Replies

And I don't take them out of context.

Of course you do. You proudly and obsessively collect lists of the times that people have said something uncomplimentary about you, then replay them many many times in many threads, including bringing it up in the current thread, as well as immortalizing them in your bizarrely self-obsessed homepage ("here's what people think of me, and the form letters I've received from famous people!"), presenting them *entirely* out of context by quoting just a few words of each example without any context whatsoever (nor a link back to the original) so that readers can have a chance to see whether the negative assessments of you were justified by your behavior which they were commenting upon.

You have in fact flatly refused to link your homepage quote snippet of me to the relevant context -- the original exchange from which you lifted my comment, when I insisted that you either link to that exchange if you wished to keep it on your homepage, or remove it from your childish list of grievances over the times that (gasp) someone online found reason to remark negatively about your behavior. You hold grudges over such "affronts" like some people display trophies.

You re-quoted this snippet from me yet again on this thread, as you have on other threads, despite your knowledge that I have told you the honorable thing for you to do would be to either link it back to the original exchange, or remove it.

Here is where I asked you the following:

And speaking of honorable things, on your Freeper homepage you provide an out-of-context quote from one of my posts -- why don't you go ahead and turn that quote into a link to the original post, so that readers can see for themselves why I was saying what I did about you in that quote snippet, and that I documented my reasons for saying it? Why not do that, rather than leaving them with the false impression that all I did was some kind of empty ad hominem? Gosh, you wouldn't be trying to mislead your readers, would you? That would be totally uncharacteristic behavior for an anti-evolutionist... Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.
Do the right thing for a change and alert your ping list to this post, and turn the quote in your Freeper homepage into a link to the post from which it comes.

You then refused, to which I responded:

But no, I’m sorry, I don’t see the need to source exactly why you said what you said.
I do.
Everyone in the creation ping list will be reading this thread and see that, while you are correct and I made an error, your attitude means you would bash me and my creationist compatriots if you had no reason other than that we disliked your brand of chewing gum.
Say what? Even leaving aside the ludicrousness and falseness of that outburst, what does that have to do with whether the honorable thing to do would be to link to the post of mine you quote out of context?
It’s also interesting to note that, you wish for me to show the context so people can see why your quote is justified. I honestly wouldn’t find any such quote justified (from creationist or evolutionist) regardless of the background.
Leave that decision up to the readers of your homepage. I am less interested in your opinion on that matter than theirs. And if you feel you are correct, you would have no reason not to link to the original post, since it would not change anyone's opinion of that out-of-context quote, right? So go for it.
I find it interesting that you are trying to justify the remark at all. This means you are adhering to a standard, a Universal Law as Lewis called it, that if that background hasn’t been in place, you would not have been justified to be trashing me like you did.
Look, the point is that negative comments about someone are unjustified if they're not true, justified if they are an accurate description. In short, the truth is a valid defense against accusations of slander. Your inclusion of just that one snippet gives the false impression that I was slandering you, when in fact I was summarizing an assessment I had spent a long post documenting.
Link it to the original post, or feel free to remove it from your "list o' invective". I would find either acceptable.
Also, judging from your Freeper homepage, you seem to have an unhealthy fascination with the number of people who have formed bad opinions of you strong enough to tell you about them. Most people are dismayed if large numbers of people arrive at bad conclusions about them. You seem oddly proud of it. Ponder the wisdom of the old saying: "If everything seems to be coming your way, perhaps you're in the wrong lane." Maybe you're doing something to justify the invective aimed in your direction.

You chose not to respond, you chose to continue to leave that out-of-context snippet up on your homepage, you chose not to provide the actual context (via a link to the post in which it was made), and you chose to continue to repost it to many threads as if you were bizarrely proud of how often people have found reason to mention how bad your behavior has been.

