I have it on good authority that Ben has fantasies about reading the bible with Charo.
Well, one rather glaring difference is that I did not intend to call you a liar, and you did believe all slaves were freed after six years. [sub]weasel[/sub] I may have phrased my remark in a way that could be misinterptreted by a overly-sensitive poster, but you both believed that all slaves were freed after six years and intended to say exactly that. I never intended to call you a liar. >2
And later, you claimed repeatedly that you said no such thing. This is the sort of reason why you are considered weaselly, Dan. >3
Probably becuase they don’t have anything to do with atheists–you know if a site is run by atheists, it must twist facts, but of course a Christian or Jewish site can be utterly unbiased. :rolleyes:>4
Oh good, since you haven’t found anything concrete against Infidels, you’ll resort to vague innuendo. >5
Yet, you have not been able to show that Infidels did so. I think the only conclusion we can draw from your harping about “don’t trust biased sources” is that you are arguing vehemently that we shouldn’t trust you. >6
>1 I claimed Infidels was untrustworthy as they took quotes out of context. They do. I notice that you have completely ignored my earlier post here, when folks were asking what site we are discussing. You were discussing & citing an entirely different article than i had been originally- one that is more balanced. Your article, while still using quotes from an authors work that gives the impression thye were argueing differently thanthe main thesis of thier work, did give better quotes & was much more scientific. You asked for another example, I gave it to you. I do not casre what the fuck that ben wants- he no longer has any right to get any back-up or info from me- he can ask a 1000 times- and still, it makes no difference. His game is clearly to harass me by asking for back-up, but when he is asked for it- refuse. I am no longer debating ben in any fashion. Next- I did modify my claim vs Infidels- i said that even tho it does clearly takes quotes out of context- I could not actually find a “misquote”. What is odd, that when I back-down from a point- you call it weasleing, but then you infer i never admit I am wrong- which is it? Finally- for now the some 12th time- every time you asked for back-up, I gave you back up. It might not have been the back-up you thought you were asking for- but it was the back-up I thought you were asking for. You have admitted misunderstanding me a few times, and sometimes skipping over a reply. Both are understandable. We have VERY long replies, and i will understand it (and i hope you do to), when out of some 200 lines we miss one. BUT_ after it is brought to your attention- why do you continue with this “falsehood”?
>2. There is some mea culpa here- i bought a new Condordance, to help me back-up things. I looked up “slavery”, and the Concordance listed “slaves freed after 6 years = Ex 21:2”- as a fast answer I simply accepted that, and went on. Later, you pointed out that this applied to only hebrew slaves- and i agreed. After further research, i did find verses which said that gentile slaves must be circumsized- so based on other verses, I thought that this would give them the right to convert (while still slaves). Zev, who has access to Talmudic lore not contained in the OT itself- said that this interpretation was incorrect- altho there was something “inbetween” in status of these folks. And, i am afraid that “falsehood” does mean lying, so you can understand my misunderstanding your thoughts.
>3 I never claimed I did not print the word “village”. I claimed I never supported a position that Jericho was only “small village”. The 2 are different.
>4 Now who is being the 'weasle"? Did i not clearly say that “fundie” site are just as Biased & not to be “trusted” as atheist sites? Bias is bias- even if you are “on my side”.
>5 Again- you are leaving with the Scylla of “never admitting I am wrong” or the Charybis “of being a weasle”. I admitted part of my earlier position could not be back-up- thus, in some sense I was wrong. I have then modified my original postion to a more general postition. What is wrong in me saying my original position was too strongly worded, and I am re-grouping to a more general postion?
>6 yes- i have shown that Infidels takes quotes “out of context”. Clearly Kenyon accepted a modified Conquest model, and a “town that could have been conquered by Joshua”, which is different than what infidels is trying to show. However, i do agree that infidels, at least in the article you cite, words thing very carefully, and does not misquote, nor do they actually say that Kenyon takes a postition in oppostion to what she actually does. The other site in not as well written or balanced, however.
>7 Again- if I change my position, after having found insufficient back-up, I hardly see how this is wrong.
No, you have things mixed up. ben, here is referring to the fact that Opus, in the “Books for Fundies” thread, posted some info which showed that folks who identified themselves as “fundies” tended to have a lower % of College degrees than non- "fundies’. However, as we all know, that having a college degree does not stop one from being ignorant, nor does the lack of one prevent someone from being very wise indeed(unless you want to define that anyone without a degree is “ignorant”). I conclusively crushed that arguement- so much so that they dropped it.
