, Mark Smith revises his "Response to my ContraCraig Website" without us knowing, but we have a response right here and here:

Corey sent this e-mail, but in true Mark Smith form he refused to put this on his website let alone respond to us.

Aug 10, 2004

Hey Blondie,

Uh, can you please quote me where I claimed that I served in "Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia AND the Persian Gulf War!" ?? Wow, and you accuse Bush of being a liar! Anyway, I'll await a response to see if you can back up your claim. Then you accuse us of this: "They are good fundy right-wingers, and will most likely vote for Bush no matter how many soldiers die from his lies." Gee, you talk about cheapshots! THIS is a cheapshot!

Yours,

Corey

Mark Smith still has not given us any evidence where Corey claimed to serve in Grenada, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia AND the Persian Gulf War. We're still waiting you liar!

---

As of September 7, 2004, the page (link below) has been AWOL for several weeks. It seems as if maybe the students that put it up lost interest or ran out of $ :(

As I recall, Corey sent you the reason (which you wouldn’t honestly investigate) why ContraSmith went out of commission. Briefly, it was because we authored a website where we critiqued an atheist’s incomprehension of philosophical terms. We now call him "Todangstupid" as a pseudonym for his real identity (and a way from having yahoo close our website). The cowardly atheist, Todangstupid, started lies about us and did everything he could to close our website. Unfortunately, he succeeded. Not once, did he try to engage in a civil conversation let alone offer a philosophical reply. Oh, and, geocities is set up so you can start a website for free, blondie.

They are good fundy right-wingers, and will most likely vote for Bush no matter how many soldiers die from his lies.

I, personally, am not a full right-wing conservative, like Corey; but, I do listen to Rush Limbaugh. Though I disagree with him sometimes (to read a good book on Rush Limbaugh check out: Rush Limbaugh and the Bible by Daniel J. Evearitt). Yes, we will vote for Bush, but it’s a totally disingenuous and outright misrepresentative of you to think we support Bush at the expense of soldier’s dying. *Sigh* How many fascist liberal left-wing loonies have been spouting off this propaganda?! Look, if Bush lied about the pretenses of the war, then John Kerry, Bill Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the United Nations, and Saddam Hussein and his sons have lied about WMDs, too! Here’s some great videos, on these lies: Pin the Tale on the Donkeys and Bill O'Reilly vs Michael Moore.

Another Blonde Moment...

(Notice the striking similarities in looks and logic)

They've done some amusing things with my image (how dare they! ha ha ha) and it really was a hoot reading thru the entire LONG website.

Notice Mark Smith emphasizes the word LONG to describe our website. Yup, still a moron. Are website is long only because your website is long, blondie! In case you forgot ContraSmith looks almost exactly like ContraCraig .

Note on my Note Above: It is now February 26, 2005 and the website below is STILL dead.

"The website" that Blondie is refering to is this one: www.geocities.com/uponthisrock247365/contrasmith.htm. Hey no-brain, you can't just go back on the same url address after having it shut !

Hey, Mark Smith is actually trying to look sophisticated!

It's quite pathetic if you ask me; maybe he's trying to look like Fabio...

---

Responses to ContraSmith

---

Home

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws