ybnormal

:banghead:

Toto

Your moderator clearly has NO LIFE, but still does not have the patience of Job.

Rad - if you have complaints about my moderation, you may PM me or take them to the Bugs forum. But since I have never deleted your posts or edited out anything in the original post, and your only complaint seems to be that I let other posters say bad things about you, I don't think your complaints will go very far. But maybe the admins need a good laugh.

And haven't you learned the danger of quoting scripture to an atheist? You missed this from Job 16:3

Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing?

Everyone else - I thought Rad had taken the first step towards admitting that he was a sinner before Christ and asking for forgiveness and saying that he would be more careful in the future, but people continued to pile on, and he got defensive again.

I ask you: no more sexual innuendos, even if Rad set himself up. There is no need to recatalogue Rad's faults or projections yet again.

Fred F., who started the thread, indicated he still had something to say, so I had hoped I could leave it open long enough for him to get back to it. But if these one sentence, unproductive insults continue, I may be forced to take drastic action.

ybnormal

Today, among other things, my good friend Rad has implied that he was set up for a target here.

Rad:
"Why did you set me up for a target?" (7:20)

Rad:
I have many other complaints against Toto, which you failed to mention. Ah yes, poor Toto, the nearly perfect moderator, mercilessly picked on by the big meanie Rad.

Toto:
Your moderator clearly has NO LIFE, but still does not have the patience of Job.

A matter of perspective I suppose, Toto.
Cutting this down to size obviously required cutting substance... and altho most posts were snipped, whole sentences are intact. All this takes place in about 26 hours, on the first page of the first thread Rad started here. The first 7 quotes are the first 7 posts in succession. It begins with Radorth's third (3rd) post on IIDB, almost a thousand posts ago.

(Rad's) Paul's evildoings thread page 1

Radorth: September 5, 2002 11:36 AM

Paul's evil doings
You know, I'm a little tired of hearing of all the bad things the apostles did, but Paul seems to be the favored target. (I think I know why but will wait to see what skeptics may have to say).

We hear he stole people's money and property, how he abused women, and how Jesus would be "appalled" at Paul's doctrines.
__________

Toto: September 5, 2002 12:39 PM

I hadn't heard about Paul stealing money or abusing women. What scandal sheet are you reading?
__________

Radorth: September 5, 2002 04:13 PM

Er, I hate to say. Let's call it an infamous atheist internet site.

I take it you think Paul is not a favorite target here. Perhaps I've grown cynical reading other atheist sites. I guess we'll see.
__________

Toto: September 5, 2002 04:52 PM

Why are you playing so coy? You can name these other sites. Is one of them atheistsforjesus.com?
__________

Amen-Moses: September 5, 2002 05:29 PM

He's just trolling.

The site he is on about is the Cygnus study forums where he has obviously been panned so mayny times that he feels the need to spread his wings so to speak.
__________

Radorth: September 5, 2002 05:54 PM

AM is incorrect about my motives as usual. For one thing, I'm a little bored with the Cygnus site. The lines are all drawn and there are not that many posters, many Christians have left and virtually no new ones stick around. But the main reason is that Cygnus has written me saying he will now erase or EDIT my posts at will, and if I try to change anything as it was, he will ban me. I'll be happy to post his e-mail verbatim for anyone who doubts it.

I do find it hard to believe rational people doubt the existence of Jesus.
__________

Toto: September 5, 2002 06:13 PM

Sounds like you're way behind the curve. Catch up on what you've missed.
(links inserted)
When you read all that, come back.
__________

Radorth: September 5, 2002 07:20 PM

So Toto, anybody who hasn't read what you have read is behind the curve by definition?
__________

Radorth: September 6, 2002 10:53 AM

Besides you haven't even bothered to argue his facts and points Toto. Should we all just take your word for it that he, a skeptic, was being anything less than intellectually honest or leaning on anything but facts?
__________

Toto: September 6, 2002 12:35 PM

And as for the evidence - the problem is that there is very little hard evidence. The question is what inferences you can validly draw from the scraps that are there.
__________

Radorth: September 6, 2002 06:04 PM

Well Toto, one could wish for more non-Christian evidence I suppose. My own view is that the lack of it helps keep hypercrites and incorrigible nit-pickers ot of heaven.
__________

Radorth: September 6, 2002 07:15 PM

So first we are told by many wizened "scholars" that the accounts vary too much to be believed, and now we are told that they are too similar to be believed!!!

