Kicked off of Uncommon Descent
Psycho Dave
people, ( Site: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-detection-and-nazis-have-in-common/),
arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
dissenting view.
Zaius
> I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
There's a word for that... starts with an E...
Psycho Dave
> There's a word for that... starts with an E...
I was thinking of the word that begins with "A", myself...
Psycho Dave
"Umm...
I can stay away if you want me to, but I kind of want some closure on
this. I didn't use profanity, and thought I conducted myself politely,
and did not use any ad hominems or attack anyone. I really would like
to know why I got banned and my posts deleted, because I don't know
what on earth offended you.
Thnk You!
David W. Irish
-------------------------------
So they deleted that message, and never responded back.
The people who pull that kind of crap -- delete all of a user's posts,
and ban them, without providing any explanation -- are nothing more
than intellectual cowards who are trying to avoid rational
discussion.
geo...@hotmail.com
> I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
If you go to After the Bar Closes , you'll find that the Official
Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread (
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=487e627e14186e27;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=0
) is very close to its 1000th page of watching UD. You may want to let
Reciprocating Bill know about your banning in case he missed it, they
have a thread which records those also.
Steven L.
> So I made a new account, and posted a new reply that went:
>
> "Umm...
>
> I can stay away if you want me to, but I kind of want some closure on
> this. I didn't use profanity, and thought I conducted myself politely,
> and did not use any ad hominems or attack anyone. I really would like
> to know why I got banned and my posts deleted, because I don't know
> what on earth offended you.
>
> Thnk You!
>
> David W. Irish
> -------------------------------
>
> So they deleted that message, and never responded back.
They probably blacklisted your IP address too, not just your user name;
so you can't post anymore even under a different user name.
> The people who pull that kind of crap -- delete all of a user's posts,
> and ban them, without providing any explanation -- are nothing more
> than intellectual cowards who are trying to avoid rational
> discussion.
I've had that same experience. I've been kicked off of blogs just
because of my dissenting views, which didn't match the views of the
moderator. Even though I always maintained a civil tone, even though I
always backed up my points with hard evidence. Just being a dissenter
was ipso facto considered being a "troll"--and I was banned on that
basis. My IP address was banned too, so I could not even get another
account under a different user name.
Examples:
Until 2007, anyone critical of the Bush Administration's conduct of the
Iraq War was summarily banned from Little Green Footballs.
For many months, anyone who was supportive of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy
for President was summarily banned from FreeRepublic.com, because the
moderator of that blog insisted that "Giuliani is not a true conservative."
Political blogs are NOT a substitute for Usenet newsgroups. Because
each blog is heavily moderated to support the moderator's point of view.
Most posts consist of agreeing with the moderator. Only a few
dissenting voices are tolerated, and these are tolerated only on
relatively minor or largely irrelevant issues.
Truly free-wheeling blogs as free-wheeling as Usenet are rare.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ray Martinez
> I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
Descent.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 16, 12:14 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> > people, ( Site:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-dete...),
>
> > Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> > I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
>
> This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
> Descent.
>
> Ray
Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
Ray
Inez
Stanley Moon: You're a bleeding nut case!
George Spigot: They said that about Galileo, Einstien, and Jesus
Christ.
Stanley Moon: They said it about a lot of bleeding nutcases too.
-Bedazzled.
Inez
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
I guess on some level I have to support their right to do this. If
you want to have a cozy little blog in which everyone gives each
other little online backrubs, well, that's not so bad. Maybe they
don't want a discussion.
Louann Miller
990e-dcb...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
(re sudden banning from Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog)
> I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised.
(voice of Adam Savage, 'Mythbusters.')
THERE'S your problem!
John Harshman
uncommon there because they like it that way. And this shows a lack of
common decency. Creationists communally dissemble.
Frank J
So you are accusing UcD of being a "mainstream majority" that "hates
those who represent the views of God" right? Heck, what else can you
mean; I essentially quoted you verbatim?
Anyway, there's a *huge* difference between UcD's and PT's criteria
for banning. UcD deletes almost any post that's inconvenent to its
propaganda, and bans any poster who doesn't take their warning. OTOH,
to be banned from PT one must be an incorrigibly obnoxious troll.
Changing one's username in order to continue hijacking a thread is
what they tolerate least. I don't know why you were banned, but you
might want to try to come back. I will put in a good word for you.
Even banned posts are usually just moved to their no-specific-topic
thread called the "Bathroom Wall." Some of my posts have been sent
there along with those of many other "evolutionists."
Shane
wrote:
Reality, of course, is the often different from Ray's
delusions, for example in the U.S. the overwhelming majority
of elected officials espouse christianity, whether they
believe it or not.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
And this surprises you because . . . . ..?
Heck, does anyone even pay any attention at all to Dembski's whinefest
anymore?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>those who represent the
> views of God
How the fuck do you know that **YOU** "represent the views of God",
Ray.
Did God tell you that himself? Did he give you a laminated
certfiicate to show to everyone else?
I simply don't believe that you "represent God", Ray. In fact, I
think you're just a dumbass uneducated pride-filled arrogant holier-
than-thou prick who for some unfathomable reason seems to think that
he's holier than everyone else alive, even though he's just an
insignificant little nobody of a nothing of a shit who chatters away
on an Internet group where everyone -- even his fellow "Christians"
-- laughs at him.
You are just a man, Ray. Not God's Spokesman, not God's Prophet, not
God's Speechmaker, not God's Favorite, not God's Representative On
Earth.
Just a man.
Just a fallible, ordinary, man, Ray.
No more holy or divine than anybody else.
Just more full of himself.
Boikat
Maybe you shou7ld have posted your invulnerable refutation of
evilution on UD. Maybe they would have installed you as their leader
and spend the rest of their time kissing your ass.
Oh, wait. You got nothing. Maybe that's why they booted you?
Boikat
Psycho Dave
>
> Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
> views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>
> Ray
Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
Psycho Dave
>
> This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
> Descent.
