Steven Avery

LOL.. Apparently you didn't look at the thread, because I did not ignore the questions.

And we saw the errantists devolve into vulgarity and the weirdest types of word parsing, such as implying that I claimed Luke was a personal eyewiteness when quoting my ....
> Praxeus 1) Luke/Acts directly claims to be based on eyewitnesses and
> contemporary to eyewitnesses, ergo 50 AD or so.

So.. what questions of substance do you think really remained open ?

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

The hole isn't deep enough for you? :huh:

If you had bothered to check the second link I provided, you would have found it to contain my reply to your response and noted that I observed that none of it actually answered my questions and that it created new questions. You have yet to reply and both the original and new questions remain unanswered. The third link is to a post by Diogenes the Cynic which was also a response to your initial assertions and directly addressed your linguistic arguments but you never offered a response.

Steven Avery

I am aware that some, such as you and Diogenes and Johnny and Carr, will always create a slew of new questions to any answer. It's your motif, and its my right to decide whether a question warrants additional response.

For you to handle the thread as you did, as moderator, was essentially unethical, as often I consider a question more than amply answered, while the skeptic just pulls multiple additional questions out of their hat.

It would be better for you to decide whether you want to act as partisan or moderator.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

You have made it quite clear that you intend to ignore the questions and offered refutations of your evidence/argument so I'm not sure why you feel compelled to repeat yourself on this point.

As I'm pretty sure you are aware, complaints about moderator action are inappropriate within the forum. If you have such a complaint, start a thread in the Complaint forum.

This is a complete red herring.

It would be better for you to understand that moderators are also participating members and for you to learn the difference when it comes to posts. (Here's a hint: when I'm posting as a moderator, I change the color of the text to blue and include my "job title") The few posts in which I have acted as moderator (removed your screen name from the thread title at your request, posted a general warning for everyone to stay on topic, and split off a tangent into its own thread) had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion and absolutely nothing to do with your choice to ignore the questions/challenges offered against your claims and absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent hole you dug for yourself by making false claims.

Steven Avery

If you have a specific question that you feel needs more exposition, simply place it on the thread. I will not be the lap-puppy of a "moderator" playing games saying "go here, there and there..." .. "now go there, there, and there". Be a mentsch, Amaleq.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

The unanswered questions and refutations are already in this thread as is the post providing convenient links to them.

This is simply a continuation of your obvious mischaracterization of what has taken place. There has been no game playing on my end of this exchange. Asking if you intend to address questions and points raised earlier regarding your claims is not requiring you to go anywhere extraordinary or behave as a "lap-puppy" of anyone.

In a single post I provided links to three earlier posts containing questions about and refutations of your claims which you had not addressed along with my stated assumption that you had simply missed them subsequent to a rather lengthy tangent.

In response, you reacted as though my reminding you of these missed points and asking about the lack of response was somehow a "wild goose chase" that involved trips to multiple threads and somehow constituted an extraordinary burden to place upon you. The distance between this response and the actual facts was quite apparent. You had not bothered to follow the links so you did not realize they were all from this thread and all related to claims made in a single post of yours.

As I have attempted to alleviate your confusion you have compounded the problem by introducing a red herring in addition to indicating that you have no intention of addressing the questions/refutations. Rather than simply make that statement and move on, you have continued to toss out your red herring (ie my moderator status) and to respond as though asking whether you were ignoring the questions/refutations or simply missed them is some sort of unethical attack upon you.

Steven Avery

Again, if you really think a question deserves more exposition, simply state the actual question that you think wasn't fully answered to your satisfaction on a post. Since in fact there were discussions from that point, maybe you weren't satisified, maybe a point stuck out, or whatever. Be specific.

Speak what you think needs to be answered in greater depth in your own words, and/or in a "quote" from a previous post. Placing a group of links with your bald assertion is quite tacky. And as stated, I will not lap-puppy. Be a mentsch.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

This has already been done in the natural course of the discussion. This new request that the three posts be rewritten into a new post appears to be nothing but another red herring. The questions about and arguments against your claims seem to be easily understood in their current setting since they include the specific quotes from you being addressed. If you require clarification of a question or offered refutation, you need only ask.

Again, you would avoid making these false statements if you bothered to read the linked posts and review the thread before posting. My first linked post was directly responding to your assertions in the OP. You responded to that post but my second linked post contained follow-up questions/observations about your response. Diogenes' post (the third linked) also addressed your response to my first linked post. As of today and contrary to your assertion above, there has been no discussion of the contents of those posts. What you will find, instead, is a rather lengthy tangent. And, at the end of that lengthy tangent, you will find my reminder that you drastically misinterpreted.

I have offered you the opportunity to respond to posts that were not addressed in a discussion resulting from assertions you made. This is the last time I will respond to your false claims and red herrings. You will either choose to respond to the unaddressed posts or you will not.

Steven Avery

Clearly, I've told you that I am not a lap-puppy, to go on a fishing edition. The thread is right

[COLOR="DarkRed"[U]Here[/COLOR],

Steven Avery

[U] Here