Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Terry W. Benton
    For those who may get only Robert s words on his M&B site, we will look at his explanation as to why he would not answer the questions and decided again to
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 17, 2010
      For those who may get only Robert's words on his M&B site, we will look at his explanation as to why he would not answer the questions and decided again to moderate me and pretend that it was ME that would not engage reasonable discussion. Here is his take:

      Terry was give free, unmoderated access to this list. Terry took advantage of
      his privilege and quickly demonstrated he had no intention of engaging me in a
      good faith discussion of areas in which we have a mutual interest.
      TB: Of course Robert knows that he is LYING again.  I engaged and answered his opening post, and then requested his answers to the same questions. But, Robert refused to give his answers to those same points, thus showing that he had no intention of engaging me in a
      good faith discussion of areas in which we have a mutual interest. Robert is simply hardened in his determination to avoid the relevant questions that fair discussion demands.

      RB: Terry would not even agree to so simple a request as posting his messages under
      an appropriate, agreed upon subject thread.
      TB: I did not agree to the subject thread "Terry's Confusion" because the answers I gave to the opening post show that it is not Terry that is confused. The Subject Thread should remain "The Confused Robert Debate" until Robert shows in answer to the questions that he is not confused. His refusal means that he is confused and the title should reflect that fact until he shows otherwise.  If Robert did not like that, then he could have requested something like "Who is confused?" as the title, but "Confused Terry" is not proper at all and "Confused Robert" is still most appropriate, seeing that he is so confused that he cannot answer the questions as I did.

      RB: As a result, he was again put in moderated status.
      TB: Again, showing that it is worthless to try to post on Robert's site because he will edit everything, and he will demand unreasonable things like the unreasonable title. So, Robert clearly does not want to debate or discuss unless I will answer all his stuff and agree to just let him avoid all the questions he wants until and unless he gets ready. Well, sorry, but that is not what I am going to agree to.  Robert can return to the GAGDebate list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAGdebate/)  if he wants a real and fair debate. It simply is not going to happen on his site. Meanwhile, people need to visit there to see how a debate with Robert goes if he is not allowed but one post per one of your posts in fair alternating order. On his site he will post ten-to-one, and think he has won because he wrote more often and moderated his opponent.  On GAGdebate it is clear that Robert is unable to win a debate by fair and alternating engagement.
      So, when Robert puts me on moderated status to discipline me to abide by his rules, and the rule is to let him name the discussion "Confused Terry", then you should know that Robert was given opportunity to answer the questions so as to prove that it was not HE that is confused. I answered and showed that I was not confused, but Robert refused to answer because he is indeed confused.  I will let him meet back at GAGdebate if he has interest in pursuing a reasonable debate in which he is willing to answer questions. If not, then once again, his unwillingness and inability further proves the point.
      RB:  Everything Terry has
      submitted here has been posted; though with a change to subject where deemed
      appropriate and with appropriate moderator notes.
      TB: Proper discussion is to let my post stand as I wrote it, and keep your notes to your reply.

      RB: Terry has now been seen going about the Internet making his false and misleading
      claims and demonstrating that I was, indeed, correct about his inability to deal
      properly with truth claims regarding hypothetical statements.
      TB: This is Robert's false and misleading claim, and it is clear that I have been correct all along about Robert's inability to deal properly with truth claims of any sort.

      So, why did Baty RUN yet again? Robert Baty knows that his "scriptural position" of "everything began over a period of six days" is in direct conflict with his "scientific position" that "everything did NOT begin over a period of six days".  Robert wanted only YEC to deal with his GRAS, but did not foresee that in order for his GRAS to be of any real challenge to YEC, he would have to show that what he believes is better suited to the scriptural and scientific evidence and that he has harmony between the two whereas they do not. Robert knows that his view is neither scriptural nor scientific, and that people do not need to worry about his GRAS if Robert himself cannot offer anything better, or even prove his own premises are true.
      See Robert Run!
      Run, Robert, RUN!
      Terry W. Benton
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.