In the other thread, opus quoted kenyon, using “infidels” as a cite. That is clearly a 2nd hand, biased source. Then, ben, posted a link to that whole thread, so one could not even tell which of several links opus gave- that ben meant. That is what i called a 'third-hand cite".
Danny, according to your apparent definition, any quote shy of the whole book is “out of context”. Your quotes are out of context. :rolleyes: They quote her accurately and fully enough that her intent is clear and do not misrepresent her views. You, may I remind you yet again, dropped off half a sentence–in all caps–when your quoted YOUR source, and when the text you snipped is added back in, it substansively harmed your argument. And you presume to lecture about quoting out of context? Sheesh. You look worse and worse the more you demand other sources be held to a standard that you do even come close to approaching yourself, not to mention one not held by most reasonable people. Infidels even mentions the settlement at Jericho, and you still waffle back and forth as to whether you think she actually thought there was one there. If anything, they are interpreting Keynon’s wors generously on the side of the Bible.
When I cited that article, you NEVER ONCE even hinted that wasn’t the one you were looking at previously. I just ran a search on Kenyon and Jericho and Joshua and that was the one I saw. You to all appearances accepted that that was the article you were talking about, and proptly started arguing based upon its statements. Now you’ve suddenly changed your tune (what, two weeks later?) and say that’s not the article you were talking about. I strongly suspect this is just more weaseling. It doesn’t really matter, since they’re both on Infidels, but I find it indicative of a willingness to change your stance to nearly limitless degrees just as long as you think you can attack Infidels with it .
What other example? Example number one was your claim that Infidels said there was no settlement at Jericho when Joshua got there. Then your next claim was, oh, OK, they do say there’s a settlement there, but “village” instead of “town” was a heinous misquote. Was this your second example?
You certainly often wiggle around any attempt to do so–witness your “I didn’t mean all slaves” trick. The fact that you didn’t simply say “oops, sorry, I messed that up,” but tried to claim that it was technically correct is frankly weaselly.
HA! Daniel, I told you just in my previous post that falsehood meant “lie”, but used that statement to emphasize that I specifically used the term “false statement”, which is not the same as falsehood. I understand how you could get confused (although I have certainly stated often enough previously that I am not claiming your errors are intentional), but I never used the term falsehood in referring to your statements above. Nor am I unaware of the meaning of the term (as you imply) since I freakin’ told you what the blasted definition was myself!
So, both you and your source said that it could be a village, but you never said small village. Obviously, the difference between “village” and “small village” is very profound and worth discounting an entire website simply because you see it on a single article. Er, yeah. Whatever.
Yes, but you claimed Infidels’ facts were suspect because they have a Darwin fish on their site. So tell me, if a website has a cross on it, do you discount everything they say? Infidels is hardly a “fundie atheist” site; as you yourself has found out, they do competent research and you STILL HAVE YET TO CATCH THEM IN AN ERROR OF FACT.
Because now you are just posting vague accusations that cannot be refuted by concrete facts. “They’re biased…you can’t trust them. Sure, I haven’t found any errors on their site, but still, don’t trust them.” :snort: I think you’re both more biased and FAR more prone to errors than Infidels. For you to discount the statements of a website that can find no error in speaks quite poorly of your objectivity.
What? Infidels clearly claims there is a settlement there, and never says there is not! If you’re still harping on the “town” v. “village” bit as the basis for your whole argument, I must say this: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I think you misunderstand what “taking quotes out of context” means. All quotes are technically “out of context” unless you quote the entire book. However, when you refer to quotes taken out of context, the quotes must be used in such a way as to intentionally give an impression clearly differnt than the authors intent. The Kenyon quote says the walls of Jericho were destroyed many hundreds of years before Joshua was supposed to get there. This is, in fact, her belief. The quote is therefore not out of context.
The problem is not that you change your argument, it’s that you seem to avoid admitting it–see the none-few-none thing we went through with the “abandoned cities”. As far as I can tell, you have already decided that Infidels are unreliable, and are desperately trying to find some way to justify this belief. Your arguments change because although you cannot prove your points, you still wish to maintain that Infidels is unreliable. So you claim they said there was no city, then that they says “village” instead of “town” (the horrors!), now I think you’re trying to argue “Oh, we were talking about the wrong article all the time although I never said a peep about the original article not being familar.” (Not that you can say that that article misquoted her either) You end up looking like you will grab at anything to support your belief that Infidels is unreliable. I have quoted Time as claiming that there was probably no one in Jericho…tell me, why aren’t you griping about them, if a “village/town” transpose is that blasted big of
a deal to you?
