Pattern of Poor Thinking - The Ben Holmes Version Vol. 1

[Bud]

In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated board and his response to it...

John McAdams:

"A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."

Ben`s response:

"While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."

Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various ways. it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one contributor to the science, and not even the first. The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science, which isn`t true in the least. He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories have arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what he hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that led where it led.

The underlying driving force behind this is bias, and Ben is trying to undermine the science because he realizes that science is the natural enemy of the supernatural nonsense he believes. Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief systems. "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the things I don`t want to believe".

So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth" out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing, same as with the assassination.

And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...

"The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any evolutionist... and continues to be."

Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists" aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system. Just like the assumption is that the WC was not trying to determine the truth. So Ben`s approaches and tactics remain take the same pattern in both topics, he read the reasons someone had contrived to knock the conventional narrative, he knocks and criticizes it with nothing to offer of his own and he assumes a dishonesty in the process he claims is there but can`t show. In fact, the only dishonesty he displays is his own.

So the pattern is this, Ben hears knocks against ideas, and because he has no ability to think or reason he buys into these critiques as if they are valid, even though no alternative comes close to explaining the same issue in a more reasonable manner (Ben, being dishonest, will say "conspiracy", as if that is an explanation, but it is only an explanation if you accept "Oswald alone", and nothing else as an argument). He attacks the ideas presented (while constantly refusing to support his own, or even spelling them out), and paints anyone who hold differing opinions as him as dishonest.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Wow, Ben's really butt-hurt your sorry ass, tard.

[Bud]

I`ll get to you, Boris, this is only volume one.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

ahhhhh..... an atheist apologist. Stick to case evidence Studley. I suspect your Marquette teaching days are over also.... To quote old loon nut moron Steve Keating: "you're a hoot."

[Bud]

I really shook the tree this time, its raining tards. Touching how they all come to little Benny`s defense. They don`t speak to any of the points I made, but they feel they have to say *something*.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> board and his response to it...

You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
again.

And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?

If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.

> John McAdams:
>
> "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
>
> Ben`s response:
>
> "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
>than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
>record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
>have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
>new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
>try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
>seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
>that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."

Not a *SINGLE* statement here needs to be corrected in any way.

stump clearly doesn't know the basic fact that evolution has been
stumped time and time again by the fossil record.

> Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> ways.

Yet you can't document even *ONE*.

Lied, didn't you?

Why can't you refute even a *SINGLE* statement I've made here?

> it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> contributor to the science, and not even the first.

You continue to refuse to define the term "evolution."

Perfectly understandable, since you clearly don't know the topic.

If you define "evolution" as simply "change over time" - then the
fossil record rather completely validates that.

But that isn't what Johnny was talking about... and evolutionary
biologists don't use such a definition.

I made it quite clear what definition of evolution that I'm using, by
reference to *Darwin's* theory... and stump whines about it.

Most likely because he doesn't even understand the many different
meanings of the word "evolution".

And although I can quickly define the term, I will wait and watch as
stunp CONTINUES to refuse to define "evolution."

Or ask Johnny what he meant.

> The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,
> which isn`t true in the least.

Back to molesting children...

I've never said ANYTHING about discrediting science. Indeed, I'm
merely posting what science itself asserts.

I can cite for EVERYTHING I post here... dufus cannot.

dufus will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document any "discrediting" of science
on my part.

Indeed, that's another word that he'll refuse to define.

> He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories
> have arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what
> he hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that
> led where it led.

"Punctuated Equilibrium" was just one of a number of changes to the
theory that attempted to explain the scientific evidence* in a way
that still upholds materialism.

dufus is debating a topic he knows as little about as he does the
assassination of JFK.

Yet he's smart enough not to SPECIFICLY deny the truth I state. He
knows full well that I'd ram such a lie down his throat with citation
to authority.

So tell us stump, why can't you *SPECIFICALLY* DENY what I stated
about new modifications to Darwin's original theory having come in
science.

> The underlying driving force behind this is bias,

The "underlying driving force" behind posting facts you can't refute?


ROTFLMAO!!!

Why can't you refute anything I say by citing authority?

> and Ben is trying to undermine the science

This is simply basic science. I've not stated a *SINGLE* thing that
isn't already said by scientists in the field of evolution.

How is that "undermining" science?

I'm certainly "undermining" what you and Johnny thought you knew.

And that a professor can make such a poorly constructed and wrong
statement simply goes to show Johnny's ignorance on the topic.

It's always a smart thing to refuse to comment on things you don't
know about.

> because he realizes that science is the natural enemy of the
> supernatural nonsense he believes.

Empty claim.

> Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
> was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense

Another empty claim... that dufus will NEVER support with credible
citation.

> he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
> science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief systems.

Here stump betrays his ignorance of the fact that it was the
Judeo-Christian framework that *FORMED* science.

stump clearly doesn't know that **MANY** scientists, past and present,
see no conflict between science and religion.

> "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the things I
> don`t want to believe".

"Ah-ha" says molester Bud, "I can molest children all day long, and
no-one will care."

But what stump doesn't seem to understand, is that I've said *NOTHING*
that current scientists don't say.

Perhaps that explains why he REFUSES to specifically deny the facts I
mention.

> So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
> assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking
> someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"
> out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
> from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
> same as with the assassination.

I merely pointed out a FACT of science that Johnny was lying about.

And now, of course, you as well are lying about it.

The fossil record is *NOT* explained by evolution, either by Darwin's
original theory, the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis created in the
30's and 40's... or even Puntuated Equilibrium (which merely attempts
to explain why the fossil record CONTRADICTS the natural hypothesis of
evolution)

These aren't statements that are contrary to science, IT **IS**
SCIENCE.

You'll refuse to cite otherwise.

> And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
> with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
> defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
> into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...

Actually, I'm merely being accurate by referring to Darwin's
evolution.

Something you can't do - because you *STILL* refuse to state what you
mean by "evolution."

Why the cowardice, dufus?

Amusingly, this is quite similar to your refusal to define
"conspiracy" ... or "evidence."

You're simply a coward, and don't want to be pinned down...

>"The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
> evolutionist... and continues to be."

Yes, this is *ABSOLUTELY* true. Watch as dufus refuses to cite any
evolutionary authority on this fact.

> Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists"
> aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to
> pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system.

Tut tut tut, moron.

I'm responding to *JOHNNY'S* assertion.

Have you forgotten so soon?

Here it is again: "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up.

Evolution is the theory that explains that."

Yet it's ABSOLUTELY PROVABLE that Johnny made an absolutely silly
assertion.

As I've pointed out.

Why can't dufus cite any evolutionary biologists asserting that
"evolution" predicts "a lot of fossils [being] dug up?"

Or even that "evolution" predicts what's seen in the fossil record?

Do you even *know* what Darwin thought the fossil record would show???

Or what reason he gave for why fossils didn't support his theory?

Cite for your answer...

Or run again.

> Just like the assumption is that the WC was not trying to determine
> the truth.

Actually, the vast majority of their "conclusions" can be found in the
outline written before they ever met.

> So Ben`s approaches and tactics remain take the same pattern in both
> topics,

Yep. I list the FACTS that stumps like you can't refute.

> he read the reasons someone had contrived to knock the
> conventional narrative, he knocks and criticizes it with nothing to

> offer of his own...

Tut tut tut, stump.

I merely state what scientists in the field also say.

Are you a science denier?

Are you afraid of what scientists actually say?

> and he assumes a dishonesty in the process he claims
> is there but can`t show.

The only *dishonesty* that I've pointed out is Johnny's...

Everything I've stated is well-known in the scientific community.

"Sudden appearance" and "Stasis" are SCIENTIFIC assessments of the
evidence in paleontology.

I'm not saying anything that science doesn't say.

You're just too ignorant of the subject field to know.

You're demonstrating why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

> In fact, the only dishonesty he displays is his own.

Yet you've been *COMPLETELY* unable to cite anything in support of
Johnny's flawed assertion.

And I'm perfectly willing to do so, as soon as you SPECIFICALLY deny
the truthfulness of any of my statements.

> So the pattern is this, Ben hears knocks against ideas, and
> because he has no ability to think or reason he buys into these
> critiques as if they are valid, even though no alternative comes close
> to explaining the same issue in a more reasonable manner (Ben, being
> dishonest, will say "conspiracy", as if that is an explanation, but it
> is only an explanation if you accept "Oswald alone", and nothing else
> as an argument). He attacks the ideas presented (while constantly
> refusing to support his own, or even spelling them out), and paints
> anyone who hold differing opinions as him as dishonest.

Ad hominem won't change the facts I've stated.

If you want to argue that the fossil record supports evolution, you're
going to have to start by defining what you mean.

Then you're going to have to cite scientific authority.

Because you're not STUPID enough to publicly deny SPECIFICALLY
anything I've stated here.

Which merely goes to show that you know you'd be quickly shown a liar
if you did.

And that fact tells the tale.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> > board and his response to it...
>
> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
> again.
>
> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?

Did I complain here, lurkers?

I can`t remember the last time .John lifted content from here, and I don`t remember whether he took wholes posts or excerpts. I do know that Ben takes arguments from the moderated group and creates strawman arguments here from the content he lifts.

> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.

Ben is a stump, lurkers.

> > John McAdams:
> >
> > "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
> >
> > Ben`s response:
> >
> > "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
> >than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
> >record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
> >have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
> >new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
> >try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
> >seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
> >that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
>
>
> Not a *SINGLE* statement here needs to be corrected in any way.
>
> stump clearly doesn't know the basic fact that evolution has been
> stumped time and time again by the fossil record.

Ben is still showing he doesn`t understand the process, lurkers. Of course there are question that need answers, it is a dynamic process.

But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given.

> > Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> > ways.
>
>
> Yet you can't document even *ONE*.
>
> Lied, didn't you?
>
> Why can't you refute even a *SINGLE* statement I've made here?

Ben thinks I am engaging him on the science of evolution, lurkers. This is more of the poor thinking I was highlighting.

> > it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> > contributor to the science, and not even the first.
>
>
> You continue to refuse to define the term "evolution."
>
> Perfectly understandable, since you clearly don't know the topic.
>
> If you define "evolution" as simply "change over time" - then the
> fossil record rather completely validates that.
>
> But that isn't what Johnny was talking about... and evolutionary
> biologists don't use such a definition.
>
> I made it quite clear what definition of evolution that I'm using, by
> reference to *Darwin's* theory... and stump whines about it.
>
> Most likely because he doesn't even understand the many different
> meanings of the word "evolution".
>
> And although I can quickly define the term, I will wait and watch as
> stunp CONTINUES to refuse to define "evolution."
>
> Or ask Johnny what he meant.

Ben thinks I am trying to debate evolution with him, lurkers. This is more of the poor thinking I was referring to. I am drawing a connection between the way he thinks across these two subjects. Poorly.

> > The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,
> > which isn`t true in the least.
>
>
> Back to molesting children...

I wasn`t aware Ben had stopped, lurkers.

> I've never said ANYTHING about discrediting science. Indeed, I'm
> merely posting what science itself asserts.

Ben is, of course, lying, lurkers. His wording betrays the agenda. When he says things like "evolution has been stumped time and time again by the fossil record", that isn`t the position of evolutionary biologists. Of course there are difficulties and parts that are yet to be explained, but they wouldn`t say they were "stumped". Nor would they consider the fossil record a "thorn in their side". He is carefully choosing words with the purpose of casting shade on the effort. Ben is saying the fossil record is a thorn in the side of evolutionary science in much the same way he would say the evidence is a thorn in the side of the WC. It is a thinly disguised circular argument.

