Lynn, John, Alpha
Sorry about opening up yet another Danielinthewolvesden thread, but I wasn’t comfortable hijacking Ben’s pit thread, where, among other things, Ben takes Danny to task about constant habit of calling Ben a Nazi. (That’s a whole different level of complaint), and I didn’t want to leave this in the Jack Chick thread. Jack Chick threads come around so rarely that they shouldn’t be hijacked by the following kind of thing. If I’ve guessed wrong, let me apologize in advance for the extra work.
<cracks knuckles>Now on to the Weasel. Let’s go over your lies in the Jack Chick thread point by point.
YOU said it was a “straw man” argument. The ability to “explain and defend” has nothing to do with the “straw man” fallacy.
Ok twerp. Put your money where your mouth is. Where exactly did I take any of those viewpoints out of context? Quote me and provide a link. I provided several web sites.
Besides, how can one take the fact that these people believe in a “water canopy” (the discussion at hand) out of context. They either do or they don’t.
Two lies: one about correct “rephrasing”, ironic considering the next point and a second lie, since Foxfyre was arguing the pro-creation ‘science’ side.
Did you actually follow the links that show the context? And besides, we weren’t discussing subtle nuances of meaning, we were discussing the specific beliefs of creation ‘scientists’.
“Where do creation ‘scientists’ believe the water came from?”, “How do they explain the fossil record?” I provided sites and most of the other people were able to provide equally accurate information.
Again, either put up or be branded as the lying weasel you are: Which SPECIFIC statement of a creation ‘scientist’ did I misrepresent. Be specific. Quote me…show me where I grossly distorted meaning.
Why yes. There was. Please feel free to check the thread. Not a transcript of a specific show, but since I didn’t quote a specific show, a transcript wasn’t necessary. You had claimed that "I used Hank Hanagraff(sp) as an example of someone with a national radio show who believes in creation ‘science’. I provided a link to his web-page where he where he espouses those same beliefs.
A lie. That wasn’t even close. Since I linked to the thread where he said it, why wouldn’t you simply quote him?
SEE Daniel’s amazing weasel powers! WATCH in awe as he squirms through the smallest written loophole! GASP as he grossly misinterprets meaning! See him wildly misquote (as opposed to getting a minor word choice wrong.)
You asserted several times (as you have here) that
(Your favorite phrase, regurgiated above, is “Who were [are] you debating with”?)
My question, as snipped by David B, quoted verbatim:
David’s entire response follows:
How in the world do you get “it should be ended” out of that? Since I linked to the page where David wrote it, you couldn’t have simply misremembered…
I’m stunned at your constant lies, I’m appalled at your ongoing attempts to associate people who disagree with you with Nazis, and I find your general demeanor on the board distateful.
Not that I expect this’ll change anything.