Replies

Ok, you can start here

Poster #1 says when you insult him, you insult God. Dimensio properly infers that QED Poster #1 thinks he is God. Where is the lie?

Highlighted by thread master #1 here

The AM tells Dimensio to knock off the name calling. I see "arrogant and delusional" which are probably what ticked off the (very thin skinned that session) AM. No acknowledgement of any lying.

Acknowledged here

And reinforced by thread master #2 here

The SB admonishes PatrickHenry, DaveLoneRanger, Dimensio, nmh (and implicitly everyone) for calling people liars (one must assume whether or not it is true). He also admonishes for hitting "Abuse." Nothing that says Dimensio (or anyone) is lying.

Not a single lie in your referenced posts.

I guess the AM doesn't like us to point out preveracation, but I will leave it that purposely posting a series of posts like these as an "example of Evo lying" is either a sign of a massive reading comprehension problem or purposeful reinterpretation. It is also a great example of what passes for "proof" by CRIDers.

A post (a classy one at that) indicating that Dimensio didn't realize the first post was a quote and apologizing for reacting to the post as if it were the poster's own words. Not a lie, just an apology for misunderstanding.

Not exactly. I am explaining the specific reason why I (and others) have called nmh a liar in the past, and offering nmh an opportunity to explain the situation to show that we may have misunderstood. I've not yet acknowledged any misunderstanding. Thus far it appears to me that nmh made a statement about Antony Flew and then later denied saying anything about the man. I am merely pointing out why this appears to be the case to me and asking nmh to be so kind as to explain how I may be mistaken.

Not a single lie in your referenced posts.

Would you please point to the post where I implied that someone had lied?

Please review your own statement to which I initially responded...

Yet, I defy you to find a single Evo post that contains either a purposeful logical fallacy or flat out lie.

emphasis mine...

Did you intentionally neglect or ignore a specific part of your statement? If so, that would be a purposeful logical fallacy wouldn't it?

As a debate judge how would you score a participant who suddenly bailed on half of their argument after a single rebuttal?