Yeah, a second hand source that you can’t find a substanstive error in, despite your ardent efforts. Facts is facts. You’re becoming The Little Boy Who Cried Unreliable; you simply yell “bias!” rather than actually refuting the source. Pah. I will repeat it again. I think you’re both more biased and FAR more prone to errors than Infidels.
Yes, Hail Daniel, the mighty debater. :rolleyes:
Daniel, if you link to a cite, it does not make the cite “third-hand”. A link is a direct cite. You can call it a third-hand cite if it pleases you, but you are using the term incorrectly and richly deserve any mockery you get.
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-20-2000 at 09:30 PM]
BTW, please cut and paste my post down to reasonable levels to repond to it–quoting nearly entire my already wordy posts (in addition to my quotes of your statements) just to add a few numbers and respond point by point is unnecessary. Just quote the exact point you are responding to, please.
coochie-coochie!
-Ben
And Gaudere saw the the light, and said was the hell is this?
I never ordered this.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>1 No, they misrepresent her views. They use her quotes & name to show that at tha Bible was wrong, there was no "conquest, and Joshua could not have taken Jericho as there was only a small village there. The 2nd article is worse. Kenyon accepted a “modified conquest hypothesis”, along with most current archeologists. Kenyon definately said they was a TOWN there, for Joshua to conquer- and it MIGHT have even been attcked & destroyed at the right time.
>2 No, the “all caps” bit adds nothing but confusion to the arguement, which is why I dropped it off. Kenyon thought there was “clear” evidence of a TOWN, at the right time, and it might have even been destroyed at the right time- BUT THAT ALL/MOST EVIDENCE OF THAT DESTRUCTION HAD BEEN WASHED AWAY BY EROSION. If you read that section “out of context”, one would conclude, as you did, gaudere, that there was no evidence of any town- not the same thing.
>3 Wrong again. Kenyon did state there was a town there, at the right time to be attacked by Joshua, and just maybe some slight evidence (tho most evidence had been washed away) that is was attacked at that time. But, having read her book in toto some many years ago, I am unsure if she in any way thought that Joshua actually DID destroy the town. Again- she gives Joshua “motive means & oppurtunity”, but does she finger him as a possible culprit? I don’t know.
>4 Unfortunately, I said originaly that I thought infidels was unrealible, quoted out of context, etc. I did not specifically state that just that one article i saw was. Yes, if you want to say it that way- it is my “2nd example”.
>5 When you said that is was a “false statement”, that is a logical term. I figured you were going to say that technically, altho not a “lie”, it was a “false statement” under that definition. Under that definition of “false”- those statements of mine are not.
>6 used the darwinfish as an example of the fact they are biased. Since you, being somewhat more reasonable, accepts that infidels IS biased. but not “unreliable”, that arguement is moot. Opus & crew were trying to claim that infidels was an unbiased, neutral, scientific site. Darwinfishs do not show lack of reliablity, just an inclination towards bias.
>7. Infidels is biased. Infidels pulls quotes out of context, that do not seem to mean the same as the original author did. Thus, if you want to quote Kenyon as beleiving/ saying “X”, infidels is a “unrealiable site” to get that info. The other, 2nd article, for instance- the one you guys were quoting from recently- is quite well written, and maintains, not actually “balance”, but at least an attempt at fairness. But still- they had an entire book of Kenyons to pull quotes out of- and picked those that supported their postition the best- and not the quotes that would show KENYONS position to its best, intended light. So, as a place to get started on debunking- it is great. As a site to show that “Kenyon thought X”- it is lacking, and thus, as a source of quotes that mimic the original thoughts of the authors- it is unrealiable.
>8 Get out the whitewash all you want. There is a clear difference between a “town” and a “small village”, in both connotative & literal meanings.
Was that an earthquake or just Guadere beating her head against the wall?
They quote her saying that Jericho’s walls were destroyed before Joshua got there. She did, in fact, believe Jericho’s walls were destroyed before Joshua got there. The quote was not truncated or represented in a manner such as to imply she did NOT think Jericho’s walls were destroyed previous to Joshua–THAT would be a quote out of context.
The Bible was most likely wrong that Joshua conquered a walled city (even aside fromt the “walk around it seven times, blow a horn and the walls fall down” bit.) The very site you linked to yourself claimed that she “destroyed the myth of Jericho.” She did in fact believe the Biblical Exodus Joshua did not conquer a walled city, and thus she believed the Bible was wrong in that. Quite frankly, even if she believed the Bible was inerrant, they did not misrepresent in any way her archeological findings.
