==You are ridiculous and a repeated liar.
Next time, look in the mirror and say that, and suddenly your attack will make sense.
==Twice now you have said your post got no response, yet the last post of mine on the subject of a debate was ‘present the data and i will engage it’.
Here is my last reply to you. It immediately follows your lame attempt to weasel out of the debate (”I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist”).
To: allmendream
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. Furthermore, I cited paper after paper, written by your fellow evos, every one of which stated that there are indeed codes upon codes. Your issue is with them, not me. And in this connection, I also floated a debate between you and a creation scientist. As per usual, you failed to rise to the challenge. Thus, it is you who are running away, not me.
And finally, I must take exception to your misrepresentation of my views re: raw food, the free market, coffee enemas, etc. I do not advocated raw food, I am not anti-corporation, nor do I advocate coffee enemas. All your deliberate misrepresentations really underscore is your dishonest nature and your desperate attempt to distract attention away from the science that refutes your materialist fantasies.
In short, put up or shut up. But if it is your intention to cling to your world of fantasy, perhaps shutting up would be the better option.
164 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:03:52 AM by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=164#164
Notice that I “remind” you that the debate was ALWAYS supposed to be about the science. Also notice that the two lines of my reply challenges you to “PUT UP OR SHUT UP.” Seeing how YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY, it is obvious you chose the latter option. Just admit that you lost your nerve, and we can be done with this stupid tail-chasing exercise.
You never set up someone on FR for me to debate, “pedigreed” Scientist or otherwise.
‘Not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist, but present the data I will engage it.’ was not backing out, it was setting ground rules. Nothing can be accomplished by sourcing a scientific study to someone who concludes a priori that the scientists are engaged in fraud.
However it is nice to see you admit that your “no response” line was another lie. My last line on the subject was “if you have data present it and I will engage it”; yours, nonsensically, was “put up or shut up”.
However what would I “put up”? I accepted a challenge to debate, I did not agree to arrange to handhold your prechosen Scientist (write a letter to them in Australia, say)to get them signed on to FR or to challenge THEM to a debate.
I accepted the challenge and set the ground rules, you never presented a Scientist for me to debate signed on to FR with a presentation of data to debate.
But if you have had a “pedigreed” Scientist who you want to debate me, and claim that you have expended effort to ‘set up a debate’ I think at a very minimum you might...
a) get them signed on to FR
b) have them challenge me to a debate.
You have done neither.
I however, just as in January and June, stand ready to debate JUST AS SOON as you get a “pedigreed” Scientist signed on to FR to issue me a debate challenge.
But no doubt in six months or so after once again never getting a Scientist on FR to debate me you will once again try to claim I “backed out” of debating.