Tell you what Toto. I give up. The good guys can't win in such an arena, where the rules are all made up by Doherty, and change with the wind.

Radorth


[Criminy... edit to change link from page 2 to page 1 AND again for initial posts, to correct 4 post times]

ybnormal

[edit to say... I corrected the times... later posts may be on pg 2 as per your personal settings... thanks for any patience allowed]

Technical explanation/question/apology... I have now discovered, it seems, that the times of these posts change according to each user's settings, of course, as do the number of posts shown on each page. It also seems that I copied some post times when I was logged in and others when I was not, changing my personal settings, so it appears that some of the posts are not in succession. I was extremely careful that the posts do follow in order, altho the times do not reflect this.

I humbly apologize for any confusion this generates. If the Moderator wants, I will pull this post until I have fixed the times, or I can edit them accordingly, altho the thread link is provided for all to check me out.

Buffman

Radorth

From the one complaining about MY tactics. But I suppose if you quoted me correctly, you would look silly. I understand.

Another cheap shot and and another unsupported and totally self-serving allegation. It would appear that you have understood very little. Very little, indeed!

As I say, the biggest complainers are also the biggest offenders.

This, perhaps, is the most accurate remark you have posted to date. Congratulations! I agree with your self-assessment. Now could we try to deal with your incessant complaints one at a time rather than with the incoherence of your shotgun blasts?

Keep it up Yb, by all means. BTW, are you about 25 years old?

(I would attempt to number this latest cheap shot but I lost count long ago.) Obviously you talk a great deal about the greatness of your supernatural and sacred Jesus and then practice none of the moral philosophies to which you attempt to credit him. Why is it so difficult for you not to see and understand this? My guess, and that's all it is, would be that you have never had any formal education in the Bible or its value as an ethical, moral and social guide in human interactions. Neither have I observed any indication that you have an educated appreciation for biblical history or literature. You appear incapable of appreciating what a mockery you are making of many of the Bible's most worthwhile philosophies? How many believers and non-believers have advised you that your proselytizing propaganda techniques may work well on the under-informed or unwary, but that they are patently obvious and absurd when you attempt to apply them here? I find you to be one of the most un-Christian Christians that I have encountered in a very long time. It has been fascinating to read your remarks as they descend further and further into the depths of self-serving defensiveness and aggrandizement...while constantly, relentlessly, crying foul every time someone catches you in a false accusation, allegation, inference or "quote."

I will repeat my hope that Toto does not close this, or any of the other strings, where you continue to set a new standard of religious faith belief hypocrisy and absurdity. It has become some of the best ammunition to support non-religious belief that has appeared in these forums since the days when the more qualified religious apologists used to present well thought out positions as potential bait. Thank you for being such an entertaining joker/jester.

I suspect that you are ministering/witnessing to those in great need of whatever it is that you do. My best wishes for your success in turning them to more positive and productive lives. Perhaps you should devote more energy to that project than attempting to paint the picture of yourself that you have in these forums because I have searched for and have been unable to find much of anything in your posts that I could label as productive and positive...or Christian. (Personally, I thought that you might be a stealth Atheist because you have certainly helped to advance the Atheist's contentions about "certain" Christian zealots. I was actually wondering if Christian members like Amie, Sabine, HelenM, etc. might publicly unmask you as a strong Atheist...much to everyone else's chagrin.)

Radorth

Well Yb, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, why you dredged up such ancient history, or why you even picked the posts you did.

Did you even bother to read Yb's own ranting? I don't think so. You have a double standard for debate tactics Buffman, but that's OK. There always has been, and I think you have simply grown use to it.

I don't suppose you noticed Toto going off on a tangent either after Yb insisted I nor go there, even to explain myself. So you guys can go anywhere, broach any subject, dredge up any history and repeat all sorts of derogatory remarks sans any examples? You are right, I don't get it. OK so we are all just wasting bandwidth until I start turning my cheek more regularly. Well that was Peter's advice, I admit. I'd quote the verse, but folks would be insulted. (What an odd quandary)

Well Toto, thank you for saying something anyway. It was heartening to hear it.

However I don't appreciate your quoting Job

Why couldn't I ask the same question? Toto, I was obviously pointing out to Yb that Job could be righteous and stand up for himself, so that was uncalled for. And of course I did not open this can of worms, did I?