So, where does the second article misrepresent facts, huh? Back it up, man, back it up.
Dearie me. You yourself claim that it was a distinct possibilty that there was a village there, one of your vaunted “unbiased” sources calls Jericho a “village” at the time of Joshua’s conquest, but when the Evil Infidels refers to Jericho being a “small village” they are heniously misrepresenting things. I am beginning to wonder if you are quite mad.
ROFL! Yeah, it made your argument based on it look like shit, is what it did. It says in all caps, NO EVIDENCE SURVIVES TO ILLUSTRATE THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT. Then the rest of the quote says there was a town there, but it didn’t fit one of the accepted dates for Exodus. How conviiienient that you left that off. You’d be screaming bloody blue murder if Infidels did anything anywhere close to quoting in such a biased manner!
Oh yes, you seem so unsure: (quotes by DITWD in this very thread) “It is very clear from these that Kenyon accepted that there was a “town” and that Joshua captured it- but that erosion had destroyed the evidence…[…] Kenyon believed said town was taken by Joshua. […] And, clearly, from those other quotes, she thought that Joshua conquered a “town” (towns, in Archeologist-speak, usually mean unwalled small cities), at a time different from other “accepted” sources- and that erosion had destroyed all or most traces of it” Can you keep your blasted story straight just for once? Please? For me?
Ok, let’s just say you were wrong all those times you claimed Kenyon clearly believed Joshua conquered the Bronze age town. OK? We’ll go with your revised statement. Now, no more claims by you that Kenyon clearly believes he conquered Jericho ever again, right?
No, it’s a standard English term. 
I am no logician. I used a standard dictionary defintion of false–you happened to use another. I clarified as sson as I realized you misuderstood.
::snort:: I know Christians who love those little Darwinfish. They think they’re cute, and don’t wish to be identified with creationists. If that’s what you consider bias, I consider your judgement more evidence of your bias than the site’s. You didn’t answer my question: if a cross in on a site, does that automatically mean the site is biased?
Oh, for fuck’s sake! You haven’t proved diddly-squat “unreliable” in this thread besides your own self.
Daniel, you are so full of shit your blue eyes are turning brown.
Oh, and Merry Christmas. 
>1. <sigh>- Already did, some posts above- maybe it was something you skipped over. That was where I tried to link, but blew it.
>2 Exactly- there is no archeological evidence for the actual attack by Joshua- as Kenyon said all such evidence was destoyed by erosion. There is a big difference between an Archeoloogist thinking that something DID occur- but the eveidence has been destoyed, as opposed to something never happening in the 1st place- so of course there is no evidence to be found- and never was. And we have gone around about those ‘accpeted dates’ and things not fitting. You, yourself thought that the fact that the archeological evidence showing the town was destroyed BEFORE the Biblical date was an important point aginst a Joshua/jericho attack- but now you know it is not. Both those “deleted” lines simply would lead someone- as they did YOU, into thinking along the wrong path. “Out of context” they sound SO bad- but in context they are no barrier.
>3 But I have. Your reading and posting here has shown that reading “out of context” quotes can confuse and mislead someone. Thus- even tho infidels may well quote correctly, they should not be relied upon for quotes that accurately represent the authors position, in toto.
- Sorry- they started brown.
And I wish you Happy Holidays- sincerely. I am sorry this got so acrimonious.
I did read your comments about the second article, but since you found no actual errors and seemed to be primarily complaining about “tone”, I found your remarks so unconvincing as to be not worthy of mention. I thought that your later claims of how much worse of an article the second one was meant that you had found an actual error. Since you are actually intending to use your previous comments to argue that Infidels is unreliable, I will address them below.
DITWD post:
His objection:
Well, I would say that if both cities were later discovered to have had their walls destroyed long previous to the Exodus-Joshua, that counts as similar. I discount this assertion of misquoting; so do you, apparently.
Now, I note when reading this that the paragraph is primarily about Ai, and mentions Jericho in only two sentences. Considering that the evidence that Kenyon genuinely left the possibilty open that Joshua could have conquered the later Jericho seems to be primarily your opinion, and Nebuli contradicts your reading and claims that Kenyon advocated a long pre-Exodus legendary Joshua’s conquest (and has read Kenyon’s actual work recently, as you have not), I find your claim that a couple throwaway lines about the destruction of Joshua’s walls must needs include a reference to a several-hundred-years-later Bronze age town that might have been destroyed by Joshua to be specious. No evidence survives to support the Biblical account, and it does not jive with at least one of the dates set for Exodus (one which, since it uses the Bible for its dating, would equally prove the Bible errant if it was off by 50-some years), as Kenyon herself notes—hardly a ringing personal endorsement of the theory.
