Re: Kicked off of Uncommon Descent

On Jul 21, 3:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:56 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 20, 5:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:06 pm, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:

Rolf <rolf.aalb...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seeing all the unbeliavbly idiotic stuff posted at PT by people even more
'advanced' than Ray, I find it very hard to belive he ever was banned there.
But OTOH, I don't see no reason why he should post there nor here; he should
just hurry up and get his paper out. Then there will no longer be any
dispute about evolution and people will 'flood' the churches.

Martyrdom has always been sweet for xtians.

As far as we can tell, Ray hasn't been banned from PT - he simply has
never posted any comments there in the first place (at least not under
the name "Martinez"). The martyr complex is all in his head.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

I post under my real name like here.

PvM, your lap dog, erased all my posts and prevented all future posts
from posting (= illegal clandestine banning).

No, Ray. The Panda's Thumb archives all posts, even those that are
later removed from public sight for trolling or spamming. You have
NEVER posted on the Panda's Thumb. Nobody has EVER responded to a post
from you. Nobody has ever even mentioned your name.

You've been caught in a lie, again.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/the-association.html#comm...

It is you that has been caught in another lie.

Okay, so your posts DO appear. How then are you banned?

Intelligent people know what this means. I am objective enough to have
said that Psycho Dave (Atheist evolutionist) was banned at UD because
he could not be refuted.

And in this, you were actually right. An aphorism about blind sows and
acorns comes to mind, although I suspect you wouldn't have made this
point if you didn't think it supported your other claims.

It's not a matter of opinion: if a legit
person of any persuasion is banned it is because they cannot be
refuted.

Or because they're trolls, or because they're spammers, or... well,
you get the idea.

Of course no evolutionist has this degree of objectivity
concerning me.

Possibly true. I'd have a hard time viewing Bozo the Clown with "a
degree of objectivity" too, and for pretty much the same reason.

Anybody want to guess as to what Wesley Elsberry and William Dembski
have in common?

Both have names starting with W?

Ray, you've been exposed as a liar a dozen times in talk.origins
alone. Why should anybody take your word for anything, ever?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Angry Atheist slandering a Christian just like Jesus said would
happen.

First, Ray, I'm not angry. You lack the ability to make me angry; the
worst reaction you've ever provoked from me is laughter.

Second, this is a written medium, so the word would be "libel." I
expect you to ignore this, as you have the countless other times it
has been pointed out to you.

Third: It's not slander (or libel) unless what I say is false.

.

Relevant Pages