Replies

This sounds like splitting hairs.

This sounds like you ducking your own statement.

If this is your cheap and dishonest way of trying to falsely imply that I have lied on this thread, then thanks for further reinforcing my point about the dishonesties on *your* side of the discussion.

It is not an implication. I am saying it straight out: you are being dishonest in this discussion. You consistently mischaracterize the issues under discussion, consistently make false accusations about the people involved, and consistently misrepresent the position of those who take a view different from your own.

You consistently mischaracterize the issues under discussion, consistently make false accusations about the people involved, and consistently misrepresent the position of those who take a view different from your own.

Would you mind explaining which of these three factors was at work when Ichneumon explained that Hovind's claim regarding wooly mammoth dating was a lie? What about when he allegedly exposed Havoc repeating the false claim after it had been explained as a lie?

Would you say that any of those factors were at work in my post 342?

[This sounds like splitting hairs.]

This sounds like you ducking your own statement.

It isn't. It's a straightforward comment on the weakness of your response to that particular point. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my writing that you could possibly manage to mistake it for any kind of evasion on my part.

[If this is your cheap and dishonest way of trying to falsely imply that I have lied on this thread, then thanks for further reinforcing my point about the dishonesties on *your* side of the discussion.]

It is not an implication. I am saying it straight out: you are being dishonest in this discussion. You consistently mischaracterize the issues under discussion, consistently make false accusations about the people involved, and consistently misrepresent the position of those who take a view different from your own.

Fine, then you're *blatantly* lying about me, not just implying it.

Please explain your behavior.

Or, alternately, feel free to *document* the times and places I have done the things you have accused me of, and make your case for why you think I've been dishonest (as opposed to, say, misunderstanding a point). When I accuse someone of being dishonest or making a misrepresentation, I point out the passage of theirs which leads me to this conclusion, and I support the reasons for my conclusion.

All you have done is issue general broadsides against me, without identifying what, exactly, I have said that you consider dishonest. Perhaps you know you can't find any statement of mine which would actually hold up as a "dishonest" one if you tried to use it as an example against me.

If you're reduced to nothing more than Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?" response, you've most likely run out of material.

This "making counteraccusations without substantiation" tactic is itself a dishonest tactic on your part, as is your the fact that you have FOR THE THIRD TIME dodged answering the question I asked originally which outraged you so much that you went off on an irrelevant rant about genocide. Here it is again -- care to take another stab at it, or would you like to dodge and make false accusations against me some more?

Finally, your desperate attempt to distract from the question by pointing to a few mass murderers just doesn't answer the question -- why is it that it's the *creationists* who lie so frequently and unashamedly on these discussions, and not the allegedly "godless" evolutionists? Please explain.

Dodge *again* (and have me call you on it again), or just answer the question for a change. Your choice.