[Llewelyn Sinclair]
Please, Simon! I don’t take praise very well!
[/Llewelyn Sinclair]
Somebody on the SDMB, I don’t remember who, said something germane to this: Ignorance can and should be fought. Willful ignorance can only be quarantined.
I’ll see your 
and raise you a :p.
Seriously, it’s my point #4 that I find most irritating. The debate on the Ten Commandments courthouse monument, for example, was going well — until Puddin’-Head appeared and single-handedly turned it into a polemic on school prayer and, as usual, religion in general as viewed through his idiotic Them Atheists Is Ig-nernt an’ Bad lens. It’s one thing to have an unconventional (albeit unsupportable) point of view. It’s another thing entirely to derail discussion after discussion by flooding the board with it.
I kind of liked my Captain Coca-Cola example, though. It certainly defines what “promoting” something means. After all, advertising is a “promotion”. I bet it can be used in the next debate. Going to save it.
Personally, I’m very interested in how Leroy replies to it. I think it’ll say if he’s actually interested in debate or just covering his ears.
And he’s been doing it for over seven years, at least that’s as far back as I have bothered to trace it. OTOH I saw an article in last month’s Reader’s Digest about “life after death” which focused on Pam Reynolds. Old mysteries never go away, no matter how much light we try to shine on them. And, as with almost anything, there are people willing to use these unexplained events to advance their own beliefs and agendas. Some ignorance just never dies.
Enjoy,
Steven
Ah, the alt.atheist newsgroup, in whose bowels apparently was born the weirdly circular notion that one cannot prove a negative — an assertion doomed to face itself in a mirror of eternal contradiction. And yet the cite is provided in a thread that is pleading for reliable citation from Lekatt. Even the bountiful and beautiful Cervaise himself has declared that the cite settles Lekatt’s status as a “known kook”. The people who can’t prove that they can’t prove a negative have said it — so mote it be, I reckon.
Libertarian, the cite established that lekatt has been arguing the same position with the same evidence and the same reaction to opposing evidence(sulking mostly) for years. Your opinion of the talk.athiesm newsgroup is irrelevant. If you wish to argue that lekatt did NOT behave in this manner in 1998 and earlier then you may provide cites which counteract the assertions in the article I cited. I have, in previous pit threads about lekatt, cited individual articles from as far back as 1995 where he engaged in exactly this behavior and I consider the summary of his behavior by the poster of the net.kooks list to be fair. If you wish to dismiss the citation based on your own feelings about the group, that is your right. To pretend that an assertion which the group advanced failed to recieve your approval somehow reflects on their ability to decide if lekatt deserves the title of kook is an excellent example of the fallacy of a sweeping generalization. You have a problem with one of their assertions, therefore all of their assertions are suspect. Nope, doesn’t work that way.
Enjoy,
Steven
You know I’m married, right? 
Hold on there, tiger. I didn’t say that all of their assertions are suspect, at least not based on the can’t-prove-a-negative bizarreness. The point is that their opinion that he’s a kook does not establish that he is in fact a kook. Granted, he may have argued the same position the same way for years, but hey — so have they!
But you still are bountiful and beautiful. Certainly, you are the best defender of materialism that I have encountered.
Which position is that, Lib? The one Lekatt was arguing on Monday or the one he was arguing on Tuesday? The point he was making on page one, or the contradictory point he made on page seven?
The one that Steven cited in the post I responded to.
Emphasis mine. With the way you snip quotes, I’d recommend you don’t become a Moyel.
Never said their opinion mattered one bit. His behavior is what makes him a kook. This fact stands independent of their assertions and them recognizing it doesn’t change it one way or the other. Their document shows that he engaged in this behavior, as do other cites I have provided in the past, for years. And of course the “Arguing the same position” isn’t the problem. It is the total and complete invulnerability to any kind of introspection and re-visiting of his premises based on other evidence. It is the leap from finding scientifically unexplained evidence during an NDE and assuming your conclusion that man has a dual nature, the spirit world exists, and is ruled by a caring and compassionate single entity called god. It was very accurately summarized in his net.kooks entry. “NDE’s prove God. Disagreement is illogical and insulting.”
