Re: Why is Bob, Rolf and Create This attempting to have me banned?


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175787874.216573.5190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

You know Dishonest Ray, if you don't stop this almost constant repeat
posting then I will be forced to lodge a formal complaint with your
NSP.

--
Bob.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is probably the first reply to a message from Bob in over a year.
I do not respond to his posts because they are all one line rants and
insults.

or you can't refute.


But now Bob is clearly attempting to me banned.

Actually, Ray, he's pointing out your double posting, which is reason for a
complaint to your ISP. He has not called to have you banned, but requested
that you stop double posting. It does appear that you are angling to be
banned, because your "paper" is nowhere in sight, and perhaps you are trying
to avoid having to follow up on your promises....



Why?

What is "repeat posting" and where did I do it?

You did it in this very reply, which is duplicated. While it's possible
you are simply hitting the "send" button twice, it's also possible you are
deliberately posting twice. You also may be deleting your previous posts,
and re-sending them after editing, in which case it appears as a double post
for those not reading in Google. Either way, Bob is requesting you not
duplicate your posts.


We know Bob, from his replies to my posts, is incensed with rage, like
Rolf and Create This.

Well, we don't "know" that, as it seems to be your own interpetation. You
call any post the disputes your claims "enraged". Too many false positives
make your claims of "rage" unreliable.

These three members would like to see me banned
because my posts infuriate them.

I suspect that you are the one wanting to be banned, as it would relieve you
of your promise to present that "paper" you keep procrastinating on.
Whatever is the truth, you have just as much evidence that the three you
mention want you banned, as there is to support you wanting yourself banned.

In order to achieve this goal Bob is
now inventing reasons why this should happen.

To be fair, Bob does have a legitamate complaint, although I think he's
being a little too agressive. I'm willing to assume your double posting is
a mistake, not a deliberate action.

Bob also claims to
report for for "excessive sig length" which is false because I have no
sig info that appears in any of my posts. What Bob is saying is that
when I forget to snip the end text of a post after I type my name that
this constitutes a sig.

Technically, he's correct, but again I think it's not deliberate. All you
need to do is remember to snip the rest, if you choose not to reply (and of
course, mark your snip)


Ken Shackelton routinely does the same and yet
I do not see Bob going after him.

Other persons doing wrong is not an excuse for your own wrongdoing. Tu
quoque is a logical fallacy too.


The point again, is that Bob is enraged and attempting to have me
banned. His little amen section of Rolf and Create This show equal
rage and have made veiled remarks that seem to support his agenda.

There is not any evidence that Bob is "enraged", and the others have not
shown any rage either. Again, there is no evidence that the others are
trying to get you banned, any more than there is evidence to suggest you are
trying to get yourself banned. Either one is equally likely.


I could care fucking less if Darwinists ban me = rage caused by the
inability to refute

Ray, since you have been refuted over and over, that's hardly an issue.
Obviously you do care, as evidenced by your angry, profane reply.

- objective persons know that is the real reason.

Appeal to vanity is a logical fallacy as well. You have no reason to
suspect what an objective person knows, or does not know.


Currently I am serving lifetime bans at IIDB, EvC Forum, Theology Web,
Infidel Guy and Christian Forums - all controlled by atheists and
TEists (Darwinists) for nothing other than defending Creationism.

Actually, Ray, the other forums have banned you for outrageous and immoral
behavior, not for "defending Creationism". You obviously are aware of
this, as you have attempted to get yourself banned here for the same
offenses.

Sometimes I make a post or two at one of these boards under a phony
name but that is the extent.

Why you would admit to such dishonesty is anyone's guess. Is this supposed
to support your efforts, that you admit to engaging in deception? Also, is
this an admission that your "brother" that posted here was yourself?

I am bored with these boards because the
level of intellectuality is very low compared to Talk Origins.

Do I detect the bitter scent of "Sour Grapes"?


But
now, posters who belong at Talk Atheism and these other boards are
attempting to have me banned here OVER NOTHING.

Do you feel that your libelous, profane, and abusive tactics are not reason
for others to wish to remove you from civil discourse? In any case, T.O.
does not ban people for content, but for violations of posting conventions.
All you have to do to remain at T.O. (despite your own promises not to post
until your "paper" is complete) is follow simple posting rules.


Since atheists have a long history in the last century of banning
their opponents to places like Siberia and prisons and the gallows I
do not feel slighted.

Atheists are not the only people who have banned those who disagree. You,
I'm certian would ban most of the posters here, if you had the chance.


I bet DLG shrugs his shoulders.

Do you mean DIG? Who is "DLG"?

Since he attempted to equate
Creationism with Holocaust denial he too would like to see me gone for
pointing out the blatant Darwinian bias at the expense of six million
Jews.

What David did was to point out that Creationists and Holocaust deniers use
similar tactics. There was no "Darwinian bias" that resulted in the
murder of those people. It was good old fashoned religious anti-semetism.



But the real unspoken motive to have me bannned is hatred of my
Pastor, Stanford Ph.D. (Dr. Scott) who has falisfied your moronic
theory.

Mr. Scott did not falsify any scientific theory. It's not possible for a
religious opinion to falsify a scientific theory.


Dr. Scott: Naturalism (and the success of everything built on the God
excluding methodology) is a punishment from God for denying Him the
credit and status of Creator.

It's interesting that since Mr. Scott's death, he's been changing his
claims. Originally, Ray was claiming that it was 'Darwinism' that was the
punishment. Now it's "naturalism". Apparently Ray is forgetting that all
of science is built on methodological naturalism, so that all science,
including medicine, physics, chemistry, etc, and everything derived from
them.. to the very computer Ray is using to post, is part of God's
punishment. Even though many scientists do gladly grant God the status and
credit for Creation, Ray continues to make this claim. Instead of letting
Mr. Scott's repuation be healed by the passage of time, Ray keeps reminding
us of how poor a scholar this man was.

Thats why a moronic theory thrives.

The fact there is a massive amount of evidence to support that theory has
nothing to do with it?

God makes you believe something so
ridiculous for denying the reality of design.

Ray, if evolution were so "ridiculous", why is there so much evidence to
support it? Why do you keep running away from the evidence?

Does this mean
Darwinists are going to hell? Absolutely - that's exactly what it
means.

Now Ray is presuming to speak for God. That's blasphemy of the highest
order.

DJT


.