==If me setting the ground rules that I was not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist was interpreted by you as “backing out” is that not a tacit admission on your part that your “pedigreed” Scientist was only going to engage in conspiracy mongering?
From my final reply that YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO:
“I offered a debate between you and one of the thousands of scientists who officially question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The debate was going to be focused on the science of AIDS alone. You accepted the debate and then backed out...put up or shut up.”
Are you really so mentally challenged as to think you can twist the plain words above to imply that I wanted you to debate a “conspiracy monger”? Do you make it a habit being this fast and loose with the facts? If so, may I suggest you have chosen the WRONG (alleged) PROFESSION.
I said I was ready to go then in January, so long as it wasn't conspiracy mongering, I said I was ready to go again in June. I say so again here in September.
Still nothing from you as far as a prospective debate opponent other than a segment of e-mail from a confused Dr. Duesburg and the address of some Creationist in Australia.
You proposed a debate on the thread “One step forward, one step back” about AIDS. It is obvious from the beginning that your intent was to take any objection about venue or topic was going to be your excuse to accuse the other party of backing out and ‘being afraid of the truth’.
I said “sure why not” but raised my objection about conspiracy mongering. You told me to “put up or shut up”. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to “put up” other than my willingness to engage the data as soon as you signed on your scientist or posted any and you had already got things going with js1138. So I let stand my willingness to engage the data but not conspiracy mongering.
This is you writing to js1138 about his very real concerns about how the debate would be conducted.
GGG to js1138; allmendream; Ichneumon: Sounds like a copout to me. Jim has already told me that while he doesn’t want to run an official, moderated debate, we are free to run our own thread. I am still trying to convince him to allow for a moderated debate, but it’s not looking promising. BTW, I am setting up the same thing re: global warming. Do you know any scientists who would be willing to debate a well known scientist taking the CON position re: human caused global warming (and who, btw, maintains that the earth is actually cooling)? You have nothing to fear from the debate on AIDS, except perhaps, the truth. If you are not up to the challenge, just admit it and be done with it.
Post#200 posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:15:01 PM by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945222/posts?q=1&;page=226#226
Me talking to GGG: Sure, why not?
Post #167 posted on Saturday, December 29, 2007 6:29:29 PM by allmendream (me supposedly agreeing to multiple debates some of which GGG isn't sure if he even remembers)
GGG talking to js1138: Again, if you wish to decline, feel free to do so...just be open about it. Allmendream has also agreed to the proposed debate, and I still haven’t heard back from the all-knowing Ichy. Either one of them would be fine. And if you can find a scientist with yet better credentials, all the better. Post#205 posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 9:30:45 PM by GodGunsGuts
js1138 to GodGunsGuts:
Ping me when you have a venue.
210 posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 2:42:05 AM by js1138
Whatever happened to that debate? I was so looking forward to it. Did you ever ping js1138? Why didn't you get anybody qualified to debate Science signed on in all that time?