It is not their assertion that he is a kook that matters. I set no particular value on the assertions of Mr Mintz or any other member of the group without evidence. It is their reporting of his behavior and argumentation style which matters. It correlates well with the behaviors I have seen in his other posts, both on the SDMB and on usenet. It has been well established, here on the SDMB, that he is a kook. Seeing the same behavior which led to that conclusion here documented in another group who had previous experience with him is useful in determining how much time to spend on him.
Again, if you wish to argue against the assertion that lekatt is a kook, you are free to do so. I consider the assertion sound. If you wish to address the substance instead of vague genetic fallacies and sweeping generalizations about the assertions of people from talk.athiesm then you may get some interest. Otherwise it just looks like you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Enjoy,
Steven
He also seems not to want to reply to an argument once he is put in a difficult place and nailed down for a response. I’m disappointed.
Again, I am arguing that the citation from alt.atheist does not establish that Lekatt is a kook. That is not a sweeping anything. I’m not arguing what you keep saying I’m arguing. You know, there’s a name for revising someone’s argument and assailing the revision. You can find it where you found the others.
You know, the assertion in the citation from talk.athiesm was based on his history in that group, some of which I have excerpted in other threads. It is corraborated by his behavior on these boards and in other forums. No one has said the simple statement was evidence on its own. It didn’t exist in a vacuum. It was earned and it has been corraborated. If you missed the conversations where it was earned, that’s not my fault. If you missed the corraboration that’s not my fault either. The assertion itself is accurate and is not, nor has it ever been presented as, evidence in and of itself. It is the result of evidence that neither myself, nor the people on talk.athiesm have any responsibility to re-hash for your benefit. Been there, done that. If you wish to argue against the assertion you may provide evidence of fair-minded and open debate on the part of lekatt. The assertion that lekatt is a kook is not evidence to be examined. It is a conclusion based on other evidence, NOT EVIDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to argue against the conclusion you are welcome to do so.
You’re right that there is a name for revising someone’s arguement and assailing the revision. You’re wrong about who is doing it however. There is also a name for stripping the conclusion away from the supporting evidence and context and attacking the conclusion on the grounds of the person, or persons, who advanced it.
Enjoy,
Steven
Lib, MTG-
You’re straying from the topic.
(Though in doing so you have both demonstrated the ability to actually respond to another poster’s points and that you know what a strawman is. Lekatt has never done either of these things.)
Back To The Op-
In many of his posts, Lekatt rails against organized religion. In the 10 commandments GD thread, he passionately supports keepingu the monument in the courthouse. He also claims that athiests want to destroy all Bibles and churches-the same Bible he says is dogmatic and useless and the same churches he says exist to keep people from actually finding God.
I might confront him with quotes from his post, but there wouldn’t be a point. Whenever any one shows him that two of his posts contradict eachother he claims that he is being taken out of context or that ‘if you’re just going to skim what I say instead of reading it all, I won’t bother responding to you’
Another Leroy pitting…is it Wednesday already?
Or he’ll say that we’re being “mean spirited”, or that there’s no reason why he should take the post seriously.
Doc: Yep, it’s basically be another fine episode of “When Melancholies Collide”. Neither of us is particularly good at backing down though, so it may continue.
In RE: the OP. Yes, lekatt claims non-denominational viewpoints but displays Christian viewpoints. Why someone who believes the mainstream Christian view of a God who will sort the believers/unbelievers/sinners/righteous is bunk would argue to protect a shrine to that judgemental view of God is beyond my poor comprehension. I went back and forth with him long ago on this point.
Enjoy,
Steven
Just reading the first thread Lekatt ever started reveals these
**
But, it also reveals the expected reaction.
**