>
> Ray
And I suppose you're going to say that you were never a niusance, and
that you were only the most extra-special polite guy there, right?
Timberwoof
<10590591-3548-4101...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And as a perfect example of this you will no doubt present the Roman
Catholic Church and its establishment of the "mainstream majority" for
at least a thousand years of European history.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Timberwoof
<10590591-3548-4101...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wait. Did you just say that you represent the views of God? Aren't you
putting words into God's mouth? Isn't that blasphemy?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <PN2dnaliD_FIHuPV...@giganews.com>):
Should be followed by explosions.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ray Martinez
Since these places have rules (unlike here) of course.
Of course Dembski doesn't run UD----Dave Scot does for him. Dembski,
placing trust in a closet Atheist-dirtbag, has executed traitorous
judgment in this issue. The fact that Dembski doesn't care as to who
gets shafted, based on the capriciousness of an anti-Theist dictator,
tells me that he has gotten way too big for his britches. For a
soldier of the Cross to allow a soldier of Satan to be his secretary,
shows the power of Satan. The way something is done is more important
than what is done. Dave Scot diminishes Dembski's authority and
reputation----but Bill is blinded to this fact. Dembski doesn't give a
rats ass----that's the problem. The published credentialed author is
exposed to not be as morally superior as his accomplishments insinuate
him to be.
But if I were extended a personal apology and invitation by UD to come
back----I wouldn't----not for a minute. I wholly disagree with the
format: a handful of "superiors" introducing the discussions to a
perceived inferior fan base. In other words I wouldn't place myself
beneath persons who I know to be intellectually inferior to myself (I
exempt Dembski here). Nor would I deign to place myself above a group
of other persons. The best format is here at Talk Origins.
Ray
Ray Martinez
That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
message.
In the Bible, those who are in God's will, are rejected by both
secular and religious majorities alike.
Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
delivered during His ministry?
The Pope is loved by everyone.
So is Billy Graham.
Sorry, but the truth is the truth. I have no doubt that both the Pope
and Graham are good people. Obviously so were St. Paul and the
Saviour.
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Blah blah blah.
Everyone here is laughing at you too, Ray. (shrug)
We laugh especially hard when you're stoopid enough to claim to speak
on behalf of God.
Shane
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
>>> views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>
> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
> message.
So criminals, terrorists and the morally depraved are the
true carriers of gods message. Well I'm glad you cleared
that up for us.
> In the Bible, those who are in God's will, are rejected by both
> secular and religious majorities alike.
>
> Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
>
> Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
> forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
> rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
> delivered during His ministry?
>
> The Pope is loved by everyone.
Really? And the evidence for this is? You do realise that
any number of popes have been assasinated, which rather
argues against your foolish claim.
>
> So is Billy Graham.
Really?
>
> Sorry, but the truth is the truth.
Why would you apologise for something that you do not have?
> I have no doubt that both the Pope
> and Graham are good people.
But there are none good but the father in heaven. Is there
any part of the bible that you actually do know?
> Obviously so were St. Paul and the
> Saviour.
Well not according to the bible.
Paul:
Ephesians 3:8 - Unto me, who am less than the least of all
saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Jesus:
Matthew 19:17 - And he said unto him, Why callest thou me
good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
Zaius
I was thinking of Expelled, but there are words that begin with the
letter "A" and the letter "F" that describe the UD gang.. Not
surprised though, it's uncommon that they tolerate dissent.
Steven J.
> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
> > > views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>
> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
> message.
>
> In the Bible, those who are in God's will, are rejected by both
> secular and religious majorities alike.
>
lunatics, and the occasional cannibal are rejected by secular and
religious majorities alike. I think that is not sufficient to
establish that Jeffrey Dahmer was a representative of God's real
message. Even though I'm fairly sure that you don't have any half-
eaten human heads in your refrigerator, being rejected by both secular
and religious majorities isn't enough to establish that you represent
God's will, either. After all, not merely lunatic serial killers, but
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Nation of Islam, and assorted flying saucer
cults all claim to represent God's true will, are rejected by secular
and religious majorities, and are, I'm pretty sure, rejected by you
too.
By the way, Ray, you have repeatedly advanced the claim that half the
U.S. population are creationists. Given that the vast majority of
these creationists align themselves with the Catholic or Protestant
religious majorities, why do you imagine that their views have any
value? On your own arguments, they're wrong about the things that
matter most; why assume they are right on more peripheral matters?
>
> Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
>
> Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
> forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
> rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
> delivered during His ministry?
>
> The Pope is loved by everyone.
>
For fairly low values of "everyone," it seems to me.
>
> So is Billy Graham.
>
> Sorry, but the truth is the truth. I have no doubt that both the Pope
> and Graham are good people. Obviously so were St. Paul and the
> Saviour.
>
So the Pope and Billy Graham are "good people" who hate those who bear
God's true message.
Ray, have you ever thought of taking up rational thought as a hobby?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Wombat
I did look into the matter of Pope assassinations. Only one, one of
the earlier Benedicts, was definitely assassinated (he was
strangled). Some others died untimely, but though poison was
suspected in some cases, it could not be proved.
If you have a more accurate list, I would like to see it.
Wombat
Robert Carnegie
Did it really?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
> > > views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>
> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
> message.
>
Says who?
Ohhh, says YOU.
Nobody cares what YOU think, Ray. YOU are a little nothing of a
nobody, who everybody laughs at. (shrug)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <xdgscjqi753s.13ni93rb4577z$.d...@40tude.net>):
> Really? And the evidence for this is? You do realise that
> any number of popes have been assasinated, which rather
> argues against your foolish claim.
Oh? I can think of one who was definitely assassinated, one who was the
subject of an attempted assassination, and three who quite probably were
assassinated, but there's insufficient evidence.