If you can't bring yourself to be honorable, at least seek help for your unhealthy obsession with the times that people have formed negative opinions of you, as well as for your rank hypocrisy: You express astonishment over the very notion that my remark that you were an "uninformed hack" on biology could ever be a justifiable assessment from any side of the debate, and somehow an affront to "Universal Law", and yet *you* feel free to make such remarks (made BEFORE any of the remarks of mine you've whined about) as:

"Your brash and infantile challenge(s)" (2/17/05)
"I've met your kind before, and frankly, they've been the most troll-ish people I've ever met." (02/17/2005)
"You sir (ma'am?) are entirely without respect for others and their opinions" (02/17/2005)
"You show your bias even as you type, to the ruin of your credibility as unprejudiced." (8/19/2005)
"It’s not like me to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent such as yourself" (8/19/2005)
"They look after their own, and ignore those who they disagree with, like good little closed-minded elitists." (8/19/2005)
"You are biased against them from the beginning, and pretending to be anything other is patently absurd." (8/20/2005)
"Begone, troll. Trouble not this forum again." (8/21/2005)

Well gosh, Dave, that sounds a lot more personal and insulting than just my saying that you're an uninformed hack on the subject of biology while I actually documented your incompetence on the subject. So if my comment was not even in concept something that could ever be justified, as you assert, how does one explain your own negative personal remarks? *cough*hypocrite*cough* And then you have the gall to play innocent by posting on this thread the amazingly transparently falsehood, "I get called stuff all the time. It happens. I don't return the favor." Wow!

Dave, you *know* I started out treating you nicely, because I have previously documented the first seven or eight exchanges you and I had from our earliest days at FR, and I documented how despite my attempts to have an adult conversation with you, you kept posting things which led me to the unfortunate conclusion that you were either uninterested in, or incapable of, having a civil conversation on the actual issues. I have seen nothing since then to change my opinion of you, except to further reinforce it.

And just for the record, let me point out that when I called you an uninformed hack, it was because you had cluelessly attempted to offer Dr. Feduccia as a counterpoint to RWP's very correct assertion, and you cluelessly gave quotes from him that didn't even support what you were trying to assert, even though in reality Feduccia is clearly on record stating the OPPOSITE of the opinion you FALSELY attributed to him. Game set and match. What was really freaking hilarious is that despite this already having been pointed out to you before, you failed to grasp the size of your screwup and you posted another post in which you cluelessly patted yourself on the back for having prevailed in that exchange (!).

So yeah, "uninformed hack" seems pretty justifiable after all. And let's not forget that this comment wasn't made in a vacuum. It was in response to a post in which another uneducated anti-evolutionist had made the mistake of being impressed by your fumbling word salad because it was full of links and stuff, and had declared you an "informed creationist". After demonstrating to him that you were anything but, using your own screwups as documentation, I finished by writing:

DaveLoneRanger is not an "informed creationist", he's the usual sort of uninformed hack, posting his false misconceptions as if they were fact, then getting hammered by reality.

I stand entirely by that assessment -- and as you know, this is hardly the only time I caught you being utterly clueless and overestimating your own competence on this subject.

Again, if you wish to continue to bray about how I've been so gosh-darned mean to you by accurately describing your (lack of) competence on this topic, you may do so as long as you link back to the original exchange where it was made, so that readers will be able to decide for themselves whether I had made a solid case for that assessment or not. This applies to your homepage copy of it as well. Or you can just stop quoting me entirely out of context.

Any other response will give every appearance of dishonestly attempting to slur me by presenting my words out of context, while being a coward who is trying to hide his own behavior which led to such an assessment, and a crybaby who can't get over his grudge that someone was so brutish as to call him (horrors!) "uninformed"....

I know you don't want to give that kind of impression, Dave, so I know you'll do the right thing and begin to link to the original post whenever you feel the need to quote me again. And if you want links to the multiple other posts where I documented that you were telling gross falsehoods and so on, too, I'll be glad to provide them, just ask -- feel free to quote any and all the times I've documented your lack of competence and lack of respect for the truth, just as long as you link to my full posts. I appreciate you helping to give them wider exposure.