> I can cite for EVERYTHING I post here... dufus cannot.
>
> dufus will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document any "discrediting" of science
> on my part.
>
> Indeed, that's another word that he'll refuse to define.
>
>
> > He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories
> > have arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what
> > he hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that
> > led where it led.
>
>
> "Punctuated Equilibrium" was just one of a number of changes to the
> theory that attempted to explain the scientific evidence* in a way
> that still upholds materialism.

Ben might have well have said "The cow jumped over the moon", it has as much to do with what I wrote, lurkers.

When Ben says that new theories of evolution are being developed with the purpose of validating Darwin, he is advancing the idea that science has an agenda that is tied to Darwin being right. He keeps misdirecting to evolution and I keep bringing the focus back on what I was highlighting, his poor thinking and hidden biases.

> dufus is debating a topic he knows as little about as he does the
> assassination of JFK.
>
> Yet he's smart enough not to SPECIFICLY deny the truth I state. He
> knows full well that I'd ram such a lie down his throat with citation
> to authority.
>
> So tell us stump, why can't you *SPECIFICALLY* DENY what I stated
> about new modifications to Darwin's original theory having come in
> science.

I`m not even going to try to get Ben to understand what I`m doing here, lurkers, the effort would be wasted. I`ve spelled it out clearly, using small words. In his next post he will still challenge me to debate evolution with him. This is how deep his inability to think goes. You`d think the header would give him a clue, but alas, no.

> > The underlying driving force behind this is bias,
>
>
> The "underlying driving force" behind posting facts you can't refute?

Ben is struggling mightily to get this discussion back on more familiar ground, lurkers. Unfortunately for Ben I`m exploring his poor thinking and not the topic of evolution. Worse for him is the fact that he supports my thesis with responses like this.

> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Why can't you refute anything I say by citing authority?
>
>
> > and Ben is trying to undermine the science
>
>
> This is simply basic science. I've not stated a *SINGLE* thing that
> isn't already said by scientists in the field of evolution.
>
> How is that "undermining" science?

See the first post where that case was made, lurkers.

> I'm certainly "undermining" what you and Johnny thought you knew.
>
> And that a professor can make such a poorly constructed and wrong
> statement simply goes to show Johnny's ignorance on the topic.
>
> It's always a smart thing to refuse to comment on things you don't
> know about.
>
>
> > because he realizes that science is the natural enemy of the
> > supernatural nonsense he believes.
>
>
> Empty claim.

Only if one is unaware of the retreats that science has forced on religion over the last couple hundred years.

> > Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
> > was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense
>
>
> Another empty claim... that dufus will NEVER support with credible
> citation.

You don`t cite for conclusions drawn from observation, lurkers. Ben is supporting my thesis once more.

> > he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
> > science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief systems.
>
>
> Here stump betrays his ignorance of the fact that it was the
> Judeo-Christian framework that *FORMED* science.

Let Ben explain how that impacts what I wrote, lurkers.

Then he can explain how the Muslims didn`t have science and the Chinese didn`t have science.

> stump clearly doesn't know that **MANY** scientists, past and present,
> see no conflict between science and religion.

Ben is clearly trying to sucker me off on a tangent with these issues, lurkers. I`ll allow it up to a point to make the observation that there clearly is a conflict between what is written in the Bible and what science has found, but that even scientists are not immune to drawing conclusions they find comfort with.

> > "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the things I
> > don`t want to believe".
>
>
> "Ah-ha" says molester Bud, "I can molest children all day long, and
> no-one will care."

Does Ben believe in evolution as a explanation for changes in organisms, lurkers?

> But what stump doesn't seem to understand, is that I've said *NOTHING*
> that current scientists don't say.
>
> Perhaps that explains why he REFUSES to specifically deny the facts I
> mention.
>
>
> > So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
> > assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking
> > someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"
> > out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
> > from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
> > same as with the assassination.
>
>
> I merely pointed out a FACT of science that Johnny was lying about.

And still has nothing, lurkers.

> And now, of course, you as well are lying about it.
>
> The fossil record is *NOT* explained by evolution, either by Darwin's
> original theory, the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis created in the
> 30's and 40's... or even Puntuated Equilibrium (which merely attempts
> to explain why the fossil record CONTRADICTS the natural hypothesis of
> evolution)

Ben shows what I said is exactly correct, and he is just trotting out objections the religious types have contrived to object to evolution, lurkers.

> These aren't statements that are contrary to science, IT **IS**
> SCIENCE.


> You'll refuse to cite otherwise.
>
>
> > And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
> > with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
> > defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
> > into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...
>
>
> Actually, I'm merely being accurate by referring to Darwin's
> evolution.

I`ll leave it to the lurkers to spot the argument I made that Ben didn`t touch.

> Something you can't do - because you *STILL* refuse to state what you
> mean by "evolution."
>
> Why the cowardice, dufus?
>
> Amusingly, this is quite similar to your refusal to define
> "conspiracy" ... or "evidence."
>
> You're simply a coward, and don't want to be pinned down...

He`s really thrashing around now, lurkers.

> >"The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
> > evolutionist... and continues to be."
>
>
> Yes, this is *ABSOLUTELY* true. Watch as dufus refuses to cite any
> evolutionary authority on this fact.

Information isn`t seen by scientists as a hindrance to discovery, lurkers. It just isn`t.

I made the case I wanted to make, lurkers. Ben wants me to argue the case he wished I would have made.

Handwaving away the case I made doesn`t mean the case hasn`t been made, lurkers.

I never expected Ben to accept my evaluation, like most of my efforts it is for the benefit of the readers.

> If you want to argue that the fossil record supports evolution, you're
> going to have to start by defining what you mean.
>
> Then you're going to have to cite scientific authority.
>
> Because you're not STUPID enough to publicly deny SPECIFICALLY
> anything I've stated here.
>
> Which merely goes to show that you know you'd be quickly shown a liar
> if you did.
>
> And that fact tells the tale.

That Ben did a lot of huffing and puffing in his response is supportive of my thesis that he is a poor thinker also, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> > board and his response to it...
>
> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
> again.
>
> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?
>
> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.

A small point here I neglected to address, which will PROVE (all in caps) that I`m not a hypocrite (at least not on this point). Here is a post I made on the moderated board last month where I called my lifting of content from the Education Forum "postjacking".

From the moderated forum 3-31-18...

"I`ve looked in on occasion and noticed a whole lot of bad thinking on
display there, and found myself composing counter arguments and put downs,
it is overly ripe for derision. I even postjacked a post of Bill Kelly`s
(Kelley`s?) and addressed it here, luring him here for a bit. Most of my
hobby time is devoted to paddling Ben Holmes over on the nuthouse these
days, if I didn`t have that diversion I might do more postjacking of
particularly terrible viewpoints for treatment here. I don`t see me
posting there as being in the cards."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/__m4R0cIhdM/Mk2yVVC3BAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:58:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
>> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
>> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
>> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
>> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
>> > board and his response to it...
>>
>> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
>> again.
>>
>> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?
>
> Did I complain here, lurkers?

So your answer is "no."

This shows that you're simply a hypocrite. Good of you to prove it.

> I can`t remember the last time .John lifted content from here, and
> I don`t remember whether he took wholes posts or excerpts. I do know
> that Ben takes arguments from the moderated group and creates strawman
> arguments here from the content he lifts.

Good of you to acknowledge that Johnny does the same thing I did, yet
got not a *whimper* of a complaint.

You've proven yourself to be a dishonesty hypocrite.

>> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
>> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.
>

> I is a stump, lurkers.

Yep. And a proven hypocrite.

>> > John McAdams:
>> >
>> > "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
>> >
>> > Ben`s response:
>> >
>> > "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
>> >than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
>> >record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
>> >have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
>> >new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
>> >try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
>> >seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
>> >that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
>>
>>
>> Not a *SINGLE* statement here needs to be corrected in any way.
>>
>> stump clearly doesn't know the basic fact that evolution has been
>> stumped time and time again by the fossil record.
>
> Ben is still showing he doesn`t understand the process, lurkers.
> Of course there are question that need answers, it is a dynamic
> process.

Stump still refuses to directly deny the statement I made.

This shows that he *knows* I'm correct.

> But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was
> examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given.

Yet surprisingly, you can't point to a *SINGLE* thing that I've stated
that is wrong, or not supported by scientific authority.

And you've *STILL* refused to acknowledge that Johnny is wrong.

>> > Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
>> > ways.
>>
>>
>> Yet you can't document even *ONE*.
>>
>> Lied, didn't you?
>>
>> Why can't you refute even a *SINGLE* statement I've made here?
>
> Ben thinks I am engaging him on the science of evolution, lurkers.
> This is more of the poor thinking I was highlighting.

The "poor thinking" is clearly on the part of the one who can't quote
a *SINGLE* statement I've made that isn't true.

>> > it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
>> > contributor to the science, and not even the first.
>>
>>
>> You continue to refuse to define the term "evolution."
>>
>> Perfectly understandable, since you clearly don't know the topic.
>>
>> If you define "evolution" as simply "change over time" - then the
>> fossil record rather completely validates that.
>>
>> But that isn't what Johnny was talking about... and evolutionary
>> biologists don't use such a definition.
>>
>> I made it quite clear what definition of evolution that I'm using, by
>> reference to *Darwin's* theory... and stump whines about it.
>>
>> Most likely because he doesn't even understand the many different
>> meanings of the word "evolution".
>>
>> And although I can quickly define the term, I will wait and watch as
>> stunp CONTINUES to refuse to define "evolution."
>>
>> Or ask Johnny what he meant.
>
> Ben thinks I am trying to debate evolution with him, lurkers. This
> is more of the poor thinking I was referring to. I am drawing a
> connection between the way he thinks across these two subjects.
> Poorly.

AND THE RUNNING COMMENCES!!!


Run coward... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
>> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
>> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
>> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
>> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
>> > board and his response to it...
>>
>> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
>> again.
>>
>> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?
>>
>> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
>> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.
>
> A small point here I neglected to address, which will PROVE (all
> in caps) that I`m not a hypocrite (at least not on this point).

Tut tut tut, stump.

You've *ALREADY* admitted that Johnny postjacks...

You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
postjacking.

You're a proven hypocrite.

End of story.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:58:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> >> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> >> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> >> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> >> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> >> > board and his response to it...
> >>
> >> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
> >> again.
> >>
> >> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?
> >
> > Did I complain here, lurkers?
>
> So your answer is "no."

"complaining" is another of Ben`s retarded constructs, lurkers. Let him play with it.

> This shows that you're simply a hypocrite. Good of you to prove it.

Thats some twisted retard thinking there, lurkers. Ben claims there is some complaining being done. I say there is no complaining being done. Ben says "A-Ha, that shows you were complaining."

>
> > I can`t remember the last time .John lifted content from here, and
> > I don`t remember whether he took wholes posts or excerpts. I do know
> > that Ben takes arguments from the moderated group and creates strawman
> > arguments here from the content he lifts.
>
> Good of you to acknowledge that Johnny does the same thing I did, yet
> got not a *whimper* of a complaint.

Ben is still fighting his "complaining" strawman, even though he can`t show any complaining being done, lurkers.

> You've proven yourself to be a dishonesty hypocrite.
>
>
> >> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
> >> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.
> >
> > I is a stump, lurkers.
>
> Yep. And a proven hypocrite.

Ben imagines complaining but he doesn`t imagine I do this complaining he imagines evenhandedly. Pretty retarded.

> >> > John McAdams:
> >> >
> >> > "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
> >> >
> >> > Ben`s response:
> >> >
> >> > "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
> >> >than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
> >> >record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
> >> >have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
> >> >new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
> >> >try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
> >> >seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
> >> >that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
> >>
> >>
> >> Not a *SINGLE* statement here needs to be corrected in any way.
> >>
> >> stump clearly doesn't know the basic fact that evolution has been
> >> stumped time and time again by the fossil record.
> >
> > Ben is still showing he doesn`t understand the process, lurkers.
> > Of course there are question that need answers, it is a dynamic
> > process.
>
>
> Stump still refuses to directly deny the statement I made.

