Replies

DittoJed2 introduced material that seeks to smear evolution with the taint of Nazi-ism, on a scientific thread. That is trolling. It also directly contravenes the agreement, which Dittojed2 has refused to be bound by. DittoJed2 posted quotes that were dishonestly edited to change their apparent meaning. That is lying. It is also forbidden by the agreement.

Number 1, the Nazis did use evolution as justification. I believe I have been ABUNDANTLY clear on what I was saying here any anyone who has half a brain in their head can read my post and see that I was not calling evolutionists Nazis and backed up my assertions with historical fact. If anyone is misrepresenting here, it is your self dear prof. You are continually misrepresenting and attacking me, but that is par for the course. Number 2, I did not "edit" a single quote to change a single thing. Anyone can go out on the net and find the quotes exactly as they are. I removed footnotes from the quotes but that was it. A couple of attempts have been made to show me the context of a couple of these statements, but I do not see how even in context it changes the quote nor my intention in using them. Again, I have explained until I'm blue in the face why these quotes were used. I am not a "liar" a "troll" or anything else and will not be bullied by such assertions. If you don't like it, then per "the agreement" you can ignore me.

I find it intensely ironic that posters who assure us that without their particular moral code, society would fall apart, spend so much of their time posting falsehoods, attempting to disrupt discussion, and occasionally issuing threats of violence. I find it telling that the same self-righteous preachers of morality almost to a man find it impossible to endorse an agreement that merely urges its signers to adhere to a minimal standard of mutual civility.

First, it isn't my moral code, it is God's and our nation's legal system is based upon it - so apparently me and the founding fathers agree that this moral code keeps society from falling apart. Second, I'm not posting falsehoods. If something was misquoted, it was not by me but by a source on the internet. I posted in good faith but have yet to see where my quotes and the context I used them in are "falsehoods." I predicted they would be treated as such, and I was right. Third, As I posted earlier, I was the one engaged in this conversation and NOBODY is stopping anyone from discussing lice.

Fourth, the "violence" that he is discussing, for those who were not present last night, was when he was accusing goodseedhomeschool of some misdeed (maybe regarding her screename, I can't remember what it was about) and she said he should ask her 6'1" 210 former black beret husband who was sitting next to her. That was it. Nobody threatened to hit, spit on, throw evil looks to, or harm anyone else in any way. This is the agregious threat of "violence" that makes this crowd so scared that they go grabbing the night shift's admin mod to get the post yanked (which it was). But now, that the evidence of what was actually said is gone, the prof. can at will misrepresent Creationists as violent thugs who want to physically hurt people. Shame on you prof.

As for your last sentence: " I find it telling that the same self-righteous preachers of morality almost to a man find it impossible to endorse an agreement that merely urges its signers to adhere to a minimal standard of mutual civility. " I just have to laugh at that one, as I can count on maybe one or two fingers the evolutionists who have not hurled personal attacks my way and sought to belittle me and intimidate me with their apparently mutually agreed upon tactics. I've heard goodseed speak of a conspiracy to silence Christians on this forum, and on this thread I see evidence of it in a small group of evolutionists who will gang up on a creationist, belittling, calling names, bombarding them with a zillion lines of evidence to answer and then belittling them when they use creationist sources to answer them, trying to intimidate them into signing onto a sham agreement, and then misrepresenting and lying on them to lurkers who were not privy to the actual conversations at hand nor have the time to go back through 3000 posts and see what the true story is.

Well, sorry professor. I wasn't raised in Public Schools and am not so dense as to sign onto an agreement that would be used as a weapon against me and one I don't need to begin with because it is my usual habit to post with civility.

Number 1, the Nazis did use evolution as justification.

Your thesis went a lot further than that. It was that the amorality of evolution had a cause and effect relationship with the origin of Naziism. That's a smear. Evolution is a scientific theory; it dictates no morality. It was also introduced previously on another thread, rebutted multiple times, and re-introduced on this thread. Squeal all you like; that's trolling. it also continues a long-standing series of trolls by the now banned ALS, and we have abundant evidence you know the 'gentleman', since you've adopted his tagline and post on his Designed Universe forum

So peddle your pathetic prevarications somewhere else. You won't find too many buyers here.

Number 2, I did not "edit" a single quote to change a single thing. Anyone can go out on the net and find the quotes exactly as they are. I removed footnotes from the quotes but that was it.

You are responsible for what you post. If you re-post someone else's lie, without taking reasonable steps to check its integrity, you are as guilty as the original liar. It's called personal responsibility, ma'am.

But now, that the evidence of what was actually said is gone, the prof. can at will misrepresent Creationists as violent thugs who want to physically hurt people. Shame on you prof.

It's quoted in # 257. There was no possible purpose in mentioning the guy's size or military record, in combination with an offer to have him 'spell it out' to me, than as a threat.

I just have to laugh at that one, as I can count on maybe one or two fingers the evolutionists who have not hurled personal attacks my way and sought to belittle me and intimidate me with their apparently mutually agreed upon tactics.

You have not signed on to the agreement, you don't comply with it, and therefore you aren't covered by it. It's an agreement of mutual respect, not unilateral disarmament.