Re: More Ad Hom

On Dec 21, 3:08 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 21, 9:39 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:36 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 20, 3:56 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:nst me.

Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I responded to.

Oh dear, Glenn.
Let's get this straight:

I already have. You however seem to have a problem with seeing
yourself exposed. But I'll have another go at it:

Here is Mark VandeWettering's post:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/706b44b506fe1aea
Anyone can read it in full to see which questions you have snipped and
evaded. It's a long post, so I won't post it in full.

But you did, or enough of it to create the appearance that I responded
to the parts I snipped. I'll inlcude a pasted portion of your post
below as evidence to show this to be fact.

Here is your response *IN FULL*

Yep, that is all I said.

"Tha tha tha thats it folks."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6aa91deaf2ca689d

What is dishonest about that, Glenn? I have posted you entire
response, have not edited it in any way, and provided a link to both
your post and the post to which it was "responding".

I have already told you in the post you are replying to above, and in
another post I made just after the first. You dishonestly
misrepresented *what I responded to*.
You don't even address that claim here; instead you appear to think it
meant that I either think Mark's post is hidden from view or that I am
denying what I said.
Yes, anyone *can* see what I responded to and what I snipped. But
readers may, if they don't take the time to look and analyze what is
being said carefully, assume that I responded to the part of Mark's
post that you included in your claim of what I responded to.

You are not preaching to a bunch of ignorant creationists  here whom
you can distract with unfounded assertions of dishonesty. You are
shown to be dishonest by your own words and your own posting history
which anyone can confirm simply by checking back up the thread.

Pathetic.

Quite pathetic, Richard. Here's the relevant part of your post:

**********************
[...]> The FAQ author seems not capable of recognizing an ad hominem,
consistently uses red herrings and faulty reasoning rather than
address the claim. Or he assumes that Creationists use this argument
to conclude that "Darwin was wrong", which of course he did.
Was there an ad hom *anywhere* in this FAQ or the "Claim"?

        Mark
Here is your response:
"Tha tha tha thats it folks."

I call this "snipping awkward questions", Glenn.
What do you call it?
************************

Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I
responded to.  What I *responded to* was:

"Probably because you are frequently wrong, and always disagreeable."

And as I have already said, anyone can look this up. It's fact, unlike
your supposed "evidence" or "support" which is mostly from your own
imagination, or a rephrased repeat of your own claims.

You didn't respond to the many points he made and the questions he
asked you.

I'm still waiting for some evidence of your claims against me, idiot.
I do not deny snipping parts of posts at times, but that isn't an
indicator of dishonesty or misrepresentation.

Again, idiot, this and other stupid things you pull are quite obvious,
dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up.

Glenn, you are so transparently wrong that I doubt that even the
creationists are persuaded!

The *evidence*, hard facts, are here in this very thread, that I am
right about you.

The
example of your "DI acknowledged" claim is recent and also an
excellent example, which is why I included it in this current waste of
my time with you. You had and have *no* evidence, read *evidence*,
whatsoever for that claim.

So why has Philip Johnson conceded that there is no scientific theory
of ID, and why did the DI remove the word "scientific" from their
definition if ID "theory"?

There is a good chance that you really believe this question
constitutes "evidence". You do repeat yourself over and over. Maybe
you think that if you make a claim often enough, someone will believe
it. I'm still waiting for *evidence*, Richard. Your imagining that
"removal" of a word has some meaning, especially some confession of
the DI, is not in any way a *reason* to claim that the "DI
acknowledges that ID is not a scientific theory". You are a *loon*,
Richard.

You certainly show the desire to make it
stick by illogically linking one event to another.

So what's your explanation for the evidence?
Your "explanation" that scientific theories don't in general include
the word "scientific" won't wash, because it does not explain why the
word was removed.

Richard, there *is no* evidence in the revised article not including
the word "scientific" in one place and including it in another. That
you can not find another explanation is *not evidence* either, except
in this case of your loonyness.

You show yourself
to be dishonest. You said I had no contradictory evidence, yet you are
aware that I posted a quote of the same article you used as evidence,
that did refer to ID as a scientific theory.

The quote you posted was from an earlier date, when the word
"scientific" was still included!