It was the kind of meaningless statement Ben likes to make, lurkers. Saying scientists are "stumped" only means they don`t have all the answers yet. No shit, Sherlock.

> This shows that he *knows* I'm correct.
>
>
> > But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was
> > examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given.
>
> Yet surprisingly, you can't point to a *SINGLE* thing that I've stated
> that is wrong, or not supported by scientific authority.

I made every point I wanted to make, lurkers. Ben doesn`t even understand them.

> And you've *STILL* refused to acknowledge that Johnny is wrong.
>
>
> >> > Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> >> > ways.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet you can't document even *ONE*.
> >>
> >> Lied, didn't you?
> >>
> >> Why can't you refute even a *SINGLE* statement I've made here?
> >
> > Ben thinks I am engaging him on the science of evolution, lurkers.
> > This is more of the poor thinking I was highlighting.
>
> The "poor thinking" is clearly on the part of the one who can't quote
> a *SINGLE* statement I've made that isn't true.

Ben must first understand the case I made before he can argue against it, lurkers.

>
> >> > it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> >> > contributor to the science, and not even the first.
> >>
> >>
> >> You continue to refuse to define the term "evolution."
> >>
> >> Perfectly understandable, since you clearly don't know the topic.
> >>
> >> If you define "evolution" as simply "change over time" - then the
> >> fossil record rather completely validates that.
> >>
> >> But that isn't what Johnny was talking about... and evolutionary
> >> biologists don't use such a definition.
> >>
> >> I made it quite clear what definition of evolution that I'm using, by
> >> reference to *Darwin's* theory... and stump whines about it.
> >>
> >> Most likely because he doesn't even understand the many different
> >> meanings of the word "evolution".
> >>
> >> And although I can quickly define the term, I will wait and watch as
> >> stunp CONTINUES to refuse to define "evolution."
> >>
> >> Or ask Johnny what he meant.
> >
> > Ben thinks I am trying to debate evolution with him, lurkers. This
> > is more of the poor thinking I was referring to. I am drawing a
> > connection between the way he thinks across these two subjects.
> > Poorly.
>
>
> AND THE RUNNING COMMENCES!!!

I made all the points I wanted to make, lurkers. They still exist, unaddressed and unrefuted.

>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

[Bud]

And I do, also, lurkers.

> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
> postjacking.

Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?

> You're a proven hypocrite.
>
> End of story.

Ben is burned again, jumping to retard conclusions, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Nothing says, "I have ZERO substance to add to this or any assassination forum" quite like this post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:34:00 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

I'm particularly amused by the fact that he thought he could debate
evolution - until he realized that he doesn't know enough to refute
anything I stated.

And too stupid to do the research.

[Bud]

The post was never for you.

[Bud]

<snicker> what did I tell you lurkers, he is dumb as a stump. How many times did I state that what I was doing was *not* debating evolution? Ben still thinks thats what I was trying to do. I made the comparison between the poor thinking he exhibited in the two different subjects, and how that poor thinking took similar approaches in the two different subjects. It was a study of Ben`s thinking, and the findings were that it was poor.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Boris pointed out something that you can't refute.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:19:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You dropped the topic like a hotcake when you discovered that I know
quite a bit more about the topic than you... and you're clearly
unwilling to do the research.

The fossil record is against the theory of evolution, even Darwin
publicly stated so.

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on
the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory." - Darwin

So even Darwin recognized what Johnny McAdams is apparently unaware
of, and I correctly posted the correction.

Dufus desperately wants to defend McAdams - but that can ONLY be done
on the basis of facts.

I've cited them.

Dufus has run from them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:10:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
>> >> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
>> >> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
>> >> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
>> >> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
>> >> > board and his response to it...
>> >>
>> >> You got schooled last time, I'm happy to school you in your ignorance
>> >> again.
>> >>
>> >> And have you *EVER* complained about Johnny's postjacking?
>> >>
>> >> If you cannot cite where you've complained in the censored forum for
>> >> their postjacking, then you've just PROVEN yourself a hypcrite.
>> >
>> > A small point here I neglected to address, which will PROVE (all
>> > in caps) that I`m not a hypocrite (at least not on this point).
>>
>> Tut tut tut, stump.
>>
>> You've *ALREADY* admitted that Johnny postjacks...
>
> And I do, also, lurkers.

Yet only critics are criticized for it.

This PROVES your hypocrisy.

>> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
>> postjacking.
>
> Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?

Yep... Still quoted above in this very post.

>> You're a proven hypocrite.
>>
>> End of story.
>

> Ben is burned again....


And yet, I've listed only facts... facts you can't refute.


> I'm a retard.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:19:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Yep... you started whining that you weren't debating evolution *AFTER*
it became crystal clear that I know far more about the topic than you
do.


You desperately tried to defend Johnny's silly assertion that the
fossil record supports evolution - and didn't have a clue that this
was *COMPLETELY* wrong.

Even Darwin himself stated: "[T]he number of intermediate varieties,
which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such

finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious

and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

I'm merely schooling you on something that Darwin himself well
understood.

And the fossil evidence, as it existed in the late 1800's... has only
gotten FAR worse. Darwin imagined that the evidence from fossils would
begin to help his theory once more digging had taken place. He
rightfully pointed out that only few fossils were known then...

But things haven't gotten better. They've gotten much worse.

[Bud]

Who am I to convince a conspiracy retard of something he doesn`t want to accept, lurkers? I put the information out for people who can use information properly, not to sway retards.


> Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Bud]

Ben needs to read the header and try to figure out what the topic actually was, lurkers.

> and you're clearly
> unwilling to do the research.
>
> The fossil record is against the theory of evolution, even Darwin
> publicly stated so.

"But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given."

> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on
> the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
> formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
> assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
> urged against my theory." - Darwin
>
> So even Darwin recognized what Johnny McAdams is apparently unaware
> of, and I correctly posted the correction.
>
> Dufus desperately wants to defend McAdams - but that can ONLY be done
> on the basis of facts.
>
> I've cited them.
>
> Dufus has run from them.

I`m using English words, lurkers, not even big ones...

"How many times did I state that what I was doing was *not* debating evolution? Ben still thinks thats what I was trying to do."

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. I pointed out that I call it "postjacking" when *I* do it. I use the word "postjacking" as a catch all phrase for removing content from one forum and moving it to another to address it. No onus.

My critique of Ben has been that he creates strawman arguments out of the content he postjacks from the moderated board. That is a completely different complaint than the postjacking.

> This PROVES your hypocrisy.
>
>
>
> >> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
> >> postjacking.
> >
> > Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?
>
>
> Yep... Still quoted above in this very post.

Ben is lying, lurkers, I never complained that Ben took the content from the moderated board.

>
> >> You're a proven hypocrite.
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >
> > Ben is burned again....
>
>
> And yet, I've listed only facts... facts you can't refute.

Claims he can`t support, lurkers. As usual.

>
> > I'm a retard.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben needs ...

Tut tut tut, dufus.

Nothing I say, do, or think has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the fact
that you dropped the topic like a hotcake when you discovered that I
knew far more about the topic than you do.

Indeed, you've been COMPLETELY unable to refute a single thing I've
said as I corrected Johnny McAdams.

>> and you're clearly
>> unwilling to do the research.
>>
>> The fossil record is against the theory of evolution, even Darwin
>> publicly stated so.
>
> "But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was
> examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given."

There's no "thought" involved.

Johnny made an inaccurate assertion... I corrected it using ordinarily
accepted facts.

Indeed, I even slammed a Darwn quote down your throat.

You lose!

>> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on
>> the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
>> formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
>> assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
>> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
>> urged against my theory." - Darwin
>>
>> So even Darwin recognized what Johnny McAdams is apparently unaware
>> of, and I correctly posted the correction.
>>
>> Dufus desperately wants to defend McAdams - but that can ONLY be done
>> on the basis of facts.

Dufus has offered none that he's been able to cite for...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:11:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Who am I...

Someone whom Boris pointed out was unable to refute what I stated.

Happy to school you again...

>> Embarrassing, isn't it?

Too embarrassing to admit it...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Absolutely...

**AFTER** I pointed out your hypocritical stance.

The fact that you can't point to your use of the term with respect to
your fellow believers *BEFORE* I pointed out your hypocrisy proves the
point.

You can't whine *now* about being innocent.

> I use the word "postjacking" as a catch all phrase for removing
> content from one forum and moving it to another to address it. No
> onus.

You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your "facts."

The term "postjacking" has ALWAYS had a negative connotation. And
nothing you can say or do changes that fact.

> My critique of Ben has been that he creates strawman arguments out
> of the content he postjacks from the moderated board. That is a
> completely different complaint than the postjacking.

They aren't "strawman" arguments, or you'd be able to show that I'm
not DIRECTLY ADDRESSING the content of the post.

For example, Johnny claiming that the fossil evidence is supported by
evolution - when the FACT is that it's not.

You couldn't even **DENY** the point Johnny made, and that I corrected
with facts and citation.

So you're simply lying again.

>> This PROVES your hypocrisy.

Indeed it does.

>> >> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
>> >> postjacking.
>> >
>> > Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?
>>
>> Yep... Still quoted above in this very post.
>
> Ben is lying, lurkers, I never complained that Ben took the
> content from the moderated board.

"Bud" is a convicted child molester.

Now, don't thing that I "complained" about his lack of morals, I
simply used the everyday term "child molester" to describe him.

I didn't insult him or complain at all.

>> >> You're a proven hypocrite.
>> >>
>> >> End of story.
>> >
>> > Ben is burned again....
>>
>>
>> And yet, I've listed only facts... facts you can't refute.
>
> Claims he can`t support, lurkers. As usual.

**YOU** are the one claiming that "postjacking" has no negative
connotation...

Yet you refuse to cite.

Why is that, coward?


>> > I'm a retard.

No, that's not the reason you refuse to cite.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben doesn`t even know what the topic is, lurkers. He should read the header and cure his ignorance.

[Bud]

Of course I have to wait for Ben to say things that are erroneous before I correct them, lurkers. Since I applied when I lifted content from other forums in the same manner I had when he did the charge of "hypocrisy" can`t apply.

> The fact that you can't point to your use of the term with respect to
> your fellow believers *BEFORE* I pointed out your hypocrisy proves the
> point.

Has what to do with what, lurkers? I used it to describe the same act when *I* do it. Is it Ben`s contention that I was being derogatory towards myself?

> You can't whine *now* about being innocent.
>
> > I use the word "postjacking" as a catch all phrase for removing
> > content from one forum and moving it to another to address it. No
> > onus.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your "facts."

Ben can`t tell the two apart, lurkers.

> The term "postjacking" has ALWAYS had a negative connotation. And
> nothing you can say or do changes that fact.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> > My critique of Ben has been that he creates strawman arguments out
> > of the content he postjacks from the moderated board. That is a
> > completely different complaint than the postjacking.
>
> They aren't "strawman" arguments, or you'd be able to show that I'm
> not DIRECTLY ADDRESSING the content of the post.

Which I done in the posts where Ben has postjacked content from the moderated board.

> For example, Johnny claiming that the fossil evidence is supported by
> evolution - when the FACT is that it's not.

> You couldn't even **DENY** the point Johnny made, and that I corrected
> with facts and citation.

This is a different post about a different topic, Ben`s poor thinking, lurkers.

> So you're simply lying again.
>
> >> This PROVES your hypocrisy.
>
> Indeed it does.

How could it be hypocrisy when I applied the term when I did the same act myself, lurkers? It could only be hypocrisy if I called it "postjacking" when he did it, but not when I did.

