A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I've tried very, very hard not to just call you a liar, and I don't think that I have.
And I've never slandered you by changing your words into something that you did not say.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Day was Jesus Crucified?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
I've tried very, very hard not to just call you a liar, and I don't think that I have.
And I've never slandered you by changing your words into something that you did not say.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, the material can't speak for itself because you've deceptively gone back and edited just about every post and deleted many as well.:yes:
But you can't cover all your tracks because you repeat yourself so much... soon it will come back around.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I think it would be hard to find one of his posts that haven't been edited. Even the new ones have been edited.
I'm gonna' take a pass on this. . .I'm just not up for the drama. . .I'll just stand on my presentations on the matters. . .and let each decide for himself.
To quote your ole' buddy, sparky: Nope. It was nice of you to ask, though. (See, I didn't plagiarize!)
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
What drama? You keep saying that I'm all about drama, but I think it is just your way of saying you can't actually offer a rebuttal. So you have to insult me.
There is no drama accept the drama you are trying to create. I offered a rebuttal to your statement. I showed that you were incorrect. That is it.
(1) Does that include your view of the types presented by the NT writers, below?
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html -- NT principle and method of identifying types
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305543-post1252.html -- your denial of any types in Scripture
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307002-post1284.html -- logical conclusion of your assertion that types are "artificial and reckless"
(2) Does that include your mistaken view of me "plagiarizing" an interlinear, below?
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2302349-post1153.html -- full demonstration of your misunderstanding regarding "plagiarizing" (following the 2d and 3d quotes there)
And there you go again with your false charge of "plagiarizing" an interlinear, which is shown to be false in link immediately above, in (2).
Well, you're up to your a** in opportunities. . .for both admission and correction. . with the two arguments above, and the five arguments below. . .so get crackin'. . .
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1077.html -- five demonstrations of your being on the wrong side of the argument
Just getting up to speed ought to take you a while here.
Which translates to arguing according to your method or view.
Show where anything I've presented is not true. . .all your objections to my presentation of the facts are just whining. . .to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Show what is not factual. . . or true. . .instead of just whining about it. . .you can't. . .because all of it is factual and true.
Last edited:
A distinction without a difference. . .you've accused me of lying ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277092-post652.html
To me, these are the kind of pious assertions you like to make about yourself, which technically are true, but in substance they misrepresent the truth,
while on the other hand, you like to falsely paint me immoral with demonstrably false charges of plagiarism, lying, deceit, just making stuff up, slander, etc.
I'm not the one who engages in misrepresention. . .
More piety. . .does accusing me of plagiarizing, lying, deceit or fabrication count as slander. . .or is "slander" limited to just "changing your words"?
Nevertheless, the logical conclusion of what you did say, below, is unavoidable.
---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307002-post1284.html
You made what you thought was a safe, but which turned out to be reckless, assertion about types, which was based in your abysmal ignorance of the Scriptures.
And because of that abysmal ignorance, you're now stuck with your untrue, reckless assertion, and its unavoidable logical conclusion. . .so you cry (whine) slander!
Then show that it is not the logical conclusion of your reckless assertion.
Because if you call my whole family a bunch of criminals, then you've called my brother a criminal, whether you said those exact words, or not. . .deal with it.
I didn't make that bed. . .so you get to lie in it. . .and to stop whining. . .and to admit that you are wrong about types in the Scripture. . .and to back up your claim
that you do admit it when you are wrong.
Last edited:
Implying that some are?
But of course you don't slander. . .
Show the fabrication. . .and stop whining about it.
There is no "deception" where there is no untruth.
Show the untruth in my posts. . .or show what you think "deceives" regarding the truth of an argument.
And I think the edits make them more clear, concise and understandable. . .which is probably why you object to them.
They are not deleted in the sense that they no longer exist, they are re-submitted and are still there.
Agreed! . .which is why I have no concern about anything "coming back around."
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you can't find where I supposedly "covered my tracks," and therefore you are forced to wait for it supposedly
to eventually "come back around," is because you are dead wrong here, and none of that is true?
Because if anything I posted was objectionable to you, you were always quick to respond and indicate such.
So can you not find any response of yours that would point to something that no longer exists, or to where the substance of my argument has been altered,
so I could "cover my tracks"?
I can't edit or delete your original postsg. They are still there as you originally presented them. So go find something from your own posts.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm implying that almost all of them are.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that you're at least like a broken watch: I suspect that you're right twice a day.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
There's one that I know of.... but I suspect that it's only a matter of time.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, the most dishonest example that I know of is when you changed a post to change "Jesus is in every book of the Bible" (or similar). I had already responded to that post, then you changed the phrase to "type" and criticized me for not responding to it as such.
That's a very significant edit. And everyone reading the thread agreed that what you did was dishonest (and I add sleazy).
On top of this, that post plagiarized a sermon by Oral Roberts.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You denying plagiarism and slander is exceptionally funny. Particularly when it is so easy to prove. Lying, deceit, and fabrication just go right along with it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Hey man if you can find two posts that are unedited, I'll buy you a beer.
And give you frubals.
That's evidence that editing my posts is a consistent practice (for purposes of clarity, conciseness and understanding),
rather than a sinister attempt to materially alter my past arguments. . .which is a ridiculous notion anyway.
Because all objections, past and currrent, are only to the substance of the arguments on the record.
There are no objections anywhere in the record to arguments which themselves aren't likewise found in the record. . .which is exactly why concrete evidence of removal of, or material alteration to, my arguments can't be produced.
So keep looking. . .the evidence you seek is hiding in the same place as the OT references are hiding, the ones which I posted to the types and you can't find the source of.
Last edited:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
1310 and 1282. Two of smoky dot's posts that remain unedited (at least for now, anyway)
Make it a Killians Irish Red
Make it a Killians Irish Red
Are you sure? . .I must have slipped up. . .
Those are all false charges based on false assumptions. . .but you just won't admit it.
And of course your backroom politicking and whining had nothing to do with that. . .
Nor was it everyone. . .there was one you missed in the backroom, and another that can't be influenced by politicking, who posted views differing from yours regarding it.
More of your knowingly false charges--an informed and, therefore, deliberate misrepresentation--of an honest mistake. . .
Your informed and deliberate misrepresentation here speaks louder than anything I could ever say. . .
Last edited: