Well, belligerent is as belligerent does. “Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.” Synonyms are “bellicose, pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome.” (source)
Someone started a Pit thread. It wasn’t Phil. It wasn’t I. It was, let’s see, oh yeah! You. Someone called someone a “liar”. It wasn’t Phil. It wasn’t I. It was, oh again. You. Someone said that someone is “dishonest in the slimiest fashion imaginable”. Let’s see. Phil? Nope. I? Huh-uh. Honors go again to you. Are we done with the Opening Post yet? No such luck. We must slog through a bit more gook.
There’s “riddled with lies”, “grotesque poor taste as to be akin to Nazi-baiting”, “bizarre moral logic”, and other common phrases used routinely in rational argument.
Using some of the fingers on one hand to count your “several” defenders and examine their “copious evidence”, I see that one of them speaks of me, saying, “Of course what irritates me the most is his black/white outlook on life. It’s either them or us, good or evil, cold or hot.” Somehow, your defender missed the false dichotomy between creationists and evolutionists that you drew in your Opening Post. Them versus us. One brush to paint all creationists and one brush to paint all evolutionists, when either common knowledge or a visit to the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences will show that there is a wide continuum, a broad spectrum of interpretations, all the way from young earth creationists to intelligent design advocates to theistic evolutionists to mainstream evolutionists and more. You can even watch them all debate each other.
But Ross is one of the black-hat guys, one of those creationist people who believes his God has had a hand in things here and there. Therefore, by your black/white outlook, he is evil and grotesque, as is anyone who would offer him up as a possible way to begin a dialog with creationists in order to get them to see that they might be wrong. Now, I offered you a list of books written by Ross for you to examine, along with comments by young earth creationists who, interestingly, are as eager to disassociate themselves from him as you are. Maybe you cannot bear to find yourself aligned with those horrible people.
Kimstu, of course, offered up a debate on record between Ross and Gish. Actually, she offered up about 0.01% of it, snipped all to pieces, with a link that links to nothing. For one thing, think about what a debate is and why we have them. There is generally the implication that the two people debating disagree with one another about the issue of the debate. Perhaps you believe that the difference between them is trivial. After all, there is the One True Way™ (yours), and then there is everybody else. Who knows how a belligerent man might rationalize these things?
Now, Ross does indeed reject biological evolution, at least in the sense that you and I accept it. Maybe that’s your one true hot-button. Maybe that’s the black/white line of demarcation which you cannot bear that even a toe slide over. Maybe your acceptance of your own interpretation of biological evolution is so religious that you would crucify men who dare to entertain blasphemous thoughts of any supernatural hand involved in any way. Who knows? Moreover, who cares?
Oh. Your legion of supporters care. Well, let’s see. There’s the inimitable jokester, Spoofe, whose post you might count as supportive if you were desperate enough. Then there’s Redboss, a person I’d never heard of. Of course, those two posts weren’t in support of your rant about Ross. They were just general “we hate Lib” posts. Flowbark? Maybe. Though he did defend me against one of your, um, arguments, he made a general comment about almost always disagreeing with me.
Euty? Hard to tell. He was vague though a mite inhospitable. I suppose questionable posts fall to you by default. Phil? Moving on… Jab? Hey, I’ll give you Jab. Jab might likely disagree with me if I dug up an old post of his and reposted it under my name. Of course, by now, the ran… er, arguments have shifted to your inexplicable Nazi post to Chaim Keller. Sterra? Not exactly a pillar of support, though you likely claim her anyway, looking at her much the same way Gish looks at Ross, lost but not completely unredeemable.
Andros? Well, he said nothing about the matter at hand, but I guess he defaults to you, the Black Hole of intellect and righteousness. Fenris? Ditto. Bosda? Spoofe on steroids. Okay, yours. Drastic? Another Lib hater who said nothing about your Opening Post, but whom you likely see as drifting beyond your event horizon. Quix? Same same. Jeremy? (That’s WaterJ to you.) His character, like Phil’s, in my opinion, is so above reproach, that if he said, “Lib, you’re wrong,” I would stop and re-examine myself. In your vain stupor, however, you likely counted his post as in support of you. You’re the dictator here, so I can hardly defend against your claim.
Kimstu. Oh, good heavens. I would have conceded her to you without a fight. She, like Jab, sees a Lib post and begins reading to find The Error™. Capacitor? Let’s see. People who respond to your belligerent ran…, er, carefully crafted arguments are evasive. But, of course, when you answer Capacitor with “I think that’s a loaded question”, it’s just a reasonable debating tactic. When, after skipping his question, you change the subject to a misrepresentation of my concession to Hardcore, that’s not diversionary. It’s um, what, getting things back on topic, I guess.
Picmr? There’s another poster who would cause me to stop and think. Of course, he was calling you down, but defaults to you by the Ben Is Always Right Principle™. Gaudere? I think it has been established that you get all moderators by default. You are the amazing man who has never stepped over the line, but has merely defined it for us all. Wring? I guess you get the drive-bys. Manhattan? Ditto.
Hardcore? By the time he posts, no one is paying attention to your Rant-I-Mean-Argument anymore, but he stepped inside the thread, so he goes to you anyway. Incidentally, speaking of Hardcore, he is the one who changed my mind about Ross, but not in the way you wanted it changed, so therefore he changed it in the wrong way. It isn’t the only time Hardcore has changed my mind. I consider him to be one of the most excellent debators I’ve ever known. But of course, that’s moot. This is your web, so you get all the flies.
Arnold? I can see where his arguments about the Ten Commandments would lead you to claim him as among your minions. Kabbes? I guess if you eat pizza the right way (and surely there is no right way but yours), you can count her.
And finally, Amedeus. The one who disdains black/white, who nods and smiles, who is irritated with me because I sometimes use big words. Why, he must be yours, because, as everyone knows, you don’t see things as creationist versus evolutionist, and you never use big words.
So, there we are. I guess you win by near unanimous consent. Of course, there is no stronger supporter of you than, well, you. You’re the one who called me out for using the term “rant” while you yourself were the first to use it in this thread. It must be another one of those terms that Providence has appropriated for your sole use. You’re the one who calls his own rant a “proof” :D. No undefined terms. No definitions of defined terms. No axioms. No modus ponens. No modus tolens. But a proof none-the-less because why? Because it came from the Inerrant Brain of Ben™.
Copious my ass. It’s a copious pile of dung on top of which you proudly sit and survey all that is yours. This thread isn’t about me. It’s about you and how wonderful you are. It’s a poll. It’s a waste of bandwidth. I’m outta here.
