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

Horvath v. Greene Debate: Concluding or beginning?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... Gabor, I thought you were. At least to the extent of signing that reasonable, straightforward and fair statement of your positions on the fundamentals we
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Gabor, you wrote to the Creationism list, in relevant part:

      > Todd if you and your comrade
      > Robert do not stop that third
      > person style. . .I will simply
      > ignore your posts completely.

      Gabor, I thought you were. At least to the extent of signing that
      reasonable, straightforward and fair statement of your positions on the
      fundamentals we have been discussing.

      I've been addressing both you and the list. Your problem, Gabor, is not
      with the third person style; its with your position. Nice exit strategy
      though. I didn't even notice any thanks from you when I started trying
      to talk more directly to you!

      Gabor, you also wrote, in relevant part:

      > You (are) confused regarding
      > concepts and terms misconstruing
      > what is said by your opponents.

      Gabor, that's your ipse dixit. You falsely claimed that what I wrote
      about your position was "utterly false" and that I didn't have the
      "faintest idea" of what your position was.

      You, Gabor, while even noting that God does not like your false ways in
      that matter, have yet to correct it.

      The record shows quite clearly, as evidenced, in part, by that
      reasonable, straightforward and fair statement you have been asked to
      sign, that I have been "factually" accurate in representing your
      position on the fundamentals under discussion.

      And you surely understand and appreciate that my "Goliath of GRAS",
      which you continue to try and insult, is quite appropriately a valid
      logical statement of the issue facing the "young-earth,
      creation-science" movement and similar sorts; though you try to make
      like you don't think we can know whether anything is more than a few
      thousand years old and, to date, refuse to actually formalize your
      discussion with Todd on that issue.

      Before ignoring any posts, Gabor, your obligation is to start cleaning
      up some of the mess you have made. There is still time, and the
      obligation, as a matter of fact, is on you to do so.

      Gabor, you propose in writing to Todd:

      > If you change your evo style
      > I am more than happy to continue.

      Gabor, are you trying to trick us again with your wordplay?

      Or, or you really going to engage Todd and his affirmative on the age
      issue?

      Looks to me like you've tried to trick us again, but you are welcome to
      convince us otherwise by actually putting together a formal discussion
      with Todd on the evidence issue.

      Gabor, why do I wonder but you are up to your trickery again?

      Because you condition your willingness to discuss your pet ipse dixit
      theories on having an opponent that does not speak "evo style".

      Anyone who speaks of things being more than a few thousand years old is,
      I assume, going to be accused by you of "speaking evo style".

      RIght? If so, you've already decided not to discuss your pet age
      theories. Right?

      The age issue is, for purposes of discussion, quite independent of the
      evolution or origins issue. Gabor, you've been consistently confounding
      those issues.

      Why don't you, Gabor, just get back to the fundamental issue involving
      what the real world says about age, and whether you have any real world
      argument to rebut Todd's affirmative?

      Hey, I think Todd is susceptible to agreeing not to discuss biological,
      macro-evolution while discussing the age issue with you.

      Gabor, if he slips and tries to work it into your age discussion, just
      call a point of order and we'll let the moderators decide what to do
      about it.

      So, Gabor, have you already worked out your new reasons for not
      formalizing your discussion with Todd on the evidence of age issue, or
      what.

      Gabor, got a reasonable, straightforward answer for us?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.