> >> >> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
> >> >> postjacking.
> >> >
> >> > Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?
> >>
> >> Yep... Still quoted above in this very post.
> >
> > Ben is lying, lurkers, I never complained that Ben took the
> > content from the moderated board.
>
>
> "Bud" is a convicted child molester.
>
> Now, don't thing that I "complained" about his lack of morals, I
> simply used the everyday term "child molester" to describe him.
>
> I didn't insult him or complain at all.

As usual, Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, that the term "postjacking" has negative connotations. And he hasn`t support that I "complained" when he removed content from the moderated board.

>
> >> >> You're a proven hypocrite.
> >> >>
> >> >> End of story.
> >> >
> >> > Ben is burned again....
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, I've listed only facts... facts you can't refute.
> >
> > Claims he can`t support, lurkers. As usual.
>
> **YOU** are the one claiming that "postjacking" has no negative
> connotation...

Lurkers...

"The term "postjacking" has ALWAYS had a negative connotation. And nothing you can say or do changes that fact." -Ben Holmes

> Yet you refuse to cite.

Let Ben cite for the claim he made above, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:58:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> <snicker> Ben doesn`t even know what the topic is...

"You dropped the topic like a hotcake when you discovered that I know
quite a bit more about the topic than you..."

That *is* what you responded to...

And nothing *I* need has anything at all to do with *YOUR* actions &
cowardice.

>> Indeed, you've been COMPLETELY unable to refute a single thing I've
>> said as I corrected Johnny McAdams.

Still true.

>> >> and you're clearly
>> >> unwilling to do the research.
>> >>
>> >> The fossil record is against the theory of evolution, even Darwin
>> >> publicly stated so.
>> >
>> > "But of course I wasn`t examining the science of evolution, I was
>> > examining Ben`s thinking. I deemed it poor for the reasons given."
>>
>> There's no "thought" involved.
>>
>> Johnny made an inaccurate assertion... I corrected it using ordinarily
>> accepted facts.
>>
>> Indeed, I even slammed a Darwn quote down your throat.
>>
>> You lose!

Quite convincingly, too.

>> >> "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on
>> >> the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
>> >> formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
>> >> assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
>> >> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
>> >> urged against my theory." - Darwin
>> >>
>> >> So even Darwin recognized what Johnny McAdams is apparently unaware
>> >> of, and I correctly posted the correction.
>> >>
>> >> Dufus desperately wants to defend McAdams - but that can ONLY be done
>> >> on the basis of facts.
>>
>> Dufus has offered none that he's been able to cite for...

Dead silence...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

And yet, Johnny McAdams "postjacks" - and you've NEVER criticized him
for it.

It's only after *I* repost from another forum...

This is hypcrisy in it's purest form

You're a hypocrite, Puddy.

>> The fact that you can't point to your use of the term with respect to
>> your fellow believers *BEFORE* I pointed out your hypocrisy proves the
>> point.
>
> Has what to do with what, lurkers? I used it to describe the same
> act when *I* do it. Is it Ben`s contention that I was being derogatory
> towards myself?

Nor can Puddy show where he called himself a postjacker that predates
his whining about my use of posts from another forum.

Puddy's a proven hypocrite.

>> You can't whine *now* about being innocent.
>>
>> > I use the word "postjacking" as a catch all phrase for removing
>> > content from one forum and moving it to another to address it. No
>> > onus.
>>
>> You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your "facts."
>
> Ben can`t tell the two apart, lurkers.

"Postjacking" has a negative connotation... and nothing Puddy can say
will change that fact.

>> The term "postjacking" has ALWAYS had a negative connotation. And
>> nothing you can say or do changes that fact.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

Here, for example, is someone else's take:

"Post Jacking makes you look like a jackhole. We've all seen this.
Someone proudly posts a picture, tells of an accomplishment, or simply
mentions their kids, and here comes the post jacker to say that they
too did that, saw this, know them, or that you should see their
kid(s)!!! It should come as no surprise that they did it bigger,
better, faster, and stronger. Post jackers pretend to be taking part
in the conversation while the rest of us only see it as a "LOOK AT
ME!! I'M SO FABULOUS!!" scream. Stop it, jackhole."

Puddy can now go argue with someone else.

>> > My critique of Ben has been that he creates strawman arguments out
>> > of the content he postjacks from the moderated board. That is a
>> > completely different complaint than the postjacking.
>>
>> They aren't "strawman" arguments, or you'd be able to show that I'm
>> not DIRECTLY ADDRESSING the content of the post.
>
> Which I done in the posts where Ben has postjacked content from
> the moderated board.

You're lying again, Puddy.

I *DIRECTLY* address what is stated, and you cannot (and will not)
compare what was stated, and provide the "strawman" that was "created"
out of the original post.

In other words, you're making another empty claim that you'll NEVER
support.

>> For example, Johnny claiming that the fossil evidence is supported by
>> evolution - when the FACT is that it's not.
>
>> You couldn't even **DENY** the point Johnny made, and that I corrected
>> with facts and citation.
>
> This is a different post about a different topic, Ben`s poor thinking, lurkers.

You claim I'm creating 'strawmen' and attacking them.

Here's a perfect example of where I *DIRECTLY* addressed the topic,
and showed that it was wrong.

>> So you're simply lying again.
>>
>> >> This PROVES your hypocrisy.
>>
>> Indeed it does.
>
> How could it be hypocrisy when I applied the term when I did the
> same act myself, lurkers? It could only be hypocrisy if I called it
> "postjacking" when he did it, but not when I did.

You'll never cite the place where you did this that predates your
whining about my "postjacking."

Nor will you **EVER** show that you applied this to Johnny McAdams,
who has "postjacked" on many occasions.

You're a proven hypocrite.


>> >> >> You've *ALREADY* admitted that you've never complained about *HIS*
>> >> >> postjacking.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can Ben show where I complained about *HIS* postjacking?
>> >>
>> >> Yep... Still quoted above in this very post.
>> >
>> > Ben is lying, lurkers, I never complained that Ben took the
>> > content from the moderated board.
>>
>> "Bud" is a convicted child molester.
>>
>> Now, don't thing that I "complained" about his lack of morals, I
>> simply used the everyday term "child molester" to describe him.
>>
>> I didn't insult him or complain at all.
>
> As usual, Ben assumes what he hasn`t shown, that the term
> "postjacking" has negative connotations. And he hasn`t support that I
> "complained" when he removed content from the moderated board.

I've provided an example of someone else who acknowledges the negative
connotation.

You can have your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own
"facts."

Claiming that "postjacking" has no negative connotations is simply a
lie on your part.

>> >> >> You're a proven hypocrite.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> End of story.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben is burned again....
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet, I've listed only facts... facts you can't refute.
>> >
>> > Claims he can`t support, lurkers. As usual.
>>
>> **YOU** are the one claiming that "postjacking" has no negative
>> connotation...
>
> Lurkers...
>
> "The term "postjacking" has ALWAYS had a negative connotation. And nothing you can say or do changes that fact." -Ben Holmes

Yep. Still true.

Notice that Pud answered the charge that *HE* claimed that postjacking
has *NO* negative connotation by quoting my accurate statement that it
does.

Puddy is confused, he doesn't even understand what is being stated.

>> Yet you refuse to cite.
>
> Let Ben cite for the claim he made above, lurkers.

I did. Now you'll evade and run again.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > Stump still refuses to directly deny the statement I made.
>
> It was the kind of meaningless statement Ben likes to make, lurkers. Saying scientists are "stumped" only means they don`t have all the answers yet. No shit, Sherlock.

Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had much the same response about something or other related to the JFK assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock didn't cause him any pause.

Just had to share that one.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

Are you going to have enough courage to stick around here now? Or will
you run away again?

[Hank Sienzant]

My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.

I noticed you ignored the point I made to question my character. As I said above "Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point." Thanks for proving my point.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:50:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hs> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Stump still refuses to directly deny the statement I made.
>> >>
>> >> It was the kind of meaningless statement Ben likes to make, lurkers. Saying scientists are "stumped" only means they don`t have all the answers yet. No shit, Sherlock.
>> >
>> >Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had much the same response about something or other related to the JFK assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock didn't cause him any pause.
>> >
>> >Just had to share that one.
>> >
>> >Hank
>>
>> Are you going to have enough courage to stick around here now? Or will
>> you run away again?
>
> My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it
> as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's amusing then, how many knowledgeable believers seem to do
precisely what you do.

> I noticed you ignored the point I made to question my character.

What is important is that you've suddenly ducked in to an uncensored
forum again. It's more important for me to establish your cowardice.

You can call it anything you want - but the FACT is, no knowledgeable
believer of the WCR will debate knowledgeable critics in uncensored
forums.

While they have in the past, they've learned their lesson ... you've
learned YOUR lesson... and now refuse to debate.

And that fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>
> In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> board and his response to it...

Chickenshit cannot, of course, CITE for any "bad thinking" on my part.
It's merely his opinion, and as opinion from someone proven to be
quite dishonest... it means little.

> John McAdams:
>
> "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
>
> Ben`s response:
>
> "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
>than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
>record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
>have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
>new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
>try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
>seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
>that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."

Yep. Everything stated is absolutely true, and unlike Chickenshit, I
can cite authoritative sources for everything I state.

> Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> ways.

Chickenshit will be completely unable to show this by means of
citations.

It's his opinion only, and means not much at all...

> it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> contributor to the science, and not even the first.

This is, of course, precisely what evolutionary biologists do... but
you don't see Chickenshit complaining there...

Indeed, Chickenshit would be the first to utilize Darwin's name if
*HE* brought up the topic.


> The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,


This is simply a flat out lie. I've said **NOTHING** that would
discredit Darwin. Watch, as Chickenshit fails to quote ANYTHING I ever
said that would lead an honest person to think I was denigrating
Darwin.



> which isn`t true in the least.


Of course it isn't... BEAT THAT STRAWMAN, CHICKENSHIT!!!


> He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories have
> arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what he
> hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that led
> where it led.


And Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that this is the
simple truth. You can't show a dishonest person that water is wet.

Punctuated Equilibrium, for example, was an effort to show that the
fossil record could be brought in line with Darwin's theory. The
fossil record shows long periods of stasis, and the literally instant
appearance of new species. This is *NOT* what Darwin himself expected
the fossil record to show.

Watch, as Chickenshit whines about what I stated, yet refuses to
provide even a *SINGLE* citation that refutes what I state.

> The underlying driving force behind this is bias, and Ben is
> trying to undermine the science because he realizes that science is
> the natural enemy of the supernatural nonsense he believes.


I'm referencing science.

Chickenshit is speculating...


> Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
> was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense


Here we have an empty claim... and one that has been rather thoroughly
debunked by the over 400 posts that Chickenshit has simply run from.


> he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
> science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief
> systems. "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the
> things I don`t want to believe".


Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of actually dealing with what I really say,
so he simply makes things up...


> So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
> assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking
> someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"
> out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
> from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
> same as with the assassination.


How did we get the Tesla Model 3?


> And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
> with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
> defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
> into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...
>
> "The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
> evolutionist... and continues to be."


This is, indeed, the root of the issue. I *CORRECTLY* poined out that
the fossil record doesn't support evolution.

I can cite until the sun goes down on this issue.

But Chickenshit can't refute a single citation.

And I'll offer just one to watch him squirm:

"The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static
entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the
emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.
Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing
to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982,
p. 45-46

Now, if Chickenshit wants to whine about "bad thinking" - let's see
him Dunning & Kruger his way now...


> Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists"
> aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to
> pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system.


And you're a gutless liar. You can't debate what I ACTUALLY said, so
you have to invent things.

Let's see you quote where I said *ANTHING* that could be construed as
this... and if not, let's hear you admit that you lied.

