Variety of legal resources and forms relevant to Maine's elderly population.

Providing free legal assistance to socially and economically needy Maine residents age 60 and older with offices in Augusta, Bangor, Lewiston, Portland and Presque Isle.

Free legal services for low income residents of Maine, for non-criminal matters.

Free legal services for low income people.

Mission is to provide assistance to the state's low-income community.

In article <140.35.10.05.885435000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...

>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:

>>>I wonder if you can supply a reference to support you
>>>theorem "God is supreme simplicity." And I wonder if
>>>He's insulted.
>>
>> Well, I don't wonder. I know that He is not.
>>
>> As for references, provide _me_ a reference to support your outrageous
>> claim that we don't "have the data" to define will in the two contexts
>> above.

>This is classic Matthew.

And classic Bart, too.

> First he accuses me of trying to be a mind-reader,

And it was pretty obvious that my accusation was spot on. For you _did_ claim to
know my motives, and you were wrong. Very wrong.

> then he claims to know the mind of God.

No, I make no such claim. So it is this accusation of yours that is "irrational
rambling pointless bather[sic]'.

Like I said: classic Bart! He doesn't even know the difference between 'bather'
and 'blather'.

>The cherry on top of his irrational, rambling, pointless
>bather is that I'm now supposed to supply proof that something
>doesn't exist, namely, I'm supposed to supply proof that
>he can't read God's mind.

You keep repeating _this_ nonsense after you claimed such an unerring sense for
detecting illogic? Are you really so eager to make such a fool of yourself in
such a public forum?

>I sure don't have time or energy for nonsense like that.

No. You only have time and energy for much worse real nonsense. Such as claiming
that I asked you for proof that I can't read God's mind.

It is shameful, Bart, for someone with a PhD in mathematics to make such an
obviously false and unsubstantiable claim. I never claimed to know God's mind. I
only claimed to know that we can define "consequent will" and "antecedent will"
of God. But if you would use your head for something other than casting
aspersions and worse, you would remember that when _I_ talk about such
'definitions', I am usually talking about _apophatic_ definitions. Apophatic
definitions do NOT claim to exhaustively describe. Therefore, I am most
certainly NOT talking about "knowing the mind of God".

No, it is you, not me, who has followed the gross fallacy here, Bart. Again,
that is particularly shameful after your bragging of such an ability to detect
illogic.

The fallacy you have committed is sometimes called the Fallacy of Division. For
what is true of knowledge of God's mind as a whole, namely, that we cannot have
it, is NOT true of the knowledge I claim God revealed to us, namely, that there
is a distinction between "consequent will" and "antecedent will".

Is that too hard for you to follow, Bart? Maybe you had better stick to grading
math papers. For as Aquinas