The list at
<http://media.isnet.org/kristen/Ensiklopedia/AssassinatedPontiffs.html> is,
quite simply put, bullshit. He's got the definite, alright (Benedict VI) but
the others simply didn't happen that way, with the exception of Boniface
VIII. And, while it's true that Boniface VIII was severely beaten by French
thugs on the orders of the French king, and that he died later of what were
(probably) the results of that beating, this is not an assassination. For one
thing, the object of the beating was not to kill him, but rather to get him
to agree to do what King Phillip IV wanted. (He didn't.) That he took about a
month to die is rather indicative.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d5ff2a9a-ed70-4b32...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
of course not. Ray-ray _always_ lies.
One way to prove that I'm wrong, Ray-ray, would be to post the 'invulnerable
evidence' proving the ToE wrong that you claim to have. <sfx of crickets
chirping>
Psycho Dave
Louann Miller
04388f...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Ray, have you ever thought of taking up rational thought as a hobby?
>
The equipment is way too expensive.
Caranx latus
> "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote in news:cff6f7df-b944-4135-ae10-
> 04388f9f3...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Ray, have you ever thought of taking up rational thought as a hobby?
>
> The equipment is way too expensive.
Perhaps if he visited the Wizard, he might be given the equipment for
free? After all, he's created enough strawmen in his time...
Richard Clayton
> On Jul 16, 6:43 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
> > > Descent.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > And I suppose you're going to say that you were never a niusance, and
> > that you were only the most extra-special polite guy there, right?
>
> Since these places have rules (unlike here) of course.
>
> Of course Dembski doesn't run UD----Dave Scot does for him. Dembski,
> placing trust in a closet Atheist-dirtbag, has executed traitorous
> judgment in this issue. The fact that Dembski doesn't care as to who
> gets shafted, based on the capriciousness of an anti-Theist dictator,
> tells me that he has gotten way too big for his britches. For a
> soldier of the Cross to allow a soldier of Satan to be his secretary,
> shows the power of Satan. The way something is done is more important
> than what is done. Dave Scot diminishes Dembski's authority and
> reputation----but Bill is blinded to this fact. Dembski doesn't give a
> rats ass----that's the problem. The published credentialed author is
> exposed to not be as morally superior as his accomplishments insinuate
> him to be.
In other words, you were such a raging jerk that they considered you a
liability even by creationist standards.
> But if I were extended a personal apology and invitation by UD to come
> back----I wouldn't----not for a minute. I wholly disagree with the
> format: a handful of "superiors" introducing the discussions to a
> perceived inferior fan base. In other words I wouldn't place myself
> beneath persons who I know to be intellectually inferior to myself
Who besides God qualifies?*
> (I
> exempt Dembski here). Nor would I deign to place myself above a group
> of other persons. The best format is here at Talk Origins.
If t.o has the best format, why don't you ever post anything
substantive? Why won't you discuss the actual evidence?
* With apologies to "And the Band Played On."
Richard Clayton
>
> > I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> > people, ( Site:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-dete...),
> > arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> > Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> > I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> > language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> > sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> > I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> > dissenting view.
>
> Descent.
What were the exact circumstances and reasons given for your bans,
Ray?
I suspect your ban from UD happened pretty much the same way as your
ban from Conservapedia: You displayed kookery so outrageous that even
other creationists considered you a liability.
As to the Panda's Thumb, I've never seen them ban anybody merely for
disagreeing; they have their own little squad of regular trolls. Did
your ban perhaps reference one of your little explosions of
scatological invective? Or several of them?
gregwrld
More likely his post was
utterly irrelevant to the topic
of the thread and was sent to
After the Bar Closes or the Bathroom
Wall...as have those of Ray-ray's
opponents.
gregwrld
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
And even with the Wizard's help, the scarecrow still didn't get the
theorem about isosceles triangle correct.
--
Chuck Norris does not go hunting, because the term "hunting" implies a
probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.
Mike Dworetsky
news:3_Kfk.29909$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
The wizard couldn't give the scarecrow brains, but he gave him the next best
thing, a phoney degree. That sort of thing seems to befit creationists
often enough, perhaps Ray would like one?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Grandbank
(snip)
>
> The Pope is loved by everyone.
>
(snip)
Which accounts for the inch thick layer of "love-proof glass"
surrounding the Popemobile.
KP
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 16, 6:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 12:14 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> > > people, ( Site:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-dete...),
> > > arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> > > Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> > > I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> > > language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> > > sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> > > I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> > > dissenting view.
>
> > This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
> > Descent.
>
> What were the exact circumstances and reasons given for your bans,
> Ray?
>
That's the point----none were given----like Psycho Dave said. Suddenly
my posts disappeared and I was unable to post or my posts did not
show. When a banning that is illegitimate is going to occur it is not
announced or addressed. The victim is shut out with no recourse and,
of course, no one misses him.
It doesn't matter what anyone says: Psycho Dave was banned because he
could not be refuted. The same with me. As long as we engaged in no
profanity or spamming or invective we were banned because we were
pissing people off who could not refute. If our posts were nonsense
then a smart person would leave them be and not answer and allow the
nonsense and silence to speak for them self.
> I suspect your ban from UD happened pretty much the same way as your
> ban from Conservapedia: You displayed kookery so outrageous that even
> other creationists considered you a liability.
>
I see no insult in being banned by Fundamentalists, that is, persons
who accept a young Earth and microevolution at Indy 500 tempo. That
is, persons who accept microevolution like all Atheist evolutionists.
