Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrell Till:
I was not gone for "four full days." I have explained that I received no automated notification of a post to this thread, and so I assumed that none had been made. I used the time to work on articles for my website. As soon as I noticed Gastrich's post on my Errancy list, I came here immediately and posted a reply to Gastrich's post of July 30th. Hence, I was not absent for "four full days."
Gastrich:
Untrue. Look at your last previous post times and days and you'll see that you were indeed absent for four full days and nights. []
|
IIDB uses "today" and "yesterday" to date posts instead of the actual month and day that the posts appear. I can find only three days in the dating, but whether there were three or four is really immaterial, because I have explained that I received no automated notice that a post had been added to this thread. In view of your past record that I am familiar with, I had thought that a three- or four-day silence from you was nothing out of the ordinary. You have been associated with me plenty long enough to know that I don't evade "apologetic" attempts of biblical inerrantists. You, on the other hand, know that wheel-spinning and evasion are typical of you. A three- or four-day silence from you is not at all unusual. The following post by Mike Hollingshead sent to the Errancy list
http://iierrancy.com on 8/2/06 states an opinion of list members who have been around long enough to know your stalling and evading tactics.
Quote:
Hollingshead:
Isn't this par for the course for Gastrich? He has been here a couple months avoiding all semblance of actual debate and has continually avoided making any substantive answers to any questions. When challenged, he has failed to rebut any of the answers to his pathetic harmonization attempts. It was getting to be about time that he duck out for a while so that he can reappear at some later date and claim that he had already answered any questions that anyone had and had also embarrassed us all with his keen intellect and biblical knowledge. He is like a broken record of stupidity.
|
Your reputation for stalling and evasion is widely known by those who are members of forums that you join to demonstrate your self-proclaimed "apologetic" skills.
Quote:
Till:
Anyway, I wish that four days were as long as Gastrich would disappear from discussions on the Errancy forum. He will vanish for weeks and sometimes months at a time in order to let memories of his evasions run cold. He will then return as if nothing had happened.
Gastrich:
With the maturity level of you and your group and with the amount of insults, you should be very thankful if any Christian wants to step foot into your den of iniquity for any amount of time. The nonsense is hardly tolerable.
|
Notice that Gastrich didn't even try to evade the charge that he will disappear from a forum for weeks at a time and then come back, as if nothing had happened, to resume the boasting about his self-proclaimed apologetic skills.
Quote:
Gastrich:
This is exactly why I decided to debate Doug Krueger in a moderated arena (even though he ran) and then decided to debate you in a moderated arena (even though you were absent for four full days, which prompted me to accept another debate offer from a different opponent).
|
Members of the Errancy forum well know that Krueger has posted mountains of evidence in the Errancy forum to show that you issued a challenge to engage him in oral debate at Fayetteville, Arkansas, but that you backed out after he had accepted and made arrangements for a site on the campus of the University of Arkansas.
Why do you think that you can get away with flagrant misrepresentation of facts? You may fool some in this forum who are unfamiliar with your tactics, but you certainly don't fool anyone who has followed your for any length of time in any other forum like the Errancy list.
Quote:
Till:
Here is a tactic familiar to members of the Errancy forum. Gastrich will plead that he is in a time crunch and will have to wait to debate whatever issue he is evading at the time.
Gastrich:
More nonsense. Prove it.
|
On 4/17/06, Gastrich posted the following when he was being pressed to address issues that he had been evading.
Quote:
Gastrich:
So, it's crunch time and I've been very busy. My time should free up soon, though, and when it does, I'll revisit some of those older posts and answer them.
|
On 2/15/06, he posted the following excuse for not having replied to posts directed to him.
Quote:
Gastrich:
Before I answer, I want the list members to know that I've been strapped for time and I know that a couple people have written to me and I intend to reply as my time allows. This list is rapidly moving, so I'll take no offense if another person jumps on one of these questions before I do. Each questioner's patience will be appreciated.
|
I think immediately too of your evasion of the Ishmael discrepancy in Genesis 21. After I had posted a detailed explication of this discrepancy, you waited days and days and days, and, finally, after considerable urging, you posted a brief, abstract explanation that didn't even address several of my points. When I posted replies that pointed out serious deficiencies in your "solution," you refused to say anything else about the matter. In this forum, for example, you haven't even mentioned my repeated efforts to get you to do the Ishmael debate again here while we were negotiating details in the Mary Magdalene matter.
So I will ask you again if you will agree to repeat the Ishmael debate here now that you have wiggled off the hook in the Mary Magdalene debate.
If I post further evidence here of your evasive tactics on the Errancy list will you agree to reply to it point by point? If so, I will gladly take the time to present the evidence. If you won't agree to reply point by point, I see no need to take the time to put together another post that you will simply ignore.
Will you reply point by point if I present evidence from the Errancy list that you have indeed used time-constraints as excuses for not replying to posts that were directed to your attention? I quoted above an opinion of your stalling and evasive tactics that Mike Hollingshead posted on the Errancy list. Here is another one posted by Armando Ortega, an Errancy member in Mexico.
Quote:
Armando Ortega:
I told you all: Jason was ready to run for cover and he did. As a typical christian he does not leave without a lie "while he (TILL) was avoiding our debate proposal". What a shame of man!
|
I could easily post others, because Gastrich's reputation is widely known on the Errancy list.
Quote:
Till:
My compromise proposition is this: Resolved: The depiction of Mary Magdalene in Matthew 28:1-10 is inconsistent with her depiction in John 20:1-18. I have asked Gastrich if he disagrees with this statement, but he hasn't answered yet. If he disagrees with it, then we have a debatable issue. Why, then, will he not agree to debate it?
Gastrich:
I disagree with this statement. I agree to your proposition. That'll work.
|
This is so typical of Gastrich. After having dragged his feet for days on this compromise version of my proposition, he has suddenly decided to accept it after he saw that Jerry McDonald, a Church-of-Christ preacher who just recently rejoined the Errancy forum, saw the proposition and immediately accepted it.
Quote:
McDonald:
I will deny this proposition. I have been dealing with these issues in my class lessons and bulletins here at Belle. By the way what it IIDB?
|
As a member of the Errancy list, Gastrich, of course, has seen McDonald's acceptance of this proposition, which McDonald agreed to immediately without haggling over it. Saying now that he will accept the proposition gives Gastrich a way to save face, because he now knows that someone else will assume the negative role in a debate on the Mary Magdalene problem.
I have already rewritten my first defense of the Mary-Magdalene proposition to adapt it to a different opponent. I hope to have McDonald on this forum by today so that our exchanges can be posted here as well as in the Errancy forum. I know McDonald quite well. He is a Church-of-Christ preacher who has twice debated me--at length--in both oral and written format, so it is quite telling that an experienced debater immediately accepted my proposition without engaging in any haggling over the wording of it.
Quote:
Gastrich:
Be aware that I'll be drawing from my exhaustive, post-resurrection chronology in our debate.
|
Oh, gee, Gastrich, please don't scare me like this. Please don't hit me with your "exhaustive, post-resurrection [
sic] chronology." Have you no mercy?
Quote:
Gastrich:
As you may know, I've harmonized the entire post-ressurection [sic] account from each gospel.
|
I have seen your attempts to harmonize the postresurrection accounts from the gospels. They are farcical in their content and far from "exhaustive." After you have come out of hiding from the Mary-Magdalene issue, I will gladly oppose you in debating specific issues, one at a time, in your "harmonization."
08-03-2006, 04:10 PM
Gastrich/Till debate history & resurrection harmonizations [split from FDP]