I don’t necessarily get that reading. The “apparently” prefacing the sentence would lead me to believe it is an extrapolation from Kenyon’s findings. If the author actually wished to indicate that Kenyon had believed this, he would have said “Kenyon believed that blah blah blah” or somesuch. And indeed, is not the theory that legends grew up from the ruined walls your theory? For surely, if the walls were already destroyed, they logically could not have all fallen down when Joshua came; it is more reasonable to believe that the magical “falling down” of the walls was invented after the fact.
You seem to be basing your objection to the article of a vague impression you got; it is clear you do not like works that sneer at the inerrancy of the Bible, yet you cannot find any genuine errors of fact. You object that in the scanty two sentences they spend on Jericho they do not mention a theory that even you are not certain Kenyon believed, and one that nebuli has not found support for in her reading. As reason to call Infidels unreliable, I find your argument ridiculous. Your next objection seems to be a “feeling” again—you feel that the author seems to indicate that Kenyon believed the legends about the fallen walls some from Kenyon’s work. I do not get this impression, and I am not even certain it is untrue that Kenyon believed that—if as you claim, she believed the later bronze age town was conquered by Joshua, how else would she explain Joshua conquering a settlement with ruined walls and the later legends of the “walls falling down” besides after-the-fact mythos?
Overall, I find your argument far too weak for you to claim Infidels is unreliable and that their works are not to be trusted. You have been caught in actual errors, not simply what is at its very worst simply not including a theory with remarkably scanty support and a vague “impressions.” If you would like us to look kindly upon your actual errors of fact and not discount everything you say, perhaps you should wait until you find actual errors in Infidels before you attempt to claim their works are so biased that they do not make a useful source.
You seem to keep bypassing the fact that I was objecting to your truncation of the quote. An honest quote would have quoted it IN FULL and explained the problems with “no evidence” and “doesn’t fit the date” so as to show how the quote supports you. In actual fact, even with that explanation, the quote is remarkably weak in terms of showing that Kenyon thought it a viable possibility that Joshua attacked that town. Sure, she may have meant that despite the lack of evidence and the fact that it doesn’t accord with an accepted date for Exodus, she still believed that Joshua could have conquered the town—but it doesn’t look good. Nevertheless, I believe quoting the sentence as you did is a less-than-shining example of citing-rectitude. Your quote definitely looked better and significantly different when you left off half the sentence, so I consider that a clear quote out of context. You give the impression that she believes Joshua could have conquered the town, but leave off the objections she brings up. It was wrong to have not included those, and seems particularly egregious since you had to leave off half the sentence to avoid one of them. What would you have thought of Infidels, if they had quoted one of Kenyon’s statements to support their opinion and left off half of the sentence that made their argument look weaker?
No (as I have stated many, many times before), there is a subtle difference-—I never believed that because of the dating Joshua could not have possibly attacked the later Jericho, I think the fact that Kenyon mentions that the later Jericho does not agree with the date of the Bible is clearly a possible objection she is bringing up regarding that theory and you were wrong to leave it off of your cite. She brings up two possible problems with the Joshua conquering the later Jericho theory: that it does not agree with an common date given for Exodus and no evidence survives to illustrate the Biblical account. (Surely you can’t argue that she was supporting that theory with that!)
You have yet to prove that Infidels quotes authors so as to misrepresent their opinion. Nor have you caught them in an error. I think your objections to them thus far are too weak of a reed to hold up your claim that Infidels is unreliable. Thus far, we have one article that you don’t like the “tone” and think they should have mentioned a theory you’re not even certain if Kenyon believes, and one where you object to the term “village” instead of “town” (particularly curious considering both you and one of your sources refer to the settlement as a “village”). I do think, however, that I have adequately shown that you are strongly biased against them and appear somewhat irrational in evaluating them. A source that its most ardent opponent can find no error in after several weeks seems to have held up rather well to a trial by fire. I hope that at the very least, you will not arrogantly refuse to accept any cite from Infidels in the future; if so I am afraid I will have to accuse you of willful ignorance.
And I ask, for the third time: if a cross in on a site, does that automatically mean the site is biased?
I guess I am too late, then.