Because you clearly did.


> Just like the assumption is that the WC was not trying to determine
> the truth.


This isn't an "assumption." This is actually true. The WC
intentionally hid things... Anyone who reads the testimony and see's
how many times they went "off the record" knows this.


<rest of lies snipped>


This is a common theme for Chickenshit... he's CONSTANTLY asserting
things I've never said or argued for...

Because what I **DO** say, he can't refute.

[Bud]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:41:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> > on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> > purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> > show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> > everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> > board and his response to it...
>
>
> Chickenshit cannot, of course, CITE for any "bad thinking" on my part.

See my first post.

> It's merely his opinion, and as opinion from someone proven to be
> quite dishonest... it means little.

I advanced an idea and gave support for that idea. You should try it, just to see what it is like.

> > John McAdams:
> >
> > "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
> >
> > Ben`s response:
> >
> > "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
> >than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
> >record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
> >have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
> >new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
> >try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
> >seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
> >that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
>
>
> Yep. Everything stated is absolutely true, and unlike Chickenshit, I
> can cite authoritative sources for everything I state.

As was pointed out, what you stated was a strawman.

> > Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> > ways.
>
> Chickenshit will be completely unable to show this by means of
> citations.

I give examples all the time.

> It's his opinion only, and means not much at all...
>
>
>
> > it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> > contributor to the science, and not even the first.
>
>
> This is, of course, precisely what evolutionary biologists do...

Support your idea that evolutionary biologists equate Darwin with evolution.

> but
> you don't see Chickenshit complaining there...
>
> Indeed, Chickenshit would be the first to utilize Darwin's name if
> *HE* brought up the topic.

Once you erect a strawman you won`t let it go.

> > The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,
>
>
> This is simply a flat out lie. I've said **NOTHING** that would
> discredit Darwin. Watch, as Chickenshit fails to quote ANYTHING I ever
> said that would lead an honest person to think I was denigrating
> Darwin.

Does "discredit" mean the same as "denigrate"?

> > which isn`t true in the least.
>
>
> Of course it isn't... BEAT THAT STRAWMAN, CHICKENSHIT!!!
>
>
> > He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories have
> > arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what he
> > hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that led
> > where it led.
>
>
> And Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that this is the
> simple truth. You can't show a dishonest person that water is wet.

By all means, support the idea that science is trying to validate Darwin.

> Punctuated Equilibrium, for example, was an effort to show that the
> fossil record could be brought in line with Darwin's theory.

Begged. Show that the driving force behind this was to rehabilitate or validate Darwin`d ideas.

That ideas change as more information comes to light is to be expected.

> The
> fossil record shows long periods of stasis, and the literally instant
> appearance of new species. This is *NOT* what Darwin himself expected
> the fossil record to show.

Again, you make the idea of evolution and Darwin synonymous. They aren`t. Science could care less whether a single idea of Darwin`s was shown to be valid. It is a process to determine the truth, not a personality cult.

> Watch, as Chickenshit whines about what I stated, yet refuses to
> provide even a *SINGLE* citation that refutes what I state.

Just about everything you stated is a strawman to what .John wrote. For some reason when your brain sees the word "evolution" it substitutes it with "Darwin".

> > The underlying driving force behind this is bias, and Ben is
> > trying to undermine the science because he realizes that science is
> > the natural enemy of the supernatural nonsense he believes.
>
>
> I'm referencing science.

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of it.

> Chickenshit is speculating...
>
>
> > Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
> > was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense
>
>
> Here we have an empty claim... and one that has been rather thoroughly
> debunked by the over 400 posts that Chickenshit has simply run from.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

> > he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
> > science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief
> > systems. "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the
> > things I don`t want to believe".
>
>
> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of actually dealing with what I really say,
> so he simply makes things up...

I`m making nothing up, you just are hiding your beliefs as usual. It is classic "God of the Gaps", where God is interjected wherever science doesn`t have definitive answers.

> > So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
> > assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking
> > someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"
> > out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
> > from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
> > same as with the assassination.
>
>
> How did we get the Tesla Model 3?

Were there bird`s nests before there were birds?

> > And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
> > with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
> > defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
> > into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...
> >
> > "The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
> > evolutionist... and continues to be."
>
>
> This is, indeed, the root of the issue. I *CORRECTLY* poined out that
> the fossil record doesn't support evolution.

Not true.

> I can cite until the sun goes down on this issue.

Go ahead.

> But Chickenshit can't refute a single citation.
>
> And I'll offer just one to watch him squirm:
>
> "The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static
> entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the
> emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.
> Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing
> to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."
>
> Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982,
> p. 45-46

What harm does that do to the idea that animals evolved?

> Now, if Chickenshit wants to whine about "bad thinking" - let's see
> him Dunning & Kruger his way now...
>
>
> > Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists"
> > aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to
> > pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system.
>
>
> And you're a gutless liar. You can't debate what I ACTUALLY said, so
> you have to invent things.
>
> Let's see you quote where I said *ANTHING* that could be construed as
> this... and if not, let's hear you admit that you lied.

"Fossils have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin."

You are stating that the driving force behind the process is to validate Darwin.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:15:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:50:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hs> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hs> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:07:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Stump still refuses to directly deny the statement I made.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was the kind of meaningless statement Ben likes to make, lurkers. Saying scientists are "stumped" only means they don`t have all the answers yet. No shit, Sherlock.
> >> >
> >> >Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had much the same response about something or other related to the JFK assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock didn't cause him any pause.
> >> >
> >> >Just had to share that one.
> >> >
> >> >Hank
> >>
> >> Are you going to have enough courage to stick around here now? Or will
> >> you run away again?
> >
> > My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it
> > as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.
>
>
> It's amusing then, how many knowledgeable believers seem to do
> precisely what you do.
>
>
> > I noticed you ignored the point I made to question my character.
>
>
> What is important is that you've suddenly ducked in to an uncensored
> forum again. It's more important for me to establish your cowardice.

How is coming here "ducking" into this forum? How is that an example of my "cowardice"?


The OP was correct. That's pretty shoddy thinking on your part.

>
> You can call it anything you want - but the FACT is, no knowledgeable
> believer of the WCR will debate knowledgeable critics in uncensored
> forums.

Except the OP was debating this with you, and you avoided his points.

>
> While they have in the past, they've learned their lesson ... you've
> learned YOUR lesson... and now refuse to debate.
>
> And that fact tells the tale.

Ben avoids my point once more to call me names. And says I refuse to debate.

As I said here: "Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had much the same response about something or other related to the JFK assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock didn't cause him any pause."

You've avoided responding to the point I made. Why is that?

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.

Henry's time isn't too valuable to spend half his life learning the Warren Report. It's just too valuable to spend a few minutes defending it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.
>
> Henry's time isn't too valuable to spend half his life learning the Warren Report. It's just too valuable to spend a few minutes defending it.

Against what?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 11:30:25 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > My time is too valuable to waste much of it here. If you define it as running away, or lacking courage, you're entitled to your opinion.
>
> Henry's time isn't too valuable to spend half his life learning the Warren Report. It's just too valuable to spend a few minutes defending it.

And you'll notice Boris doesn't discuss the point I made at all. He'd rather poison the well by discussing me.

In addition to the logical fallacy, Boris makes three fundamental errors in his post above.

Beyond that, Boris has a fundamental misunderstanding about how I reached the conclusions I did. He apparently my thinks I read the Warren Report and simply believed it, accepting it as gospel from above or something. That's not the case at all. That's not even close.

Actually, I spent a lot of my free time in the 1960s and 1970s and beyond reading JFK conspiracy books. Eagerly purchasing each book, reading it cover to cover, awaiting the latest discoveries and revelations. I was a first-generation dyed in the wool JFK conspiracy theorist. But the books contradicted each other sometimes in terms of the claims they'd make, and other times reach contrary conclusions.

So I realized I had to dig deeper and study the evidence they were citing at a deeper level. I purchased my own set of the 26 volumes of Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (hardcover - setting me back $2500 in 1982 or thereabouts) and read through it all - twice. I was up late a lot of nights reading, sometimes until dawn, then would go to work. By the time I was finished reading through it all, I had a better understanding of the evidence and a better appreciation for the work the Warren Commission did.

Beyond that, Boris pretends it only takes "a few minutes" of my time defending the Warren Commission.

Again, here, he makes two additional fundamental errors, for a total of three in all.

The first is that he casts me as a Warren Commission defender. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a truth defender. The Warren Commission could have concluded a conspiracy, and from my study of the evidence, I still would be convinced Oswald shot JFK alone and unaided. Casting me as a Warren Commission defender is his attempt to pigeon-hole me, so he can repeat whatever claims he's gleaned from conspiracy books, repeat them here, and then castigate me if I don't have the time to rebut them all.

Which brings me to the third of three fundamental errors that Boris committed above. It doesn't take only a few minutes to, as he put it, defend the Warren Commission (or as I would put it, post the truth). Don't get me wrong - I think the Warren Commission made a fair share of errors in the conclusions they reached, and I'm not saying they are infallible. I'm saying their conclusion that Oswald committed the assassination alone and unaided is defensible, and is the only one that is reasonable.

The fact of the matter is that it takes longer than that. Sometimes far longer. Because the initial post itself requires citations to the evidence, which I generally provide, and because the conspiracy claims are sometimes so arcane and Byzantine that they take a lot of context to put into the proper perspective (we're seeing some of this in another active thread I'm currently posting in. Ben took a old post out of a thread, ignored the context and my rebuttal posts, and just posted his strawman claims about what I said. The post concerned Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his temple area and what that indicated).

In addition to the initial rebuttal post, there's then all the follow up, where the CTs on the board make personal attacks or create strawmen to knock over, but seldom if ever offer a substantive rebuttal to the points made. Like this one, where Boris claims I have had half a lifetime learning the Warren Report, but can't spare a few minutes defending it.

As you can see, those kinds of claims need to be put into the proper context, and explained why they are wrong. Claiming it takes only a few minutes to rebut the idiocy is false. It takes far longer. It can be compared to the time it takes to create a mess compared to the time it takes to clean one up. Anyone who's tried to tidy a room after a few grandchildren have spent any amount of time in it knows that picking up the clutter takes far longer than strewing the clutter about.

Sorry, Boris, you're simply wrong in your assertions above.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Oh look, here comes Henry with another multi-paragraph post about how he doesn't have time to waste here.

[Hank Sienzant]

Boris proves my point. He doesn't rebut any of the points I made, or try to defend his claims. He simply attacks me once more. He doesn't say what I got wrong, or what I'm taking out of context, or how I misunderstood his points.

He simply attacks me once more, pretending that's good enough to dismiss my points. I'm certain any reasonable person can see through that claim. Once more, It's not about me, Boris. Why are you pretending I'm your adversary here?

I'm not. Your adversary here is the truth.

Most people can recognize it when they see it.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris proves my point. He doesn't rebut any of the points I made,

You don't have points. You always say you do, but you never do.

Oh, and if by chance you DID make some point, I don't have time to waste to refute it. Now tell me I do, and I'll whine you're attacking me more.

See how this works, trash pile?

[Hank Sienzant]

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- If I do come back and defend any of my claims (but not all), then I'm a liar because my time isn't valuable, and I don't have better things to do - because I said my time was valuable and I had better things to do.

- If I don't come back and defend any of my claims that Ben insists on taking out of context from five or more years ago, then I'm a coward and a liar.

- If I do come back and defend all of my claims no matter how many times we've covered this ground and no matter how many times Ben reposts the out of context claim complete with his straw man arguments, then I'm what? I would say insane. I don't have the time nor the inclination to rebut every straw man you or Ben can create by taking my posts out of context.

