"Seeking 'David'" - Where's the thread?

[marc]

The personal attacks don't bother me.  They're absolute textbook.  What bothers me is the way the Apologetics forum has been left in ruins.  

There are only two answers.  If those moderating this forum prefer not to act, then the only answer is to ignore the posters in question completely.

Except for the general warning, of course:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

[rlbaty]

>
Look at the title of this discussion thread.

Has anyone who really knows actually answered the question?
>

>
While the discussion the last few days has been quite insightful (I've been gone and had to play catch up), I think Todd's advice and question are right on point as to the purpose and relevance of this thread.

Will we ever be told, truthfully (should I even have to bring up this desired characteristic), what the real story is behind the "Seeking 'David'" thread no longer being a part of the archives here?

Can it be the case that such things can happen around here and nobody knows what happened and nobody can find out what happened?

A definitive, unequivocal answer to the questions would be appropriate; and sooner rather than later.

While my efforts were less than exhaustive, substantive portions of the deleted record here have been preserved in the archives of my own discussion list.

The essence of the deleted discussion is that no "David" was found here.

Ken Ham never showed up, though he was recommended and no one from Apologetics Press ever showed up, though they were also recommended.

CDHealy tried to defeat my "Goliath of GRAS", but failed.

CDHealy's own authority would not support his faulty logical analysis.  My "Goliath of GRAS" stands unrebutted as a valid logical statement of the fundamental real world issue facing the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

CDHealy was never able to bring any of his bragged on logic students to this forum to back up his claims about them and what he was teaching in his logic class.  We are still waiting to see if he can get any of his new class of logic students to show up for an open, honest discussion of the validity of my "Goliath" and learn how CDHealy is teaching logic as related thereto.

"Goliath of GRAS"; still the one to beat!

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[rlbaty]

>
While my efforts were less than exhaustive, substantive portions of the deleted record here have been preserved in the archives of my own discussion list.
>

>
>

That list (MauryandBaty) is open to all posters and there are public archives.

Here is a link to one of the last substantive posts that was on this forum before the thread (one of the more popular and most viewed in this forum) was deleted under the most suspicious of unexplained of circumstances:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/7374


Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[Todd Greene]

The personal attacks don't bother me. They're absolute textbook. What bothers me is the way the Apologetics forum has been left in ruins.  

There are only two answers. If those moderating this forum prefer not to act, then the only answer is to ignore the posters in question completely.

Except for the general warning, of course:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Evasions, evasions, evasions, and sheer hypocrisy...

Note that it was Marc who posted for the sole purpose of engaging in personal attacks and sabotaging discussion - and that is all he has done.

One other notable thing about the thread in question, it's appearance was the point where this particular board (the apologetics board, I mean) began to lose all value.  Since it appeared, this board has come to be dominated by an admitted atheist and another poster who hasn't denied also being an atheist.  Their presence has stifled all other discussion.

This is a particularly bad time for this to have happened given the implications of the Dover decision.  There are several issues attached to this that need to be discussed.  but this section of the board has ceased to be a place where Christians can discuss things with a foundation of shared faith.

And it's a pity.

Here are the questions that Marc has been asked about his remarks (because in fact his remarks are wrong, and he knows it). He purposely ignored these questions, and purposely chose to engage in purely evasive tactics. Here are those questions again:

1. Is there any difference between "atheist" and "admitted atheist"? If there is no difference, then what is the implication of Marc's use of the word "admitted"? Will Marc explain it?

2. If there are Christians (which I presume is everyone except me) in this discussion forum making more posts than I do (and there are many, many, because I actually don't post all that often), then how is it that this discussion forum has come to be "dominated" by me? Marc needs to explain his use of this phrase too.

3. Who in the world is the alleged other "poster who hasn't denied also being an atheist." Marc needs to state specifically who he is referring to. I suspect that Marc was using that as denigrating innuendo against Robert Baty, in which case Marc is just flatly wrong. But note that Marc purposely chose to ignore his responsibility, and has thus purposely chosen to let his false innuendo stand.

4. Marc is apparently claiming that consideration of factual scientific information and other kinds of factual information somehow "stifle all other discussion"? Why does Marc think that consideration of the facts is stifling to discussion? Is it because people here in the discussion forum like to make up stuff that just ain't so and thus don't want to be "stifled" by actually trying to deal with the facts, OR is Marc merely referring to a small subset of discussion participants, OR is Marc just totally off his rocker and merely using a lull in discussion due to the holidays to engage for propaganda purposes?

Of course, Marc will never address any of this, because Marc's very purpose was to sabotage the discussion thread, which is why his lying about people other than him being trolls is so utterly hypocritical.

— Todd Greene[/color]

[rlbaty]

>
(excerpts)

Note that it was Marc who posted for the sole purpose of engaging in personal attacks and sabotaging discussion - and that is all he has done.