You think this is acrimonious?
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-22-2000 at 08:51 PM]
I really hate to interrupt this love fest but I have a question. I sincerely hope it is taken as mere constructive criticism and not as a personal attack on anyone
.
Gaudere , I applaud your Sisyphean efforts, but are you enjoying this? I love history and historical discussions but this has essentially devolved into a “he said, she said” bout. I’m not slamming anyone’s beliefs but this is an enormous expenditure of time and great effort for little if any possible benefit to anyone involved.
DITWD, are you expecting to change people’s minds in a fundamental way? I think it’s been shown that it’s not going to happen.
I have had many such arguments IRL and the ones that went on the longest and had the ad hominem attacks and nitpicking, almost invariably ended up badly. Lord knows I spend way too much time beating my head against the various and innumerable walls in my life so I guess it just makes me notice when I see it happening to other people.
Tell me to fuck off this is completely inappropriate but man, it’s the weekend- there’s got to be something better to do.
std. disclaimer- I could of course be completely wrong and this topic could have far reaching impacts that would substantially improve our existence on this planet.
Some men, fearing that admitting a mistake will cost them face hide their errors behind masks and smoke. Thus, they have no face at all.
Gaudere: again- Kenyon clearly supports the fact that there was a town there, at the right time to be destroyed by Joshua, and she thinks that it may well have been destroyed at the right time- but that most/all of the evidebce of this destruction is gone. Fromw what I remember, and nebulis posting, she reamins neutral on whether or not Joshua did it. Nebuli, I beleive, supported the above with a recent reading. Infidels not only expressed doubt that Joshua attacked anything, but expressed doubt- and attributed the source of that doubt to Kenyons works, that there was anything even there for Joshua TO attack (except, perhaps a “small village”). Kenton CLEARLY thought that indeed, there was a Town to be attacked.
Next- I admitted that I did not find any “errors” in a cursory reading of 2 Infidels articles. But, we agree infidels is biased. Thus, and you have seen that yourself here, when they take a quote from a book, they take a quote that supports their bias- even if that quote does not follow the general thesis of the author. Thus, infidels should NOT be used as a source that “author A thinks X”, based upon a single out of context quote. Now, I will point out that I also eliminate “fundie” sites, by the same reasoning. Thus, I will not accept that a given authority says/beleives “X” based upon a single out of context quote from a biased site- infidels or “youreallgoingtohell.com”. I want to point out that ben & some others argue, that they do not like ANY secondary sources- ant you agree strongly that primary sources are better. I agree that primary sources are better, but that an unbiased secondary source is also good. A biased secondary source is poor. Note that evidence of strong fundie beliefs, which could be indicated by a cross, should lead one to examine the source for possible bias. But now, here, you are just picking nits- you AGREE infidels is biased- and all I did was use the darwinfish as possible evidence of such bias.
Mike- thanks for the though, but this arguement has long ago 'lost any capacity for rational thought".
Spiritus- Note that several times I have conceded I was wrong, and then changed my statement- to be then accused of weaseling.
Then what the fuck are you still doing talking to youself ??!? Why not just type out your answers on your word processor and chuckle to yourself at your superior wit?
Jeez, what a waste.
[sub]yes, I’m aware of the irony[/sub]
DITWD has taken offense to my comparing WB unfavorably to him in the “Lawyer says abstinence should not be taught in school” thread. I felt that his post would best be addressed here. I believe it more or less speaks for itself, given what has already transpired on this thread, and I present it in full so that those here might best appreciate it in all its ironic glory.
Originally posted by DITWD:
**
A few highlights:
-
DITWD always makes an honest effort to answer all questions put to him? Then why did we have to ask him what- twelve times to provide more examples of bias on the II site before he even acknowledged the question?
-
DITWD has, in the past, admitted to trying to hijack a thread in order to harass me with demands for cites- and yet, that’s the very thing he accuses me of doing. Of course, that’s also the time when I refused to answer his questions. As is typically the case, DITWD can’t provide a link to an earlier thread in order to back up his accusations, because the truth would make him look very foolish indeed.
-
Obviously I’m not a bigot- I took pains to point out that my original criticisms were not directed at all Christians, or against Christianity as a religion, but only at weaselly Christians like DITWD and WildestBill. Interestingly, several people made fun of DITWD in that thread, but DITWD only criticises me and me alone, presumably because I’m the only one whom he can paint as a bigot.
For those who are interested, you can find the Lawyer thread here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49709&pagenumber=6
-Ben