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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
10 comments:
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.
And you are one to talk Loftus?
What a bunch of kooks: I love it!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
The only post about Frank Walton you will ever need to read.
Frank Walton atheism sucks atheismsucks.blogspot.com
Post a Comment