By the way: I was asked to come back at Conservapedia by
Administration. I have refused. I was initially asked to write the
Charles Darwin bio article by Andy and Admin Conservative. When Andy
changed his mind at the urging of a closet Atheist Admin is his ranks
I wrote a stinging piece of criticism and then was banned. I am not a
conservative. I am a middle to left leaning independent who rejects
the death penalty, supports abortion (except final trimester) and I
was glad to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress in
2006. I support Barack Obama for President.
> As to the Panda's Thumb, I've never seen them ban anybody merely for
> disagreeing; they have their own little squad of regular trolls. Did
> your ban perhaps reference one of your little explosions of
> scatological invective? Or several of them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one can produce one scrap of evidence justifying my ban at Pandas
Thumb----none. I believe that I was banned by the caprice of one power
mad person of whom I forgot their name. My banning at UD is because I
infuriated Dave Scot and dared to point out his militant anti-
Protestantism Atheism. William Dembski could care less about any given
individual on the Internet----even a supporter----shame on him. I
would never again participate in his (or any) forum that is structured
on a superior-inferior format. The best format is here at T.O. where
everyone knows and finds their place. The few real nuts who post here
are few and far between because no one answers. This is the way it
should be----no censorship: the price of freedom is association with
kooks, meaning those who abuse their freedom. Censorship is when
legitimate persons get banned by persons in charge who abuse their
power by ajudicating a personal grudge, derived from the discussions,
under the appearance of official duty.
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Show us the Invulnerable Scientific Paper (snicker, giggle), Ray.
Put up or shut up.
Frank J
Yeah, but my laughs turn to cheers when he puts Dembski and the other
"big tent" clowns in their place. He helps evolution PR better than PZ
does lately.
>
> We laugh especially hard when you're stoopid enough to claim to speak
> on behalf of God.
Like most who do that, he's shrewd enough to invoke an intermediary.
Some have Jesus, some have Muhammad, Ray has the great and powerful
Gene Scott.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com- Hide quoted text -
Richard Clayton
> On Jul 17, 8:55�am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 6:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 12:14�pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> > > > people, ( Site:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-dete...),
> > > > arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> > > > Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> > > > I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> > > > language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> > > > sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> > > > I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> > > > dissenting view.
>
> > > This is exactly what happened to me at both Pandas Thumb and Uncommon
> > > Descent.
>
> > What were the exact circumstances and reasons given for your bans,
> > Ray?
>
> That's the point----none were given----like Psycho Dave said. Suddenly
> my posts disappeared and I was unable to post or my posts did not
> show. When a banning that is illegitimate is going to occur it is not
> announced or addressed. The victim is shut out with no recourse and,
> of course, no one misses him.
Pardon me if I find your claim dubious, but you have been shown to be
a liar on several previous occasions. You also tend to creatively
interpret your bannings from various discussion forums-- you get
angry, you throw a temper tantrum or three, you get yourself banned,
and then you claim it happened because those big bad atheists couldn't
refute your invulnerable logic. I personally suspect you deliberately
try to get banned when you find you're getting your ass kicked-- it
allows you to slink away feeling justified. Remember when you started
spamming the same post to t.o over and over again?
At any rate, I've emailed the Panda's Thumb to see what they have to
say about the ban.
> It doesn't matter what anyone says: Psycho Dave was banned because he
> could not be refuted.
That's common practice for Uncommon Dissent, but not for the Panda's
Thumb.
> The same with me.
I don't buy it. A reasonably bright ten-year-old could refute you,
Ray; your statements are often demonstrably counterfactual and
logically inconsistent to boot.
> As long as we engaged in no
> profanity or spamming or invective we were banned because we were
> pissing people off who could not refute. If our posts were nonsense
> then a smart person would leave them be and not answer and allow the
> nonsense and silence to speak for them self.
To the contrary, Ray, refuting nonsense is the whole point of the
Panda's Thumb, as well as talk.origins. Antiscience bafflegab must be
opposed, or it will triumph by default.
> > I suspect your ban from UD happened pretty much the same way as your
> > ban from Conservapedia: You displayed kookery so outrageous that even
> > other creationists considered you a liability.
>
> I see no insult in being banned by Fundamentalists, that is, persons
> who accept a young Earth and microevolution at Indy 500 tempo. That
> is, persons who accept microevolution like all Atheist evolutionists.
Your ideological division with other creationists is just one more
reason they consider you a liability. You rip holes in the Big Tent.
> By the way: I was asked to come back at Conservapedia by
> Administration. I have refused. I was initially asked to write the
> Charles Darwin bio article by Andy and Admin Conservative. When Andy
> changed his mind at the urging of a closet Atheist Admin is his ranks
> I wrote a stinging piece of criticism and then was banned.
Correction: You posted a frothing rant and then you were banned. I
read the entire exchange, Ray. I have to say I was impressed, though;
it's no small achievement to be so kooky that even Andy Schlafly
thought you an embarrassment.
Still, I wouldn't take that too personally. Andy has little patience
for people who fail to massage his ego on a regular basis.
> I am not a
> conservative. I am a middle to left leaning independent who rejects
> the death penalty, supports abortion (except final trimester) and I
> was glad to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress in
> 2006. I support Barack Obama for President.
Good. It's nice to see you're not unreasonable on every topic.
> > As to the Panda's Thumb, I've never seen them ban anybody merely for
> > disagreeing; they have their own little squad of regular trolls. Did
> > your ban perhaps reference one of your little explosions of
> > scatological invective? Or several of them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No one can produce one scrap of evidence justifying my ban at Pandas
> Thumb----none.
We shall see how they respond to my email.
> I believe that I was banned by the caprice of one power
> mad person of whom I forgot their name. My banning at UD is because I
> infuriated Dave Scot and dared to point out his militant anti-
> Protestantism Atheism.
This part I can believe.
> William Dembski could care less about any given
> individual on the Internet----even a supporter----shame on him. I
> would never again participate in his (or any) forum that is structured
> on a superior-inferior format.
What, you mean a moderated group like talk.origins?
> The best format is here at T.O. where
> everyone knows and finds their place. The few real nuts who post here
> are few and far between because no one answers.
On the contrary, the real nuts get lots of responses. Nearly every
post from Pagano, Nando, or yourself starts a monster thread with
dozens of replies. People do it because they're fans of science, and
don't want to let your anti-science screed stand without challenge.
And the creationist posters get pasted again and again; their
ignorance is exposed, their dishonesty is brought to light, and the
scientific vacuity of the creationist position is demonstrated again
and again.
> This is the way it
> should be----no censorship: the price of freedom is association with
> kooks, meaning those who abuse their freedom. Censorship is when
> legitimate persons get banned by persons in charge who abuse their
> power by ajudicating a personal grudge, derived from the discussions,
> under the appearance of official duty.
