For something like the last six hours this has been the Jose/David D show. I respectfully withdraw. You may continue to sing and dance if you choose.

It isn’t pointed out. It doesn’t need to be pointed out. It’s irrelevant. Explain how knowing the date the incident occurred affects the meaning of the post.

I understand URL’s and how things are “time stamped” on the Web.

Then why would you use this to make such a dumb argument?

You seem to still lack any understanding with Urban Legends and their genesis,and why the correct date would be important in the context of an Urban Legend.

No. You’ve just failed miserably to show that there was any misrepresentation of the date.

I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation of this story being current. Can you point out to me anywhere where the story is presented as a year old?

I gave specific examples of why I thought it was current. In your opinion they are “iffy”. Go and read the Examiner article that BA linked to–let me know in that article where the story is given its correct time context. I understand URL’s and how things are “time stamped” on the Web.

You seem to still lack any understanding with Urban Legends and their genesis,and why the correct date would be important in the context of an Urban Legend.

Yes. I conceded that you didn’t attack his argument. I never said you did. You asked me a dumb hypothetical question about how I would react to a creationist, and I answered it.

You’re okay with me “examining” the story as an Urban Legend, yet you fail to understand how the “date thing” is essential to the Urban Legend idea. Go do some homework.

You said

”This is obviously NOT a current news story as presented by BA.”

When people pointed out that he never presented it that way, you were unable to concede that you were wrong. Instead you made an iffy grammatical argument, and pointed to the date in the hyperlink as evidence that you were right. You don’t even understand that it’s common practice for post on the web to contain the date they were posted within the URL and you want me to do some homework?

I didn’t make up an issue, and you still haven’t demonstrated where I attacked BA’s argument. Ignoring is not attacking.

You’re okay with me “examining” the story as an Urban Legend, yet you fail to understand how the “date thing” is essential to the Urban Legend idea. Go do some homework.

Yes. You ignored his argument, and made up your own silly issue.

Maybe the date is irrelevant to the story, but it immediately seemed like an Urban Legend to me, with some apocryphal story that is recycled again and again.

It sounds like an urban legend to me too. If you stick to examining that, I have no problem, but any way I look at it, the date thing is a non-issue.