I hope you do close the thread, but if people wish to continue, I have some more recent examples of baiting, misrepresentations, and bad tactics I can publish, though I prefer not to. Enough's enough I think.

Rad

Toto

I do not know why YBNormal started quoting from a thread in BC&A, where I am not a moderator, except that it shows a pattern of illogic from Rad. I assumed he had worked it up before I asked people to stop posting lists of Rad's sins, and didn't want to let his work go to waste.

But I will ask people to confine this thread to statements on the founders' views.

Rad: please stop and think before you write, then go back and edit. I think you switched "Toto" and "Yb" in the above. I think there are also lots of examples, too many, in fact.

You are always welcome to explain yourself, if you can do so coherently, so I don't know what you mean by that.

It is quite clear that you do not get it. But I don't know what to do about that.

And - did Peter advise anyone to turn the other cheek? I think it was Jesus. I don't know why you think folks would be insulted if you quoted a Bible verse on that. You felt free to post a lot of Bible verses above, and I could have called you on proselytizing in this forum, but I was just too tired. I don't mind Bible verses, since you have such trouble getting them right.

Patience is wearing thin. . .

Toto

Rad said

I don't care about baiting. You don't have to take the bait. If you think you have been misrepresented, you should correct that. I don't think you are in any position to complain about "bad tactics".

Family Man

I'll nominate this as the Whiniest Post of the Year. (I assume that Radoth isn't the only one allowed to use his dubious debating tactics. Or are you having trouble recognizing your own tactics, Radorth? Gee, you don't seem to like them very much.)

Ok, I'm done baiting. In reality, I'm just trying to get to 500 posts and Senior User status.

Buffman

Rad

Did you even bother to read Yb's own ranting? I don't think so. You have a double standard for debate tactics Buffman, but that's OK. There always has been, and I think you have simply grown use to it.

I am not interested in winning or losing debates. If I wished to engage in a debate, I would go to a different forum. I have told you that several times before. The only thing I have been seeing ever since I posted corrective amplifications to your initial five quotes in the David Barton string is your demonstration of self-deluding and insensitive remarks concerning every single person who has attempted to point out the errors and inconsistencies in many of them. Certainly not all of them or every observation and charge you have made, but many just the same. Your entire effort has come across as one of un-Christian and unremitting confrontation, recalcitrance and rather juvenile petulance.

No matter how many times people have attempted to call your attention to your various incomplete or inaccurate citations, you refuse to acknowledge anything other than their alleged agenda to discredit you, and not your information....unless these others are able to place some of your statements back-to-back so that everyone reading can easily see what your are actually doing to win your self-initiated "debate." These are some of the times (like several of ybnormal's comparisons) you rush into the gapping holes in your "debating" tunic with the "Why bring up ancient history" ploy. You are "debating," not DISCUSSING, issues. (I have been posting for over two years and have a total of approximately 1300. You have been posting only since August 2002 and have approximately 1000. Little you have posted can be considered ancient history with that kind of shotgun exposure.) You have some unexplained drive to go down with the ship with every post you make, whether accurate or not. Obviously your particular personality demands that of you.

Do some folks resort to "debating" tactics and passionate defenses of their positions in response to your words? Of course they do! Are the folks who challenge your posts, including myself, always right? Of course not! But your type of "debate" persona does not allow for the kind of mature and worthwhile discussions that help to uncover the accurate facts behind the issues being surfaced. You have made a number of inferences about my not being fair when attempting to view all sides of a discussion. I will readily admit that I am far from perfect in my ability to view everything fairly...but not for want of the effort to do so. But "debates" do not allow for much fairness because they are designed as a win or lose venue. Fairness engenders a sincere effort to examine all, not simply two, sides of an issue. That is one of the advantages of a discussion over a debate. That is what I have been attempting, unsuccessfully, to make clear to you.

I imagine that many folks must wonder why I, and others, would bother to attempt to engage/accommodate your type of personality. The answer is quite simple. You claim that you are instructing/teaching/witnessing/educating others in your dogma. If your teachings contain inaccurate information, then those under your tutelage will be likely to spread these same inaccuracies. If I can help you, and anyone else who may be interested, to be exposed to the verifiable, accurate, evidence concerning an issue, then I believe that I have accomplished something worthwhile, positive and constructive. I leave determinations of the so-called "truth" up to the individuals involved. I have no interest in conditioning/brainwashing/ indoctrinating people into automaton clones of my values or beliefs. Can you make the same claim?