If you can cite evidence that the Panda's Thumb banned you without an
extremely good reason, I'll happily join you in protest. Heck, I'll
ask them to unban you. (They'd probably do it if *you* asked for it
politely.) But you've demonstrated many times that you're a self-
aggrandizing liar with a persecution complex; I don't buy your version
of the story, not for one second.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very predictable Atheist-evolutionist slander-tirade-rant.
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth Creationist-species
immutabilist-Paleyan Designist.
Richard Clayton
Very predictable Ray Martinez hot air.
Rich Clayton, realist
Richard Clayton
Oh, and here's an update on your claim of being banned at the Panda's
Thumb: Wesley R. Elsberry said it was "news to him" if you were
banned. Did you post using a pseudonym? Can you provide a URL for any
of your posts?
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:947512db-3fee-45f9...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Predictable, but true! Predictable reply too! But very handy for Ray when he
has no argument - something he never has, poor bewildered maker of imaginary
paper.
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth Creationist-species
> immutabilist-Paleyan Designist.
>
You forgot a few, but we already know them...
Rolf
I support Ray Martinez for president. ;-)
> > As to the Panda's Thumb, I've never seen them ban anybody merely for
> > disagreeing; they have their own little squad of regular trolls. Did
> > your ban perhaps reference one of your little explosions of
> > scatological invective? Or several of them?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No one can produce one scrap of evidence justifying my ban at Pandas
> Thumb----none. I believe that I was banned by the caprice of one power
> mad person of whom I forgot their name. My banning at UD is because I
> infuriated Dave Scot and dared to point out his militant anti-
> Protestantism Atheism. William Dembski could care less about any given
> individual on the Internet----even a supporter----shame on him. I
> would never again participate in his (or any) forum that is structured
> on a superior-inferior format. The best format is here at T.O. where
> everyone knows and finds their place. The few real nuts who post here
> are few and far between because no one answers.
WHAT?? You are getting answers all the time!! Being the #1 nut here, you
should be proud!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Very predictable Atheist-evolutionist slander-tirade-rant.
>
How dreadful. (yawn)
Where's your Invulnerable Scientific Paper, Ray . . . ?
Is God typing it up for you?
(snicker) (giggle)
johnetho...@yahoo.com
I saw nothing resembling a rant, tirade, or slander. Just some plain
factual statements about you dishonesty.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I doubt that Elsberry even knows who I am. But, like I already said,
my posts were suddenly gone, that is, the most recent ones AT THE TIME
and no posts were posting. So I got the picture. At the time my posts
had been infuriating a small handful of persons including a particular
Mod (whose name I forgot).
Again, you have not been able to post any post of mine that shows
justification for banishment.
And, are you saying that Elsberry is saying that I am free to post at
PT?
Should I attempt a post?
If it does not appear then what?
If you supply me some names of those who have Moderator powers I am
sure to remember the name of the Mod who surreptitiously banned me.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Could we expect an Atheist-evolutionist to say anything else?
Ray Martinez, Old Earth Creationist-species immutabilist, British
Natural Theologian.
Dana Tweedy
snip
-
>>
>> > Very predictable Atheist-evolutionist slander-tirade-rant.
snipping sig
>> I saw nothing resembling a rant, tirade, or slander. Just some plain
>> factual statements about you dishonesty
>
> Could we expect an Atheist-evolutionist to say anything else?
Of course one could expect an atheist, or an "evoltuionist" to say something
else, if there had been any evidence for it. However, since there isn't
any reason to assume that the previous poster was an atheist, or a scientist
who studies evolution, how is that relevant?
Also, Ray, your own statement has become quite predictable as well. When
someone doesn't support your assertion of "slander" (libel is the correct
term), you assume the person is an atheist, or "evolutionist".
DJT
Richard Clayton
So in other words, there's absolutely no evidence that you were
banned. Why should I believe a known liar?
> Again, you have not been able to post any post of mine that shows
> justification for banishment.
You made the claim, Ray. The burden of proof is on you. Can you point
to at least one post you made that remains on the Thumb? What user
name did you use when posting?
> And, are you saying that Elsberry is saying that I am free to post at
> PT?
That seems to be the case.
> Should I attempt a post?
Go for it.
> If it does not appear then what?
Then let me know. Send me a link to the thread in which you attempted
to post, along with the name you used and the approximate time of your
post. I'll email the Panda's Thumb and ask about it.
> If you supply me some names of those who have Moderator powers I am
> sure to remember the name of the Mod who surreptitiously banned me.
I don't know the names of the moderator or moderators at the Thumb. I
don't have access to any special information; I merely clicked the
"Contact Us" button on the front page and asked if you'd been banned,
and why. I haven't done anything you couldn't have done.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> >
> I doubt that Elsberry even knows who I am.
Or cares.
The simple fact is, Ray, that you are a nobody. A nothing.
God's Spokesman? Invulnerable Scientific paper?
Pfffft.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Could we expect an Atheist-evolutionist to say anything else?
>
THIS is the best you can do, Ray?
THIS is the best response you have?
Really?
Really and truly?
Wow.
No WONDER nobody pays any attention to you (except to laugh at you).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Please do, Ray. Let us know all about it -- what time, what username,
what thread.
>
> If it does not appear then what?
Then you're proven right, in front of the whole world.
Of course, if it DOES appear, then you're proven a LIAR, in front of
the whole world.
I'm pretty sure I can guess which will happen . . . . .
Are you game, Ray? Or are you just all mouth and no balls?
Anthony Williams
> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
>>> views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>> Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>>
>
> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
> message.
>
> In the Bible, those who are in God's will, are rejected by both
> secular and religious majorities alike.
>
> Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
>
> Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
> forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
> rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
> delivered during His ministry?
>
> The Pope is loved by everyone.