I will on occasion check in here and if I see something that raises my ire enough, I'll post the truth about the claim. But I don't intend to live here.

I have better things to do most of the time.

Ben to call me a coward and a liar. Boris to issue some sarcastic remark. Neither to respond to the points I made with anything substantive.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Let me see if I unde

More whining.

>
> Ben to call me a coward and a liar. Boris to issue some sarcastic remark. Neither to respond to the points I made with anything substantive.

Who's got the time to waste?

[Hank Sienzant]

Dismissing the points I make by saying I don't make any points is not a rebuttal of any of those points.

Calling me "trash pile" is resorting to the logical fallacy of ad hominem - attack the post, not the poster.

Thinking I'm your adversary is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's transporting here.

The truth is your adversary. Calling me names and dismissing the points I make doesn't change that any.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

Ignoring the points I'm making and calling it "whining" isn't a rebuttal argument either.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Ignoring the points I'm making and calling it "whining" isn't a rebuttal argument either.

Fringe/Reset whatever-it's-called. We've already discussed this. I don't have time to waste rebutting the points you never made.

See Henry run from the points I made, lurkers?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Dismissing the points I make by saying I don't make any points is not a rebuttal of any of those points.

Who's got the time to waste?

>

> Calling me "trash pile" is resorting to the logical fallacy of ad hominem - attack the post, not the poster.

The proof you're a trash pile is that you're a trash pile. Maybe you should use some of the laundry detergent on "Oswald's" coat to wash the stink off.

>
> Thinking I'm your adversary is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's transporting here.

Liars aren't my allies. The proof you're a liar is that you're lying.

>
> The truth is your adversary.

Nothing makes a man sound more like a villain in an Orwell novel quite like this, lurkers!

[Hank Sienzant]

And Ben Holmes and Boris question why I don't spend more time here.

Hilarious.

In a thread about the poor logic of Ben Holmes, Boris decides to give us some even better examples.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> And Ben Holmes and Boris question why I don't spend more time here.

I don't question it. I absolutely know why.

>
> Hilarious.
>
> In a thread about the poor logic of Ben Holmes, Boris decides to give us some even better examples.

Henry and I finally agree. They are GREAT examples of poor logic. Just a shame I can't take credit for inventing any of these tactics.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Boris is just trying to get Henry to play Fetch the Stick.

Don't play, Henry. Boris will never be convinced a cast of thousands didn't kill JFK, replete with side-conspiracies involving shots through the limo windshield and Karyn Kupcinet and Dorothy Kilgallen and LBJ and RFK's assassination and MK Ultra mind control projects and so on.

Just ask Boris to put forward his own theory so it can be compared to the work of the WC. He tends to go dark after that.

Boris may be infected with conspiracism, but Boris is not dumb. He's smart enough to know that it's better to keep quiet and be thought the fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

[Hank Sienzant]

I haven't seen evidence of that last point to date.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I haven't seen evidence of that last point to date.
>
> Hank

Look at Chuck trying to attack me rather than the points I made.

And Henry joins in, because he's a hypocrite.

Hey Henry, if I don't address the points you (never) made, it's because Hiroshima wasn't hit twice, brah.

Now salve your welts and keep NOT wasting time here.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:43:28 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I haven't seen evidence of that last point to date.
> >
> > Hank
>
> Look at Chuck trying to attack me rather than the points I made.

Your only point is that you have none.

>
> And Henry joins in, because he's a hypocrite.
>
> Hey Henry, if I don't address the points you (never) made, it's because Hiroshima wasn't hit twice, brah.

His point is also that you have none.

>
> Now salve your welts and keep NOT wasting time here.

Yep, you are a waste of time. I have to agree with you there. But it's fun to watch you get upset. You lay awake in bed at night with "B 29 brah/Fringe Reset/Salve your Welts/Tinfoil Beanie Propeller" rolling through your mind while you toss and turn and try and fall asleep to fresh enough to do "battle" the next day on the internets against the forces of evil who killed Camelot.

Too funny.

[Ben Holmes]

An excellent example of your cowardice was shown in your refusal to
name the fallacy that I posted... you snipped the ENTIRE statement
when you replied.

Now, lie and tell us that such an example isn't cowardice...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben to call me a coward and a liar.

Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
lies on your part... or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
the fallacy question.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:49:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

I snipped nothing. When I post from Google on my iPad, it doesn't copy down the post I'm responding to. It does from my home computer. Your claim is that is tantamount to 'cowardice'.

That's hilarious. As always, we're limited to the choices you provide, apparently. That's the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. You haven't shown how you've excluded other reasons for my 'failure' to quote your post (as if that's a grave sin and makes everything I said wrong).

But it was easy enough to see what your original post said.

Respond to the points I made. Not showing your post is your attempt at ignoring the points and arguing a meaning point.

And how am I ducking in here? Where am I ducking in here from, Ben?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hs> wrote:
>
> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
>
> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
> lies on your part...

Begging the question. You have to establish the lies, not just assert them.

> or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
> the fallacy question.

False dilemma in the two choices offered, Ben.

I did in fact answer the question, although not to your satisfaction, obviously. I'm not responsible for your satisfaction.

Lie and claim I didn't answer the question, Ben. Or show you're a coward by ignoring this point (two can play at your absurd game).

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Here's the point Ben is avoiding:

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I snipped nothing. When I post from Google on my iPad, it doesn't copy down the post I'm responding to. It does from my home computer.

Isn't that amazing, lurkers? Henry doesn't see fit to "waste his time" in this place, yet he's connected to it from multiple devices. I'll tell you one thing, when I'm not on my home computer, I'm not logged on here. Because if I were, one could make an argument that such behavior is tantamount to compulsion or even addiction.

Now Henry, tell us that you DON'T have this place bookmarked on multiple electronic devices, because you just don't have time to waste here.

Then tell us what "presume" means.

[Ben Holmes]

I don't think anyone cares about your excuses. If I tried that on a
judge, I'd get slapped pretty hard... if I tried that on a teacher,
I'd get a failing grade... if I tried that on a boss, I might be
looking for a new job.

You failed to quote - and FAILED TO ANSWER.

Yes, that's cowardice, no matter *HOW* it happened.

> That's hilarious. As always, we're limited to the choices you
> provide, apparently. That's the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> You haven't shown how you've excluded other reasons for my 'failure'
> to quote your post (as if that's a grave sin and makes everything I
> said wrong).

Amusingly, you've STILL not answered.

And yes, this is a perfect example of your cowardice.

>But it was easy enough to see what your original post said.
>
>Respond to the points I made.

Why? You simply ignored mine.

> Not showing your post is your attempt

How is *YOUR* failure to quote what you didn't answer any fault of
mine???

> at ignoring the points and
> arguing a meaning point.
>
> And how am I ducking in here? Where am I ducking in here from, Ben?
>
>Hank

Are you a moron? I thought that it was pretty clear what you ducked.

Shall I repost it for you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hs> wrote:
>>
>> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
>>
>> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
>> lies on your part...
>
>Begging the question. You have to establish the lies, not just assert them.

YOU made the statements... it's up to YOU to cite the supporting
evidence.

If **YOU** cannot cite evidence for anyone other than Dr. Burkley
being Kilduff's source, then you've PROVEN yourself to be a liar.

>> or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
>> the fallacy question.
>
>False dilemma in the two choices offered, Ben.

Then simply name the other possibilities...


But you won't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:09:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hs> wrote:
>>
>> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
>>
>> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
>> lies on your part... or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
>> the fallacy question.
>
>Here's the point Ben is avoiding:

This is known as the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts...

[Bud]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hs> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
> >>
> >> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
> >> lies on your part...
> >
> >Begging the question. You have to establish the lies, not just assert them.
>
>
> YOU made the statements... it's up to YOU to cite the supporting
> evidence.

See above.

[Bud]

You removed the goalposts, stupid.

[BT George]

I wouldn't take for granted that beb understands what goalposts mean in this context. As I said, that desperate search for where he placed his socks last night is about all he can intellectually absorb right now.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:41:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
>>> on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
>>> purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
>>> show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
>>> everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
>>> board and his response to it...
>>
>>
>> Chickenshit cannot, of course, CITE for any "bad thinking" on my part.
>
> See my first post.


Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

Everytime I challenge you to back up your claims, you simply run away.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.


>> It's merely his opinion, and as opinion from someone proven to be
>> quite dishonest... it means little.
>
> I advanced an idea and gave support for that idea. You should try
> it, just to see what it is like.


You're lying again, Chickenshit.

You cannot cite showing that the fossil record actually supports
Darwin, and you won't even try.


>>> John McAdams:
>>>
>>> "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
>>>
>>> Ben`s response:
>>>
>>> "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
>>>than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
>>>record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
>>>have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
>>>new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
>>>try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
>>>seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
>>>that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
>>
>> Yep. Everything stated is absolutely true, and unlike Chickenshit, I
>> can cite authoritative sources for everything I state.
>
> As was pointed out, what you stated was a strawman.


You're lying again, Chickenshit. I *QUOTED* Johnny - and my refutation
is DIRECTLY APPLICABLE to his statement.

But why not simply QUOTE Johnny... then QUOTE the point I'm making,
and show how something is a "strawman?"

But you won't.


>>> Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
>>> ways.
>>
>> Chickenshit will be completely unable to show this by means of
>> citations.
>
> I give examples all the time.


Once again - I stated that "Chickenshit will be completely unable to
show this by means of citations" - and I was 100% correct.

Chickenshit ran again...



>> It's his opinion only, and means not much at all...
>>
>>> it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
>>> contributor to the science, and not even the first.
>>
>> This is, of course, precisely what evolutionary biologists do...
>
> Support your idea that evolutionary biologists equate Darwin with evolution.


No.

You know the rules... I never feel the need to "prove" something to
you that you already know to be true.

You want me to cite?

THEN CALL ME A LIAR, AND STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT EVOLUTIONARY
BIOLOGISTS DON'T EQUATE DARWIN WITH EVOLUTION.

But you won't. You already know I'm right.


>> but
>> you don't see Chickenshit complaining there...
>>
>> Indeed, Chickenshit would be the first to utilize Darwin's name if
>> *HE* brought up the topic.
>
> Once you erect a strawman you won`t let it go.


You're lying again, Chickenshit.


>>> The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,
>>
>> This is simply a flat out lie. I've said **NOTHING** that would
>> discredit Darwin. Watch, as Chickenshit fails to quote ANYTHING I ever
>> said that would lead an honest person to think I was denigrating
>> Darwin.
>
> Does "discredit" mean the same as "denigrate"?


YOU FLAT LIED - AND GOT CAUGHT!

YOU CAN'T QUOTE **ANYTHING** I STATED THAT WOULD LEAD AN HONEST PERSON
TO THINK I WAS SAYING WHAT YOU CLAIMED I STATED.

Own it.


>>> which isn`t true in the least.
>>
>> Of course it isn't... BEAT THAT STRAWMAN, CHICKENSHIT!!!
>>
>>> He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories have
>>> arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what he
>>> hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that led
>>> where it led.
>>
>> And Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that this is the
>> simple truth. You can't show a dishonest person that water is wet.
>
> By all means, support the idea that science is trying to validate Darwin.


I'm happy to support any idea that I actually state, and that you
publicly state is not true.


>> Punctuated Equilibrium, for example, was an effort to show that the
>> fossil record could be brought in line with Darwin's theory.
>
> Begged. Show that the driving force behind this was to
> rehabilitate or validate Darwin`d ideas.


You know the rules, coward. Step up to the plate.


> That ideas change as more information comes to light is to be expected.
>
>> The
>> fossil record shows long periods of stasis, and the literally instant
>> appearance of new species. This is *NOT* what Darwin himself expected
>> the fossil record to show.
>
> Again, you make the idea of evolution and Darwin synonymous. They
> aren`t. Science could care less whether a single idea of Darwin`s was
> shown to be valid. It is a process to determine the truth, not a
> personality cult.