Goody. I have no reason to argue or try to rationalize with you any
further on this issue, Richard. You have nothing here on the DI, and
were you not completely bonkers you would have realized it long ago
and admitted to a serious mistake in judgement, by making the claim in
the first place.

That *is* evidence,
Richard.

Quite so. And now the word has been removed. It's the *only* change to
the definition.

No, the word "scientific", that your "quite so" appears to
acknowledge, has not been removed. It exists in the article, and is
"quite so" evidence that the DI regards ID as scientific. Where the
word existed in another section of the article in a previous version
and is now absent, is *not* evidence of anything.

Unlike your unsupportable imaginings. You wanted the DI to be
seen as admitting that ID isn't scientific,

I don't need to. There's a court ruling to that effect. If you don't
like it, take it up with the courts.

You are really one dishonest bugger. No court has ruled that the DI
has admitted ID isn't scientific. Your juvenile rhetoric is hilarious
at times, though.

and you want to make me
appear as being dishonest.

You appear dishonest regardless of what I do, Glenn. That's because
you *are* dishonest. I'm not making you dishonest, you chose to be
dishonest.

Well that is what you are supposed to be showing, Richard. It has
turned out so far to be glaring indictments into your own character.

But you're just full of hot air, a pitiful
example of someone who who likes to make it known that "hates
dishonesty". You're dishonest and your arguments are illogical and
unsupported. You're a *loon*.

So why not address the numerous instance of misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehood I identify on creationist web
sites?

That's evidence.

Now you would like to change the subject. The subjects I have chosen
have done nicely to show your misrepresentation, distortion and lies,
however.
Richard, even if half of the rest of the world were creationists and
all misrepresenting, lying loons, that would not get you off the hook
of being one yourself.
Your "addressings" are evidence, but of what is irrelevant here. It
would definitely *not* be evidence of your claims against me.
Dishonest people often can't help themselves, and it appears right
here to be an example of that with respect to your behavior. I've been
asking for evidence from you in these exchanges between you and I in
this thread, and have repeatedly reminded you that your responses have
not included evidence. Now you pop up and say "that's evidence". Yes,
but evidence of anything relative to your claims against me? Not at
all.

Of course, I know that you won't because, as you have demonstrated so
amply, you are moral and intellectual coward.

This is just one more of your many devious methods to discredit me,
with absolutely no evidence, and faulty reasoning to boot. I won't
allow the subject to be subverted by you. You made certain claims
against me. "insults", which you can not show to be true, and your
attempts have included the very behaviors that you accuse me of.
Staying on the specific topic at hand does not mean that I am a
coward. To make the claim that you just did actually does demonstrate
that you are dishonest, or very stupid, or both. You have no reason to
claim that you "know" I won't; the claim is just a childish attempt to
illicit some response for some reason. You've done about everything
but throw in the kitchen sink, *and* provide evidence for your claims
against me, or for the DI having "acknowledged" ID isn't scientific,
or that snipping is "evading", or that posting an article is
"imagining", or... and on and on and on.

Just a typical, shoddy little creationist.

You are such a child, Richard.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology
    ... Two admissions by Eric himself that he's dishonest. ... you skip the squink and dodge the matter by being ... have any evidence for it, and we dont have any evidence against it either.", ... I posted an argument in response to your invitation to do so. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: More Ad Hom
    ... I'm still waiting for some evidence of your claims against me, ... dishonest, and you don't bother trying to back your claims up. ... Richard. ... illicit some response for some reason. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is the fact that Forrest Veils his metaphysica biases virtuous or
    ... extensive evidence for his own faith-based fairy tale for which ... evolution as a well supported scientific theory. ... Creationists may make this claim, ... to exist in nature is dishonest, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is the fact that Forrest Veils his metaphysica biases virtuous or
    ... extensive evidence for his own faith-based fairy tale for which ... therefore there is no evidence of evolution. ... to exist in nature is dishonest, ... I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Ad Hom
    ... response, have not edited it in any way, and provided a link to both ... "Tha tha tha thats it folks." ... Again, I call that deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation of what I ... You said I had no contradictory evidence, ...
    (talk.origins)