>
>
> Sorry, but the truth is the truth. I have no doubt that both the Pope
> and Graham are good people. Obviously so were St. Paul and the
> Saviour.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
Do you like Pastor Gene Scott?
Anthony Williams
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:50:49 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
>>>> views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>> Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>>>
>> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
>> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
>> message.
>>
>
> true carriers of gods message. Well I'm glad you cleared
> that up for us.
>
>
>> In the Bible, those who are in God's will, are rejected by both
>> secular and religious majorities alike.
>>
>> Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
>>
>> Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
>> forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
>> rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
>> delivered during His ministry?
>>
>> The Pope is loved by everyone.
>>
>
> any number of popes have been assasinated, which rather
> argues against your foolish claim.
>
>
>> So is Billy Graham.
>>
>
> Really?
>
>
>> Sorry, but the truth is the truth.
>>
>
>
>
>> I have no doubt that both the Pope
>> and Graham are good people.
>>
>
> any part of the bible that you actually do know?
>
>
>> Obviously so were St. Paul and the
>> Saviour.
>>
>
>
> Paul:
> Ephesians 3:8 - Unto me, who am less than the least of all
> saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the
> Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
>
> Jesus:
> Matthew 19:17 - And he said unto him, Why callest thou me
> good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
>
>
Regarding Paul many verses of Romans 7 come to mind.
Anthony Williams
> On Jul 16, 9:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 6:44 pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course Biblical typology is proven true: those who represent the
>>>> views of God are hated and rejected by mainstream majorities.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>> Doubtful. The mainstream majority is Christian.
>>>
>> That is exactly what I meant. If you are accepted by this majority,
>> Catholic or Protestant, you are not representative of God's real
>> message.
>>
>> secular and religious majorities alike.
>>
>>
> lunatics, and the occasional cannibal are rejected by secular and
> religious majorities alike. I think that is not sufficient to
> establish that Jeffrey Dahmer was a representative of God's real
> message. Even though I'm fairly sure that you don't have any half-
> eaten human heads in your refrigerator, being rejected by both secular
> and religious majorities isn't enough to establish that you represent
> God's will, either. After all, not merely lunatic serial killers, but
> Jehovah's Witnesses, the Nation of Islam, and assorted flying saucer
> cults all claim to represent God's true will, are rejected by secular
> and religious majorities, and are, I'm pretty sure, rejected by you
> too.
>
> By the way, Ray, you have repeatedly advanced the claim that half the
> U.S. population are creationists. Given that the vast majority of
> these creationists align themselves with the Catholic or Protestant
> religious majorities, why do you imagine that their views have any
> value? On your own arguments, they're wrong about the things that
> matter most; why assume they are right on more peripheral matters?
>
Maybe because it's convenient.
>> Paul said, "all Asia hath forsaken me....only Luke is with me...."
>>
>> Except for a handful of women and the Apostle John, Christ was
>> forsaken by all as He hung on the cross. The religious majority
>> rejected Jesus; and where were any of the persons that He healed and
>> delivered during His ministry?
>>
>> The Pope is loved by everyone.
>>
>>
> For fairly low values of "everyone," it seems to me.
>
>> So is Billy Graham.
>>
>> Sorry, but the truth is the truth. I have no doubt that both the Pope
>> and Graham are good people. Obviously so were St. Paul and the
>> Saviour.
>>
>>
> So the Pope and Billy Graham are "good people" who hate those who bear
> God's true message.
>
> Ray, have you ever thought of taking up rational thought as a hobby?
>
>> Ray
>>
>
> -- Steven J.
>
>
Anthony Williams
Rolf
'advanced' than Ray, I find it very hard to belive he ever was banned there.
But OTOH, I don't see no reason why he should post there nor here; he should
just hurry up and get his paper out. Then there will no longer be any
dispute about evolution and people will 'flood' the churches.
Martyrdom has always been sweet for xtians.
Anthony Williams
Grandbank
You know, that could explain a lot. Have you ever looked up at the
ceiling of a cathedral and checked out the size of that guy's finger?
Geez, fixing the typos alone could eat up eons, especially if He was
using a laptop or, God (forgive the irony) forbid, a hand held device.
Although, it might be even worse. It might be the Finger on the clay
tablets thing again. Then Ray would throw out his back trying to
carry them, and we're in for *another* wait while some chiroquackter
milks his insurance.
KP
Cj
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Because even a stopped cuckoo clock is right twice a day.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I now remember who banned me at PT. It was some asshole who calls
himself PVM. He became enraged with my arguments and quietly had the
SS silence me.
I just came back from PT and reviewed the topics. The only ones that I
was even mildly interested in had no responses posted and there was
nothing to click on to make a post. No reply box no nothing. PT has a
very stupid system and format. Nothing makes sense. Any person finding
the site wishing to participate cannot, but must spend time and effort
just figuring out how to create a post. It seems those who run the
site have never tried to access their site as a stranger. I challenge
anyone from Google to make a post to a topic that has none already.
Ray
Greg G.
...
>
> I just came back from PT and reviewed the topics. The only ones that I
> was even mildly interested in had no responses posted and there was
> nothing to click on to make a post. No reply box no nothing. PT has a
> very stupid system and format. Nothing makes sense. Any person finding
> the site wishing to participate cannot, but must spend time and effort
> just figuring out how to create a post. It seems those who run the
> site have never tried to access their site as a stranger. I challenge
> anyone from Google to make a post to a topic that has none already.
Impossible. It has nothing at all to do with Google. Google is one
website among billions on the internet. I access Google Groups through
Internet Explorer and I accessed the Panda's Thumb through Internet
Explorer. I found a link to PT using Google, but left Google behind
when I clicked the link. Google is a search engine for information and
it is an information and service provider, ie maps and email. Please
separate in your mind the browser (Internet Explorer) and web pages
browsed (Google, PT). Also, separate in your mind, information
provided by Google from links provided by Google to other websites'
information.