Notice that there was not a *SINGLE* word of my statement that
Chickenshit could refute.

Tell us - why can't you deal with what **I** say, and not with what
you *CLAIM* I said?


>> Watch, as Chickenshit whines about what I stated, yet refuses to
>> provide even a *SINGLE* citation that refutes what I state.


Amazingly, another 100% accurate prediction!



> Just about everything you stated is a strawman to what .John
> wrote. For some reason when your brain sees the word "evolution" it
> substitutes it with "Darwin".


Define "evolution."


(I predict that you won't...)


>>> The underlying driving force behind this is bias, and Ben is
>>> trying to undermine the science because he realizes that science is
>>> the natural enemy of the supernatural nonsense he believes.
>>
>> I'm referencing science.
>
> You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of it.


Prove it.


>> Chickenshit is speculating...
>>
>>> Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
>>> was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense
>>
>> Here we have an empty claim... and one that has been rather thoroughly
>> debunked by the over 400 posts that Chickenshit has simply run from.
>
> What does one thing have to do with the other?


Your silence **PROVES** that you're wrong.


>>> he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
>>> science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief
>>> systems. "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the
>>> things I don`t want to believe".
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of actually dealing with what I really say,
>> so he simply makes things up...
>
> I`m making nothing up, you just are hiding your beliefs as usual.
> It is classic "God of the Gaps", where God is interjected wherever
> science doesn`t have definitive answers.


So you believe that Niles Eldridge was proposing a "God of the gaps"
argument?

You're quite the moron.


>>> So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
>>> assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking
>>> someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"
>>> out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
>>> from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
>>> same as with the assassination.
>>
>> How did we get the Tesla Model 3?
>
> Were there bird`s nests before there were birds?

No.

How did we get the Tesla Model 3?


>>> And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
>>> with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
>>> defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
>>> into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...
>>>
>>> "The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
>>> evolutionist... and continues to be."
>>
>> This is, indeed, the root of the issue. I *CORRECTLY* pointed out that
>> the fossil record doesn't support evolution.
>
> Not true.


Define "evolution." Use an authoritative citation.


>> I can cite until the sun goes down on this issue.
>
> Go ahead.


You know the rules.


>> But Chickenshit can't refute a single citation.
>>
>> And I'll offer just one to watch him squirm:
>>
>> "The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static
>> entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the
>> emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.
>> Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing
>> to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."
>>
>> Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982,
>> p. 45-46
>
> What harm does that do to the idea that animals evolved?


You're lying again, Chickenshit.


>> Now, if Chickenshit wants to whine about "bad thinking" - let's see
>> him Dunning & Kruger his way now...
>>
>>> Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists"
>>> aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to
>>> pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system.
>>
>> And you're a gutless liar. You can't debate what I ACTUALLY said, so
>> you have to invent things.
>>
>> Let's see you quote where I said *ANTHING* that could be construed as
>> this... and if not, let's hear you admit that you lied.
>
> "Fossils have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so
> much so that new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
>try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin."
>
> You are stating that the driving force behind the process is to validate Darwin.


Nope.

Indeed, my citation above *SUPPORTED* precisely what I said.

I can cite for my statements, you can't.

And that fact tells the tale.


Indeed, you're clearly too stupid to be able to concisely explain what
my response to Johnny actually is.



>> Because you clearly did.
>>
>>> Just like the assumption is that the WC was not trying to determine
>>> the truth.
>>
>> This isn't an "assumption." This is actually true. The WC
>> intentionally hid things... Anyone who reads the testimony and see's
>> how many times they went "off the record" knows this.
>>
>> <rest of lies snipped>
>>
>>
>> This is a common theme for Chickenshit... he's CONSTANTLY asserting
>> things I've never said or argued for...
>>
>> Because what I **DO** say, he can't refute.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 12:25:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 12:31:02 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

The moved ones, certainly... the *ORIGINAL* goalpost is still above.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:59:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:09:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hs> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hs> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
> >>
> >> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
> >> lies on your part... or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
> >> the fallacy question.
> >
> >Here's the point Ben is avoiding:
>

(adding it back after Ben snipped it multiple times).

Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had much the same response about something or other related to the JFK assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock didn't cause him any pause.

Just had to share that one.


>

> This is known as the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts...

And here are those goalposts again. Let's see if Ben again moves them off the page.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hs> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hs> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
> >>
> >> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
> >> lies on your part...
> >
> >Begging the question. You have to establish the lies, not just assert them.
>
>
> YOU made the statements... it's up to YOU to cite the supporting
> evidence.
>
> If **YOU** cannot cite evidence for anyone other than Dr. Burkley
> being Kilduff's source, then you've PROVEN yourself to be a liar.

You're mis-stating my premise and what I said. Repeatedly. And I've explained it repeatedly. You will continue to mis-state my argument because you can't rebut it. I've said all along his source doesn't matter to the point I'm making, that when Kilduff points to his temple, there no evidence he's indicating the direction of the bullet, he's indicating the general location. And the Z-film and the autopsy photos establish there was a massive exit wound in that location. A massive exit wound that would be hard to miss by anyone who saw the body. It matters not at all whether Kilduff saw the body, or Burkley saw the body and passed the information to Kilduff.

You want to avoid the point I'm making entirely to talk about something that has no bearing on the point I'm making. And call me a liar and a coward because you can't rebut the point I'm making.

Have at it.

>
>
> >> or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
> >> the fallacy question.
> >
> >False dilemma in the two choices offered, Ben.
>
>
> Then simply name the other possibilities...
>
>
> But you won't.

An obvious third choice to me being a liar or a coward is you creating straw men to attack and avoiding my point entirely.

Hank

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:42:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:41:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
> >>> on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
> >>> purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
> >>> show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
> >>> everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
> >>> board and his response to it...
> >>
> >>
> >> Chickenshit cannot, of course, CITE for any "bad thinking" on my part.
> >
> > See my first post.
>
>
> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.
>
> Everytime I challenge you to back up your claims, you simply run away.
>
> EVERY.
>
> SINGLE.
>
> TIME.

The argument that you are a bad thinker was made in the first post. The support for the idea was given in the first post. See the first post.

>
> >> It's merely his opinion, and as opinion from someone proven to be
> >> quite dishonest... it means little.
> >
> > I advanced an idea and gave support for that idea. You should try
> > it, just to see what it is like.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> You cannot cite showing that the fossil record actually supports
> Darwin, and you won't even try.

Strawman.

> >>> John McAdams:
> >>>
> >>> "A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the theory that explains that."
> >>>
> >>> Ben`s response:
> >>>
> >>> "While the original poster was wrong in implying that a theory is less
> >>>than it actually is in science and Johnny is correct to correct the
> >>>record - Johnny clearly doesn't know much about evolution. Fossils
> >>>have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so much so that
> >>>new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
> >>>try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin. What's
> >>>seen in the fossil record is not evolution, but stasis. Let's hope
> >>>that the "professor" isn't in the biology department."
> >>
> >> Yep. Everything stated is absolutely true, and unlike Chickenshit, I
> >> can cite authoritative sources for everything I state.
> >
> > As was pointed out, what you stated was a strawman.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit. I *QUOTED* Johnny - and my refutation
> is DIRECTLY APPLICABLE to his statement.
>
> But why not simply QUOTE Johnny... then QUOTE the point I'm making,
> and show how something is a "strawman?"
>
> But you won't.

I`ve explained several times why your response was a strawman.

> >>> Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
> >>> ways.
> >>
> >> Chickenshit will be completely unable to show this by means of
> >> citations.
> >
> > I give examples all the time.
>
>
> Once again - I stated that "Chickenshit will be completely unable to
> show this by means of citations" - and I was 100% correct.

The argument was made in the first post. try addressing the points made rather than merely talking over them.

> Chickenshit ran again...

You refuse to support anything you say and claim victory.

> >> It's his opinion only, and means not much at all...
> >>
> >>> it tries to equate Darwin with evolution, when he was only one
> >>> contributor to the science, and not even the first.
> >>
> >> This is, of course, precisely what evolutionary biologists do...
> >
> > Support your idea that evolutionary biologists equate Darwin with evolution.
>
>
> No.

Interesting that you never feel the need to support anything you say.

> You know the rules... I never feel the need to "prove" something to
> you that you already know to be true.

I know all your crooked games by now. You make an assumption and treat your assumption as fact.

> You want me to cite?

I want you to support the things you say. Until you do they are empty claims and the points I make are unaddressed.

> THEN CALL ME A LIAR, AND STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT EVOLUTIONARY
> BIOLOGISTS DON'T EQUATE DARWIN WITH EVOLUTION.

Support your idea, just to see what it is like to support an idea you express.

> But you won't. You already know I'm right.

I know a lot of things about you, but that isn`t one of them.

> >> but

> >> you don't see Chickenshit complaining there...
> >>
> >> Indeed, Chickenshit would be the first to utilize Darwin's name if
> >> *HE* brought up the topic.
> >
> > Once you erect a strawman you won`t let it go.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

You are demonstrating that I am correct in this thread.

> >>> The idea is if he discredits Darwin he discredits the science,
> >>
> >> This is simply a flat out lie. I've said **NOTHING** that would
> >> discredit Darwin. Watch, as Chickenshit fails to quote ANYTHING I ever
> >> said that would lead an honest person to think I was denigrating
> >> Darwin.
> >
> > Does "discredit" mean the same as "denigrate"?
>
>
> YOU FLAT LIED - AND GOT CAUGHT!

You flat out got caught moving the goalposts.

> YOU CAN'T QUOTE **ANYTHING** I STATED THAT WOULD LEAD AN HONEST PERSON
> TO THINK I WAS SAYING WHAT YOU CLAIMED I STATED.
>
> Own it.

You`re an idiot desperate to win any point he thinks he can. When I said "Darwin", I wasn`t talking about Darwin, the person, I was talking about Darwin`s ideas, which you were attacking.

Just like earlier, when you said...

"You cannot cite showing that the fossil record actually supports Darwin, and you won't even try."

When you say "Darwin", there is an unspoken "Darwin`s ideas".

> >>> which isn`t true in the least.
> >>
> >> Of course it isn't... BEAT THAT STRAWMAN, CHICKENSHIT!!!
> >>
> >>> He really shows poor thinking when he says that new theories have
> >>> arisen with the purpose of validating Darwin, which assumes what he
> >>> hasn`t shown, that a pursuit of the truth wasn`t undertaken that led
> >>> where it led.
> >>
> >> And Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that this is the
> >> simple truth. You can't show a dishonest person that water is wet.
> >
> > By all means, support the idea that science is trying to validate Darwin.
>
>
> I'm happy to support any idea that I actually state, and that you
> publicly state is not true.

Everything you state that you don`t support is an empty claim. So why did you bother to respond at all if you weren`t going to address the things I say or support the things that you say?

> >> Punctuated Equilibrium, for example, was an effort to show that the
> >> fossil record could be brought in line with Darwin's theory.
> >
> > Begged. Show that the driving force behind this was to
> > rehabilitate or validate Darwin`d ideas.
>
>
> You know the rules, coward. Step up to the plate.

You advanced an idea, support it.

> > That ideas change as more information comes to light is to be expected.
> >
> >> The
> >> fossil record shows long periods of stasis, and the literally instant
> >> appearance of new species. This is *NOT* what Darwin himself expected
> >> the fossil record to show.
> >
> > Again, you make the idea of evolution and Darwin synonymous. They
> > aren`t. Science could care less whether a single idea of Darwin`s was
> > shown to be valid. It is a process to determine the truth, not a
> > personality cult.
>
>
> Notice that there was not a *SINGLE* word of my statement that
> Chickenshit could refute.