3...I suspect that Marc was using that as denigrating innuendo against Robert Baty, in which case Marc is just flatly wrong. But note that Marc purposely chose to ignore his responsibility, and has thus purposely chosen to let his false innuendo stand.

Of course, Marc will never address any of this, because Marc's very purpose was to sabotage the discussion thread, which is why his lying about people other than him being trolls is so utterly hypocritical.
>

>
It always seems so strange to me to observe folks who otherwise seem to be mature adults and know that it is so very easy to just stay away from discussions.  

Yet, so many seem to do just what Todd has been commenting on; troll in and try, oftentimes with much success, to derail discussions.

You think Marc was actually talking about me with his "false innuendo"?  Did he ever say?  

Will Marc ever address this and/or the other questions raised concerning Marc's comments?

We will see.  

Maybe Marc will actually, and honestly, address the questions just to keep Todd's prophecy from being fulfilled.

We will see.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[spurly]

The thread was deleted because David was found.  Thus there was no longer any need to seek him  :p

[marc]

The thread was deleted because David was found.  Thus there was no longer any need to seek him  :p

David

[rlbaty]

>
The thread was deleted because David was found.  Thus there was no longer any need to seek him.
>

>
Besides being a false report, the above appears to lack the necessary "imprimatur" of the owners and operators of this forum.

If "David" ever is found, spurious reports of his sightings will not be necessary from the likes of some as have been noted to frequent this forum.

We still await the official, for the record, public statement of the owners/operators of this forum as to full story as to what became of the deleted "Seeking 'David'" thread.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[rlbaty]

>
Note that it was Marc who posted for the sole purpose of engaging in personal attacks and sabotaging discussion - and that is all he has done.
>

>
There has been some related and interesting developments in the Theology forum under the thread entitled "Digging Up Dirt on Brother Holt" where Jack Holt (aka John Wayne?) goes into some detail regarding his determination to leave the non-institutional folks and maybe the churches of Christ altogether.

There, Marc wrote, in relevant part on Dec. 30 (page 4):

> The way we treat each other at time
> is worse than unbelievers treat each
> other.

I figured that, while we all maybe have examples, the recent actions of one CDHealy on this forum would be
an excellent example of what Marc had reference to (though Marc's own behavior might have sufficed as an example).

So, I posted a note in that thread noting Marc's observation and giving a quote from CDHealy's name-calling prize winning post.

Bill Vaughan, a reluctant poster, indicated his agreement with me.  I responded with my thanks to him for posting his comments regarding my original post to that thread.

Then, zappo; under the cloak of secrecy my original post, quoting CDHealy in this forum, appears to have disappeared; quite like the original "Seeking 'David'" thread disappeared.

We will just have to wait for some open, honest revelations from the owners/operators of this forum regarding the complete details as to the missing "Seeking 'David'" thread and the now missing post from the "Holt" thread.

But don't hold your breath!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[kizzie]

I didn't read the original thread where this all began, but my first thought was Mt.7:6.  Obviously this person is an admitted atheist and happy with it, so why waste your time casting pearls?  He isn't seeking the truth and is obviously having fun trying to stir things up.  
If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but in the meantime I would think the best course of action would be to shake the dust off your feet and move on.  Unless of course you enjoy this type of thing!
:;):

[rlbaty]

>
I (Kizzie) didn't read the original thread. . .
>

>
I think that would have been enough, Kizzie!

You might consider yourself corrected.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[Todd Greene]

I didn't read the original thread... [emphasis added]

In other words, Kizzie immediate acknowledges that he doesn't know what he's talking about. But he didn't stop there, and instead chose to make further comments based on not knowing what he's talking about. This seems rather curious.

...where this all began, but my first thought was Mt.7:6. Obviously this person is an admitted atheist and happy with it, so why waste your time casting pearls?

Even though Kizzie admits not knowing what he's talking about, he immediately assumes that the errors that were being pointed out and criticized are "pearls." This is another curious thing - based on sheer irrational prejudice - where a man automatically sides with the factual and logical errors of his fellow religious travelers as being "pearls" merely because (one of) the critics doesn't happen to share his particular religious beliefs. Kizzie doesn't actually deal with any details or facts in any way at all, but trades solely on the effect of totally irrelevant prejudice.

He isn't seeking the truth and is obviously having fun trying to stir things up.

So says Kizzie, who tries to stir things up by saying absolutely nothing substantive and making solely prejudicial remarks. If this is Kizzie's idea of "seeking the truth," then I have to admit that I am quite happy to not be "seeking the truth" the way he does.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me,...

Done. :D

...but in the meantime I would think the best course of action would be to shake the dust off your feet and move on.

[snip]

And here we see another rather curious thing, where Kizzie, who preaches the idea of seeking the truth while at the very same time he preaches to people to run away from dealing with the facts and dealing with criticisms of errors in reasoning that have been pointed out.

— Todd Greene
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter[/color]