I have never been to the PT forum and don't have a login. Not having
anything specific to chime in on, I decided to not go that far but
after clicking on the Forums link from the main page, I noticed a
thread titled "After the bar closes" that allows you to comment on
threads after they are closed. It seems that a thread is closed after
some period of time and no further posts are allowed, so naturally
there would be no functional buttons. From the thread mentioned, I
chose one at random, noticed a "quote" button for each post, and
buttons to "add reply" and "new topic" at the bottom. Without creating
a login, I couldn't go further but it doesn't appear to be difficult
to post.
--
Greg G.
Yogurt is one of only three foods that taste exactly the same as they
sound. The other two are goulash and squid.
>
> Ray
Caranx latus
My results are the same. I also don't have a login, but the "add reply"
button was present on one of the topics that I looked at, which was a
post without replies as Ray requested. So obviously "no reply box no
nothing" is false.
Ray's assertion that "PT has a very stupid system and format." and
"Nothing makes sense." appears to me to be a result of his frustration
and impatience at not being able to figure out how the PT web site works
as opposed to anything else.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obviously you were not paying attention to what I actually said.
I said that I had no problem finding how to post to a topic that
already had posts. I said there was no way to post to a topic that had
no posts (the only topics that interested me). There is simply nothing
to click on. What is clickable results in page refresh and still no
reply box----no way to post.
Ray
Greg G.
Are those threads open or closed. Did you notice what I said about
"After the bar closes"? You won't be able to respond to *closed*
threads no matter how many responses exist but you could respond to
open threads, even if there is only one post, or I miss my guess.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
--
Greg G.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the
people fear the government, there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> I now remember who banned me at PT.
Blah blah blah. Spare us your martyrdom speech, Ray.
Did you try to post at PT yet? That will show the whole world,
definiteively, whether you are bullshitting us or not when you say you
were banned. Either your post will show up, or it won't.
So have you tried to post yet?
If so, what thread, what time, what username, and did the post show up
or didn't it.
If not, why not? Don't have the ping-pongs for it?
It's looking more and more to me that you were NOT banned, you're
lying about BEING banned, and you don't have the balls to SHOW us that
you are banned -- because you know you were NOT.
So spare us your whining, and either try to post something and show us
that you are banned, or sit down and STFU.
Liar.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ray is just making idiotic excuses.
He knows just as well as *I* do that anything he posts will go sailing
right on through, and he is NOT banned.
So Ray will wave his arms, make all sorts of excuses, and tell us all
a billion reasons why he can't try to post ------ he will do anything
and everything except POST A GODDAMN MESSAGE ------- all because he
knows he is lying to us, and he knows that any post he DOES make to PT
will PROVE that he's lying to us.
Ray is a dishonest piece of shit.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ray is, uh, not terribly bright, ya know.
And THIS is the guy who is gonna, uh, "destroy darwinism forever" and
"ruin all the darwinist's lives" ?????????
BWAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA AHA HA AH AHA HA HA AHA
HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ray is too fucking stooopid to destroy his way out of a wet paper
bag. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
>
> I said that I had no problem finding how to post to a topic that
> already had posts.
Then quit waving your arms and POST SOMETHING.
SHOW US that it won't get through, and that you really are banned. OR
that your post goes sailing right on through, and that you're just
lying to us when you claim you are banned.
SHOW US.
POST SOMETHING AND SHOW US.
What's so goddamn difficult about that, you moron?
Jesus H Christ.
Ray Martinez
You are still not listening (no surprise). I am talking about open
threads on the first page----asshole. I said threads with preexisting
posts had a reply box. Now, for the third time, threads with no
replies had no reply box, like this thread from the Main page:
12 topics down is this thread:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/the-alliance-ag.html
AGAIN, threads with at least one post have a reply capacity. Threads
(like the one above found on the MAIN page) that have no replies, that
means ZERO have no reply box. It just so happens, LIKE I ALREADY SAID,
that *this* thread was the only thread that interested me.
So, how does a person add the first reply to this thread?
Or am I speaking to a wall?
Ray
Frank J
You're in good company. PvM is a Christian, who often criticizes
atheist posters. Often sends their comments to the "Bathroom Wall"
when they feed trolls.
>
> I just came back from PT and reviewed the topics. The only ones that I
> was even mildly interested in had no responses posted and there was
> nothing to click on to make a post. No reply box no nothing.
Click on "comments." You may have to wait a few seconds, then scroll
to the bottom.
>PT has a
> very stupid system and format. Nothing makes sense. Any person finding
> the site wishing to participate cannot, but must spend time and effort
> just figuring out how to create a post. It seems those who run the
> site have never tried to access their site as a stranger. I challenge
> anyone from ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Some are set up not to have discussions at PT. If the posting does not
tell you X comments, no one can comment.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jul 19, 1:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 18, 12:45 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 18, 2:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 18, 8:20?am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 17, 8:43?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 17, 8:55?am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:18?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think he's talking about posts like:
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/the-rise-of-mus.html> which was
posted with commenting disabled.
Greg G.
Just trying to help.
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/
>
> 12 topics down is this thread:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/the-alliance-ag.html
It's a link to another man's blog. It's not a PT article. There is no
comment box at the bottom, which is probably the reason there are no
comments.
>
> AGAIN, threads with at least one post have a reply capacity. Threads
> (like the one above found on the MAIN page) that have no replies, that
> means ZERO have no reply box. It just so happens, LIKE I ALREADY SAID,
> that *this* thread was the only thread that interested me.
>
> So, how does a person add the first reply to this thread?
You don't. Or, for the third time, you try the "After the bar closes"
in the forum.
>
> Or am I speaking to a wall?
Said the dense brick.
>
> Ray
--
Greg G.
Idiot proof? No, that presumes a finite number of idiots.
Desertphile
<Priscu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just on Uncommon design, the weblog of Demski and other ID
> people, ( Site: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-do-design-detection-and-nazis-have-in-common/),
> arguing about the Darwin-Nazi connection.
>
> Then, suddenly, all of my posts disappeared! No explanation was given.