It was irrelevant to the argument. You keep proceeding as if your strawman is relevant to the argument. As pointed out, it isn`t. You haven`t made your case that Darwin and evolution and Darwin are synonymous, but you keep trying to proceed as if that is established fact.

> Tell us - why can't you deal with what **I** say, and not with what
> you *CLAIM* I said?

Your premise is faulty, so I am addressing the faults. It doesn`t matter what you claimed if your premise is faulty.

It was the fossil record that dictated changes in evolutionary thinking, the impetus was not to rehabilitate Darwin`s theory.

> >> Watch, as Chickenshit whines about what I stated, yet refuses to
> >> provide even a *SINGLE* citation that refutes what I state.
>
>
> Amazingly, another 100% accurate prediction!

You say nothing and expect responses. I made the points I wanted to make.

> > Just about everything you stated is a strawman to what .John
> > wrote. For some reason when your brain sees the word "evolution" it
> > substitutes it with "Darwin".
>
>
> Define "evolution."

Use that definition to support some idea you`ve expressed.

> (I predict that you won't...)
>
>
> >>> The underlying driving force behind this is bias, and Ben is
> >>> trying to undermine the science because he realizes that science is
> >>> the natural enemy of the supernatural nonsense he believes.
> >>
> >> I'm referencing science.
> >
> > You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of it.
>
>
> Prove it.

the case was made in the first post. But it was about evolution per se, it was more about the poor approaches you use regardless of the subject.

> >> Chickenshit is speculating...
> >>
> >>> Just like Ben read Mark Lane and wasn`t smart enough to realize he
> >>> was being fed a line of objectionist nonsense
> >>
> >> Here we have an empty claim... and one that has been rather thoroughly
> >> debunked by the over 400 posts that Chickenshit has simply run from.
> >
> > What does one thing have to do with the other?
>
>
> Your silence **PROVES** that you're wrong.

More support for my contention that you are a poor thinker.

> >>> he also buys into the Christian apologists who try to undercut the
> >>> science that they rightfully see as a threat to their silly belief
> >>> systems. "Ah-ha" says clever Ben, "this allows me to discount the
> >>> things I don`t want to believe".
> >>
> >> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of actually dealing with what I really say,
> >> so he simply makes things up...
> >
> > I`m making nothing up, you just are hiding your beliefs as usual.
> > It is classic "God of the Gaps", where God is interjected wherever
> > science doesn`t have definitive answers.
>
>
> So you believe that Niles Eldridge was proposing a "God of the gaps"
> argument?

Non sequitur.

> You're quite the moron.

You seem to think asking a question is making an argument.

> >>> So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the
> >>> assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking

> >>> soSmeones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth"

> >>> out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get
> >>> from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing,
> >>> same as with the assassination.
> >>
> >> How did we get the Tesla Model 3?
> >
> > Were there bird`s nests before there were birds?
>
> No.
>
> How did we get the Tesla Model 3?

Non sequitur to what you were responding to...

"So I did the same thing on this topic as I did with the assassination, and challenged him to, instead of merely knocking someones elses attempts to determine the truth, put his own "truth" out there for consideration. If there is no evolution how did we get from single cell to multi-cell animals? He, of course, had nothing, same as with the assassination."

Try to speak to what I said. Asking a question is not advancing an idea.

> >>> And the similarities to his approaches are similar in the topic
> >>> with the assassination in that he tries to make this argument into a
> >>> defense of Darwin, just like he tries to turn assassination arguments
> >>> into a defense of the WC. And it was really telling when he said...
> >>>
> >>> "The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any
> >>> evolutionist... and continues to be."
> >>
> >> This is, indeed, the root of the issue. I *CORRECTLY* pointed out that
> >> the fossil record doesn't support evolution.
> >
> > Not true.
>
>
> Define "evolution." Use an authoritative citation.

Why don`t you?

> >> I can cite until the sun goes down on this issue.
> >
> > Go ahead.
>
>
> You know the rules.

I know you never support what you say. This is because you have nothing but hot air to offer, you couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.

> >> But Chickenshit can't refute a single citation.
> >>
> >> And I'll offer just one to watch him squirm:
> >>
> >> "The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static
> >> entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the
> >> emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it.
> >> Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing
> >> to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."
> >>
> >> Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall, 'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982,
> >> p. 45-46
> >
> > What harm does that do to the idea that animals evolved?
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

Your ad hominem shows that you can`t show what one thing has to do with the other. The idea you were supposed to be supporting was this...

"The fossil record has *long* been a thorn in the side of any evolutionist... and continues to be."

Of course any evolutionary theory must conform to the available evidence. That doesn`t make it a "thorn", merely necessary to come to the correct conclusion. More information is not a hindrance when trying to determine the truth.

Like with the assassination, your thinking is skewed and flawed (that the WC/scientists aren`t searching for the truth), and you try to make the available information fit your skewed perspective. That was the point of this post, to expose that.

> >> Now, if Chickenshit wants to whine about "bad thinking" - let's see
> >> him Dunning & Kruger his way now...
> >>
> >>> Again, this assumes what he hasn`t shown, that "evolutionists"
> >>> aren`t in a search for the truth and that they are trying to
> >>> pigeonhole facts into a preconceived belief system.
> >>
> >> And you're a gutless liar. You can't debate what I ACTUALLY said, so
> >> you have to invent things.
> >>
> >> Let's see you quote where I said *ANTHING* that could be construed as
> >> this... and if not, let's hear you admit that you lied.
> >
> > "Fossils have repeatedly contradicted Darwin's original theory, so
> > much so that new theories like punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) have come along to
> >try to explain why the fossil record doesn't validate Darwin."
> >
> > You are stating that the driving force behind the process is to validate Darwin.
>
>
> Nope.

Yes, you did, you amde it all about Darwin, as if scientist aren`t just using the available information to come to correct conclusions.

> Indeed, my citation above *SUPPORTED* precisely what I said.

You couldn`t even say how it applied, opting for ad hominem instead.

> I can cite for my statements, you can't.

You refuse to support anything you say.

> And that fact tells the tale.
>
>
> Indeed, you're clearly too stupid to be able to concisely explain what
> my response to Johnny actually is.

Now I have to make your arguments also? If you have a point, be a man and make it and stop with the vague, cryptic "say nothing" responses.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:17:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:58:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hs> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hs> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
>>>> lies on your part...
>>>
>>>Begging the question. You have to establish the lies, not just assert them.
>>
>>
>> YOU made the statements... it's up to YOU to cite the supporting
>> evidence.
>>
>> If **YOU** cannot cite evidence for anyone other than Dr. Burkley
>> being Kilduff's source, then you've PROVEN yourself to be a liar.
>
> You're mis-stating my premise and what I said. Repeatedly.

You're lying again, Henry. I've REPEATEDLY quoted your exact words.

> And I've
> explained it repeatedly. You will continue to mis-state my argument
> because you can't rebut it. I've said all along his source doesn't
> matter to the point I'm making, that when Kilduff points to his
> temple, there no evidence he's indicating the direction of the bullet,
> he's indicating the general location. And the Z-film and the autopsy
> photos establish there was a massive exit wound in that location. A
> massive exit wound that would be hard to miss by anyone who saw the
> body. It matters not at all whether Kilduff saw the body, or Burkley
> saw the body and passed the information to Kilduff.

If it doesn't matter, why have you repeatedly lied about where Kilduff
got his information?

Why isn't the truth good enough?

> You want to avoid the point I'm making entirely to talk about
> something that has no bearing on the point I'm making.

Why do you have to lie about the facts in order to support the point
you're trying to make?

> And call me a
> liar and a coward because you can't rebut the point I'm making.
>
>Have at it.

I label you a liar because you've proveably lied... and I label you a
coward because you keep running away, rather than addressing it.

>>>> or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
>>>> the fallacy question.
>>>
>>>False dilemma in the two choices offered, Ben.
>>
>>
>> Then simply name the other possibilities...
>>
>>
>> But you won't.
>
> An obvious third choice to me being a liar or a coward is you
> creating straw men to attack and avoiding my point entirely.
>
>Hank

Honest and credible are always implied when I ask for other
possibilities.

It's not a "strawman" to point out that you've repeatedly claimed or
implied that Kilduff got his information from other than Burkley.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:06:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:59:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:09:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hs> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hs> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ben to call me a coward and a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Lie, and try to claim that I've not pointed out blatant and provable
>>>> lies on your part... or shown you a coward when you refused to answer
>>>> the fallacy question.

Notice that Henry had **NOTHING** to say here.

>>>Here's the point Ben is avoiding:
>>
>(adding it back after Ben snipped it multiple times).
> Back on the Amazon discussion boards when those were a thing, I had
> much the same response about something or other related to the JFK
> assassination, and Ben, having no other response, went on for several
> posts about how I didn't even know his first name (I referenced
> Sherlock Holmes) and of course Ben never addressed the JFK-related
> point I made. Par for the course. Anything to keep the discussion
> going and make it look like he had a point. Of course, the fact that
> everyone else knew what I was referencing when I referenced Sherlock
> didn't cause him any pause.
>
>Just had to share that one.

Up till now I've tried to refrain from calling you anything but your
real name, since for the most part, you've done that for me.

But your repeated insistence has changed that.

From now on, you'll be called "Huckster Sienzant"

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:19:33 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:42:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 1:41:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a recent post (John McAdams - Coward Extraordinaire!) Ben took
>>>>> on something John McAdams said over on the moderated board. The
>>>>> purpose of this post is to deconstruct some of Ben`s bad thinking and
>>>>> show how the bad thinking he shows in this response exists in
>>>>> everything he looks at. Here is what Ben postjacked from the moderated
>>>>> board and his response to it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chickenshit cannot, of course, CITE for any "bad thinking" on my part.
>>>
>>> See my first post.
>>
>>
>> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.
>>
>> Everytime I challenge you to back up your claims, you simply run away.
>>
>> EVERY.
>>
>> SINGLE.
>>
>> TIME.
>
> The argument that you are a bad thinker was made in the first
> post. The support for the idea was given in the first post. See the
> first post.

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

Once again, Chickenshit simply runs away...

[Bud]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c88Jxa48yPE/ai5VKd1tAQAJ

> Once again, Chickenshit simply runs away...

When the arguments go against you, you can be counted on to cut and run. Readers can find all the arguments that Ben couldn`t counter and points that Ben couldn`t address here...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c88Jxa48yPE/cdLT2agPAgAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:45:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Fortunately, that thread contains my refutation.

You lose!

>> Once again, Chickenshit simply runs away...
>
> When the arguments go against you, you can be counted on to cut
> and run. Readers can find all the arguments that Ben couldn`t counter
> and points that Ben couldn`t address here...

Notice that poor Chickenshit couldn't cite for even his VERY FIRST
CLAIM: "Ben`s response shows his fundamental poor thinking in various
ways. it tries to equate Darwin with evolution..."

Chickenshit's poor thinking & lack of scientific knowledge only went
downhill from there.

He simply ran away when challenged to cite for his claims.

[Bud]

Ben cut out the link, to hide all the arguments you had no answer to.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c88Jxa48yPE/cdLT2agPAgAJ

> Chickenshit's poor thinking & lack of scientific knowledge only went
> downhill from there.

Which is why you cut and ran from the arguments I made.

> He simply ran away when challenged to cite for his claims.

I laid out a premise in the first post and made arguments in support of that premise, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:57:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

>> He simply ran away when challenged to cite for his claims.
>
> I laid out a premise in the first post and made arguments in
> support of that premise, stupid.

[Bud]

Who says I haven`t?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:30:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

Watch folks, as Chickenshit will be completely unable to provide this
alleged citation.