Tuesday, November 28, 2006

And this is Frank Walton's Christian response

With a similar disclaimer about the tone.

19 comments:

Frank Walton said...

Thanks for the plug, Dr. Reppert! Not only did Mark Smith lie about my friend Corey being in the army, but he refuses to put in the new URL address of our rebuttal. We e-mailed Smith telling him if he was honest he would at least revise his webpage. He hasn't.

John W. Loftus said...

I can't believe you linked to Walton. My estimation of you just went way down. Way down. For so many reasons.

Jeff Downs said...

And you are one to talk Loftus?

Blue Devil Knight said...

What a bunch of kooks: I love it!

Don Jr. said...

John,

Could you please site the "many reasons" so that we all may avoid going way down, way down, in your estimation.

Victor Reppert said...

I linked to the two sites because I wanted to present the pro-Craig and anti-Craig sides of the "Craig is a Mormon epistemologist" argument. I disapprove of the rhetorical style on both sites, as I think I indicated clearly. Jeff G and Clark g, I thought, needed to see more of the background of the accusation against Craig, and I couldn't figure out any other way of doing that except by linking to those two sites. Maybe it was laziness on my part (or lacking a lot of time to post a detailed explanation) so I just did the links instead.

John W. Loftus said...

Okay, Vic, I understand.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Blue Devil Knight; these guys are hilarious!

I suppose it's consolation for baning Carr and thus stemming that particular avenue of humour.

Frank Walton said...

Hi John,

Your estimation of Dr. Reppert went down just because he linked to me? Hey Loftus, last I saw you've been commenting in my blogsite a number of times. Do you have a low estimation of yourself then? Dr. Reppert may not like my tactics but it's better than attacking your opponent's wife agreed?

Your loving enemy,

Frank Walton

John W. Loftus said...

Thank you Frank. I knew you yourself would provide the evidence Don Jr. had asked me to provide. Anyone not already familiar with the context of my relationship with the likes of Manata and you, can just read what you and he write on a weekly basis and decide for themselves. You and he have always thought of me as an enemy.

Then they can read what I write on a weekly basis at DC and see the difference. They will see how I respectfully treat people who disagree with me who don't also berate, belittle and malign me. I can only take so much.

So, here I've briefly responded to you. I guess that makes you think linking to what you write is on an equal footing with responding to you, but that doesn't follow.

Don Jr. said...

John,

No, that does not provide me with the "many reasons" you claimed to have for acquiring a low estimation of Victor. If anything it only provides me with one reason (i.e., that he linked to one of Frank's pages), but not many. And that's a poor reason at best since it would involve ignoring the tone disclaimer Victor provided with the link. So I'm still awaiting those "many reasons"--and those reasons were for why you claimed to aquire a low estimation of Victor, not why we ought to think that Frank's behavior is poor.

Frank Walton said...

Look John,

All I'm saying is you have to stop playing innocent. You're known for excusing your rotten behavior (I can provide examples if you like). Do I see you as an enemy? Of course I do, Johnny-poo. After all, to get back at me, you linked to a website (of a known racist I might add) who had the audacity to publicly publish my wife's name and our home address and phone number; and left racist minstrel caricatures of black people, as if those images describe me as a person because of the color of my skin. Also, after claiming that Manata would beat his wife, what do you do? You make fun of her! Furthermore, you left links for your readers where they can see JP Holding's face, even after he stated he wanted to by more anonymous. And so you don't think I (or we) should see you as an enemy? As much as you would like to convince people that you're a good person, you're not, John. Pride comes before the fall.

Your affectionate enemy,

Frank Walton

John W. Loftus said...

Thanks Frank. I deny every implication of what you claim. For instance, in order for me to knowingly link to a racist website I have to know it was one, and I have to agree with you that it is one, and that it contains said information that you claim it does.

Don Jr. does this satisfy your demand for evidence? I don't care if it does, of course. But Walton is widely known as a joke by both Christians and non-Christians. Name me a skeptic who has dealt with him who would say he fairly characterizes his views? He mischaracterizes, distorts, and maligns us at every turn because he considers us his enemies. This is obvious. Therefore, he is not to be considered fair-minded when he discusses the issues themselves, and he doesn't. He's a joke, and apparently you are among a handful of people on the Web who discuss these issues who don't know this.

Don Jr. said...

John,

Did you read my '7:56 PM' comment and actually try to understand it? (This is meant as a serious question.)

Frank engages in poor, sometimes repulsive, behavior. This is more than obvious. (Although, based on the evidence given by Frank, he is right, it seems to me, we he says you should not play the innocent.) Nevertheless, you didn't say you had "many reasons" for believing Frank to be a meanie. You did say you had many reasons--many, not one--for aquiring a low estimation of Victor. I am curious as to what those reasons are (or were).

Just to clarify, I will list the one reason you have given for having claimed to acquire a low estimation of Victor:
1. Victor linked to the webpage of a person with poor behavior. (Of course, as I said before, listing this as a reason ignores the tone disclaimer Victor gave along with the link.)

What are the rest of the "many reasons"?

Victor Reppert said...

Let's just drop this. I didn't post this to rehash all that dirty laundry, I posted it to provide for people who wanted more background on the issue surrounding Craig's appeal to the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, claiming that it has the same problems as the Mormon "burning in the bosom." Of course, this assumes the "Don't confuse me with facts" reading of the

Loftus said he understood when I explained what I was doing when I linked to Walton. That's good enought for me.

John W. Loftus said...

I have none, Don Jr. None at all. You win because I don't want to argue the obvious. But Vic knows.

Don Jr. said...

Agreed to drop.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Wow, I feel like I just drove a minibike into a clothesline that was filled with soiled linens. I guess there might be a little bit of history between these two! I find the exchanges so confusing that I have no idea who said what or who is whom or what is going on.

Again, great stuff: the internet democracy is sometimes unintentionally so very funny.

Frank Walton Sucks! said...

The only post about Frank Walton you will ever need to read.

Frank Walton atheism sucks atheismsucks.blogspot.com