> I never used any profanity, or any other kind of questionable
> language. I simply backed up my claims with Wikipedia links, and made
> sure that I addressed every issue raised. Oh, well...
>
> I guess it's too much to expect from Creationists to actually allow a
> dissenting view.
Creationists constantly EXPELL truth from the venues they control:
that is part of the cult mentality---- the control of information
so that their cult followers do not see the truth.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dick C.
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> You are still not listening (no surprise). I am talking about open
> threads on the first page----asshole. I said threads with preexisting
> posts had a reply box. Now, for the third time, threads with no
> replies had no reply box, like this thread from the Main page:
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/
>
> 12 topics down is this thread:
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/the-alliance-ag.html
>
> AGAIN, threads with at least one post have a reply capacity. Threads
> (like the one above found on the MAIN page) that have no replies, that
> means ZERO have no reply box. It just so happens, LIKE I ALREADY SAID,
> that *this* thread was the only thread that interested me.
Ray,
that is not a forum thread, it is a link to an archived article where
no posts
are allowed.
Try going to the forums, especially After the bar closes section, and
you will probably
be able to post all your want
Dick C. #1394
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for confirming that it is not my imagination----that not all
topics on the Main page have reply capacity.
Ray
John Wilkins
As far as we can tell, Ray hasn't been banned from PT - he simply has
never posted any comments there in the first place (at least not under
the name "Martinez"). The martyr complex is all in his head.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Steven L.
> By the way: I was asked to come back at Conservapedia by
> Administration. I have refused. I was initially asked to write the
> Charles Darwin bio article by Andy and Admin Conservative. When Andy
> changed his mind at the urging of a closet Atheist Admin is his ranks
> I wrote a stinging piece of criticism and then was banned. I am not a
> conservative. I am a middle to left leaning independent who rejects
> the death penalty, supports abortion (except final trimester) and I
> was glad to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress in
> 2006. I support Barack Obama for President.
Wow. And up till now, I thought I only disagreed with you about
evolution. Your views are diametrically opposed to mine on just about
everything (except abortion).
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Rusty Sites
If you had bothered to read the replies you would have found that reply
1544 posted about 48 hours after the original posting on July 1 says
OK, everybody put down those smoking keyboards and take a step back,
please. The heat-to-light quotient is getting pretty low [should say
high] in here, personality clashes are taking over the thread, and I'm
going to close it in about 5 minutes.
Richard Clayton
I got another email from Wesley R. Elsberry, by the way. He mentioned
that nothing is ever actually "deleted" from the site; even when
posters are blocked, the posts remain in that database-- they just
aren't visible "from the outside." He did a search of the database,
including deleted posts and banned posters, and found ZERO incidences
of your name.
So not only have you never posted there (at least, not under your real
name) it seems like nobody has ever so much as mentioned you.
Conclusion: It seems like your ban from tPT is entirely in your
head... or something you made up on the spur of the moment so you
could beat your breast about those evil evilushinnists and their evil
banning ways. Of evil.
Looks like you're once again caught in a lie, Ray.
Postscript: The Thumb's commenting system is simple, easy, and utterly
typical of blogs. As with usenet, you're just too proudly ignorant to
learn how to use it correctly.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Thanks for confirming that you're either too stoopid or too chicken to
post in another thread --- where the whole world will see you were
lying when you claimed to be banned.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Greg G.
Ray is beginning to sound like McNameless. He was never banned, he
just wasn't smart enough to figure out how to post there.
With his proclivity toward vulgar language, Ray's paper will be
written at a third grade level but with an R rating. The only people
who will be able to read it will be adult creationists.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
--
Greg G.
I spend money like a lottery winner with a month to live.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:622b3105-5620-4232...@v21g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 18, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 12:45 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 2:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 17, 8:43?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 17, 8:55?am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:18?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:14?pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com>
remember your silly complaint about this site being 'broken'?
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:622b3105-5620-4232...@v21g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 18, 12:45 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 2:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 17, 8:43?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 17, 8:55?am, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:18?pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:14?pm, Psycho Dave <Priscus.Fo...@gmail.com>
which of course were just the ones without any scientific content.
had no responses posted and there was
> nothing to click on to make a post. No reply box no nothing. PT has a
> very stupid system and format. Nothing makes sense. Any person finding
> the site wishing to participate cannot, but must spend time and effort
> just figuring out how to create a post. It seems those who run the
> site have never tried to access their site as a stranger. I challenge
> anyone from Google to make a post to a topic that has none already.
>
> Ray
>
Remember your silly complaint about this site 'being broken'?
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9f0ef62-41f6-4575...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Funny, I have always assumed that without questioning it. A good thing too
that, we have enough of Ray here.
> Ray
>
Frank J
(snip)
>
> I think he's talking about posts like:
> <http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/the-rise-of-mus.html> which was
> posted with commenting disabled.
Good point. That usually just means that comments must be posted on
the linked blog, and not PT. Sometimes I do that, and sometimes I just
don't bother, as it's one more forum that I have to keep track of.
Thus there are many more "Darwinist" sites that Ray is free to
participate in. If he has any free time while competing that paper.
Frank J
And even they will not take too kindly to the language. After all, in
fundamentalist "logic" 4-letter words lead to sex, drugs and rap
(apparently rock & roll is no longer the "music of the devil").
>
>
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> I spend money like a lottery winner with a month to live.- Hide quoted text -
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Apparently Ray is so joined at the brain with Gene Scott that Ray
can't even TALK on his own -- he has to ape Scott's language as well
as his, uh, "teachings".
It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Ray, have you EVER had an original thought? Ever? Any at all?
Richard Clayton
"It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Ah, what the heck, I'll
laugh anyway. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!" -- The Joker
Tiny Bulcher
< snip discussion of local loony>
> And even they will not take too kindly to the language. After all, in
> fundamentalist "logic" 4-letter words lead to sex, drugs and rap
> (apparently rock & roll is no longer the "music of the devil").
Don't you be too sure about that. I saw /John Denver/ being trashed as
Satanic lately.