DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

[JoeEllison]

My threads are about informing.

Nope, they are pretty clearly about misinforming, as everyone here has noticed EXCEPT you... and I think you know too, and are just pretending. Who can be sure? Certainly, your posts seem to be incredibly dishonest. Posting random bits of "information" while intentionally ignoring context is at best misleading, and at worst rises to the level of lying.

Someone new to the forums(like me), reads the title of this thread, does a little digging, and sees that the title is perfectly accurate.

 

[Oualawouzou]

Someone new to the forums(like me), reads the title of this thread, does a little digging, and sees that the title is perfectly accurate.

Heck, I am pretty ignorant of American history, so I didn't come to the Jefferson thread (the first DOC thread I read, IIRC) with any preconceived idea or desire to see the outcome be one or the other, and I must say his arguments were completely and utterly destroyed in the first few posts. The same thing happened in every other thread I've seen him start.

You don't even have to dig to see DOC's arguments for what they are. At worst, you just have to lightly brush a light film of dust.

And I'll take this opportunity to thank all the rationnal posters for the information they provided in those threads, and kmortis for his great job in his self-appointed title.

 

[kmortis]

Yes, but somebody new to the forums might read the deceptive title of the thread and be and be influenced by its falsity and then not even bother to go into a thread because of it. That's why there are libel laws on the books.

Listen, you bastich. If you're going to threaten libel, you'd better be willing to put up or shut up. You've not been libelled here. You've been refuted, defeated and ridiculed, but no libel involved. You've now made that charge a few times in this thread alone and unless you're willing to have a serious court case about it, then just shut the **** up about libel. Just because your cases are weak and you cannot stand to have you favorite beliefs challenged is not libelous material. There has to be evidence of public damage, as DOC is an obvious psuedonym, that charge does not hold water. There's a few lawyers who post here who would be more than willing to tell you, in deathly boring detail, what constitutes a libel charge, and you've NOT experienced it, jackass.


Grow up.

Go away.

ETA: Could one of the mods please contact ceo esq and have him confirm this? His PM wasn't working last time I tried.

 

[JoeEllison]

Heck, I am pretty ignorant of American history, so I didn't come to the Jefferson thread (the first DOC thread I read, IIRC) with any preconceived idea or desire to see the outcome be one or the other, and I must say his arguments were completely and utterly destroyed in the first few posts. The same thing happened in every other thread I've seen him start.

You don't even have to dig to see DOC's arguments for what they are. At worst, you just have to lightly brush a light film of dust.

And I'll take this opportunity to thank all the rationnal posters for the information they provided in those threads, and kmortis for his great job in his self-appointed title.

What's interesting is that he seems to think his arguments are really strong, and that he's making a bunch of really good points. When they are destroyed, he just repeats them, and blames some evil secular conspiracy. Dull, childish, and a waste of everyone's time, except for kmortis, fighting the good fight against evil.

 

[Hokulele]

Don't look at me, I'm just here for the pancakes.

 

[drkitten]

My threads are about informing.

Only if lies are "informing." Because the statements you make -- in the post to which I responded as well as in general -- are untrue. And furthermore, have been shown to be untrue, repeatedly, so at this point you are knowingly spreading falsehoods.

And as I've said before, what you do with the information is your business.

We tell the truth -- to counteract the lies you tell.

But one has to wonder why a guy who is mostly just putting information out there is being attacked so much.

Because the person -- you -- is lying, and we recognize that.

If someone tells me info that I never knew about in a thread, I'd be more likely to thank them than attack them.

Really? Even if you knew that that person was lying and that the 'information" he spread was untrue?

 

[kmortis]

Don't look at me, I'm just here for the pancakes.

Did someone say "pancakes"? Well, what kind would you like, m'dear? I got all sorts.

 

[DOC]

The Threads this Thread is discussing

Since this thread is about my threads it seems only logical to post my threads to make it easier to look up some of the things, truthful and untruthful, people are saying in this thread. The following are my threads on

Jefferson and Separation of Church and State

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2347743#post2347743

Peter, the apostle

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2714200#post2714200

Could Communism in Russia have been successful with Christianity?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2782654#post2782654

Christopher Columbus

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2806813#post2806813

The Viking, Leif Ericson

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2792555#post2792555

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, everyone can see you for exactly what you are.

What is your point?

 

[DOC]

What is your point?

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.

When you think about it, isn't that the point of many people who put up threads that are negative to Christianity. I don't see anybody asking them what their point is.

 

[JoeEllison]

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.

When you think about it, isn't that the point of many people who put up threads that are negative to Christianity. I don't see anybody asking them what their point is.

You don't look very hard. More importantly, the fact that you would make that comment means that you hope that your threads in some way are positive towards Christianity. They are not, of course, and they make many of us wonder how seriously some people take their religion, when they are willing to be so very dishonest in "support" of it.

And, really, you haven't been informative in any useful way. Tiny bits of useless trivia, some of it untrue, much of it out of context, doesn't inform anyone about anything.

 

[joobz]

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.

When you think about it, isn't that the point of many people who put up threads that are negative to Christianity. I don't see anybody asking them what their point is.

Typically, we don't need to ask that question. Their point is clear, because they state it in the OP. We aren't asking anything magical. Simply, what is your intent?

You have been rather obtuse with very direct questions.
You have accused myself and others of stating "falsehoods" without evidence and have been shown to be wrong.
You have yet to apologize for a single error.
I have been honest of when I was wrong and have apologized.

Actions speak loud, and your's demonstrates clearly that being a christian and being moral are not synonymous.

I'll wait to see when you are willing to refute my claims.
I'll apologize if you prove me wrong.
I really hope you prove me wrong.
Please, prove me wrong.

 

[strathmeyer]

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.

When you think about it, isn't that the point of many people who put up threads that are negative to Christianity. I don't see anybody asking them what their point is.

Got it: if I have a question for someone I must also ask that question of all people.

 

[Ducky]

Doc has no response to I less than three's refutation of his minor 8 points, and refers to his other threads as if he hasn't been shown to be completely misrepresenting or outright lying about history and facts in those threads.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[kmortis]

joobz, don't forget to add that disagreement is tantamount to libel.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

joobz, don't forget to add that disagreement is tantamount to libel.

It seems that DOC's brand of Christianity has taken a page from the Scientologists. If you can't beat them, threaten to sue them.

BTW, I have a degree in Journalism, and I've studied media law. Trust me, nothing that has been said here constitutes libel.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

joobz, don't forget to add that disagreement is tantamount to libel.

But all atheists wanting to harvest the organs of Jimmy Carter, that's just about history.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

But all atheists wanting to harvest the organs of Jimmy Carter, that's just about history.

No, no... we atheists put aborted fetuses into a blender for our daily embryonic stem cell smoothies.

Mmmmm... refreshing.

 

[Hokulele]

Ah, I see the problem DOC has with the thread title. Joobz included the word "fact".

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
What is your point?


Quote from Doc

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.

When you think about it, isn't that the point of many people who put up threads that are negative to Christianity. I don't see anybody asking them what their point is.

You don't look very hard.

Can you give me let's say 2 examples of someone asking the numerous thread creators who have made many many threads (negative to Christianity) "what's the point" or "so what". And let's say the post must have been made over a week ago. Today is Aug 14.