How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
Ray Martinez
[Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
criticism:
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Martinez_user
The criticism contained no profanity or invective which means the
truth really hurt (banishment explained). I am also a Old Earth/Young
Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist. I also reject
the death penalty; minors being tried as adults; and I am very happy
to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress.]
The criticism in the link is mainly about Andy and Conservapedia
saying one thing ("we exist to counter the lies of Wikipedia") then
turning around and not doing it when a golden opportunity arose to do
just that. When the time came to counter the lie that Charles Darwin
was an Agnostic, when in fact we know he was an Atheist, Andy allowed
an Atheist Moderator (who intentionally dresses in sheeps clothing) to
reverse the truth and have Conservapedia say what Wikipedia says
(Darwin was Agnostic).
This Atheist Moderator at Conservapedia (TK) dresses his talk page
with scripture quotations:
http://www.conservapedia.com/User:TK
But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
contradict. Andy was shown that TK was a double agent but he did
nothing.
As we know, Conservapedia dresses its Front page with scripture
quotations, giving the appearance that they are pro-Bible, yet the
person most responsible for the "perception" that the Bible and
Genesis is wrong (Charles Darwin) is not an Atheist. It was said that
when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
His ruling says he is an Atheist. His belief about himself ("I am a
Christian") is explained the same way the Bible explains Judas:
deceived. Judas walked "with" Christ too ("I am a Christian"). Again,
you are as you argue and say and not as you label yourself is the two
contradict. Jones is an Atheist and like Judas, completely deceived
that he is walking with Christ because a real Christian would never
rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution created by non-
Atheists. The New Testament says that Jesus chose Judas knowing (in
advance) that he was a son of the devil from the beginning (John
6:64,70,71 KJV). The point is that we have an explanation for the
Judge Jones's and TK's of this world.
For quite some time now Conservapedia has been giddy over the fact
that the Los Angeles Times has endorsed their website. Conservapedia
has broadcast this endorsement everyday on their Front page for many
weeks now. We know the L.A. Times, along with the New York Times, is
THE MOST ultra-liberal, pro-ACLU, pro-evolution, anti-Bible-Protestant
hating paper in the country, yet Conservapedia considers their
endorsement something to be glad and happy about. Logically, something
is very wrong here. Why would Conservapedia be happy with an
endorsement by the L.A. Times and conversely, why would the L.A. Times
endorse Conservapedia?
Why didn't Conservapedia consider the endorsement of the ultra-liberal
L.A. Times an insult? Or, see their true agenda hidden in the
"endorsement"? Invulnerable logic says that the ultra-liberal L.A.
Times is not really endorsing CONSERVATIVE Conservapedia, but the same
is placating Conservapedia for a reason. Since Conservapedia is an
internet reality and since they do pose a threat to influence the
public and counter the agenda of the L.A. Times, the Times decided to
write a favorable review hoping Andy would be naive and bite. Andy, of
course, bought the thirty pieces of phony silver instantly. The L.A.
Times wrote the "favorable" review for one purpose. That purpose was
to influence Andy to maintain the "covert Atheist" agenda of keeping
double agents like TK around, persons whose real agenda is to protect
evolution, Charles Darwin and propagate the Atheist campaign of
"literal Genesis" (as if we should not believe what is written or take
it seriously = Atheist agenda) or slandering anyone to be a stupid
Fundamentalist who accepts Genesis creation to be true.
>From RationalWiki
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#Ray_Martinez
Quoting the L.A. Times:
"[Schlafly] promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems
administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain
articles from changes.
Even among this elite group, there's not ideological conformity. Terry
Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis
literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on
topics such as Fox News."
The L.A. Times is simply trying to salvage a voice at Conservapedia.
The above excerpt reveals their target agenda. In other words, the
L.A. Times is willing to give up an "endoresement" (logic says it is
phony since the liberal Times is not really endorsing a conservative
medium) hoping Andy will be thrilled (which we know he is) for the
sole purpose of including a compliment about our double agent and his
Atheist handling of the Bible. Of course, Andy, giddy with the
"endoresement" and wanting to keep it and show it off (why a
conservative would do this is inexplicable) will then seek to reward
the endorsement by keeping TK around.
The L.A. Times could care less about Andy and Conservapedia. They want
the Bible slandered and misrepresented and Darwinism promoted. They
write a phony endorsement and commend Andy for his "objective" choice
of Moderators - their only motive for the "endorsement." Since Andy
has accepted the endorsement by splashing it all over his Front page
he must now dig in his heels and ignore these facts, and he must, of
course, defend his actions. Far be it that he simply come clean and
admit that he got snookered by devious liberals at the Los Angeles
Times. Far be it that he admit to being temporarily outsmarted, ban
TK, and write a poignant piece on his Front page rejecting the
"endorsement" of his liberal enemy.
Ray
geo...@hotmail.com
>It was said that
> when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> His ruling says he is an Atheist.
Ray, you realise that by saying this, you are admitting that you know
the ID people were lying (they claimed ID has nothing to do with
religion) and you're still supporting them? Can't you see how
dishonest that looks?
[snip]
loua...@yahoo.com
Ray is unable to consider the possibility that any word or action of
his might be wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. I don't
know what the DSM-IV calls that exactly.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187898406....@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
Objective? Another lie.
Diz...@bfe.com
Delusional Disorder perhaps?
Kermit
The worst of religious fundamentalists are determinedly incapable of:
1. Seeing themselves as others see them;
2. Trying to understand another's point of view, or indeed,
acknowledging that they even have one;
3. Comparing any two of their own utterances to see if they are self-
consistent;
4. Considering the possibility that they do not, in fact, speak for
God.
5. Comparing their beliefs to physical reality. They might *say they
do, but this is a social skill for them. They've learned that in
arguments of legal cases or science, they are supposed to pretend that
their assertions match reality, but they really, really don't get it.
Kermit
John Bode
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
[snip]
> Ray
You are genuinely mentally ill. Nuts. Woo-woo. As in I think you
are a danger to yourself and others. I'd advise you to seek
professional help, except I know that it would be a waste of time.
I await the inevitable news report in which you are described as "the
kind of guy you'd never expect to do this."
The only question at this point is how many people you'll take with
you.
Shane
Ray has no problem with dishonesty, and is frequently dishonest. Some
would say that the fact that is so openly dishonest makes a mockery of
his claim to be some sort of christian, although Ray rejects that
position, maintaining that it's only when other people claim to be
christian that there can be any doubt. Happily, the bible, a book which
has some bits that Ray agrees with, readily identifies where Ray most
likely gets his morality from.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father
ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Inez
chris.li...@gmail.com
Didn't you just say he's exactly the kind of guy you would expect to
do this?
Chris
rupert....@gmail.com
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
>
They used to sell tickets to Bedlam, so the sane (or those not
currently deemed insane) could have a good laugh at the lunatics. It's
now deemed politically incorrect to mock the mentally ill, and almost
no mental health institutions now put their patients on display.
So, for those of us seeking some traditional entertainment, I hope Ray
stays out of the nuthouse for as long as possible.
Dick C
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
Any body who thinks that Andy Schlafly is anything but a rightwing wacko
is either totally insane, or further to the right that he thinks that Dick
Cheney and George W. Bush are liberals.
Face it Ray. You got banned because you posted a lie so bad that not even
Andy could face it, and we have seen what he is like before.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Lee Jay
> But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
> person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> contradict.
If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
TK advocates evolutionary positions.
Therefore TK is an Atheist.
Is that you position?
> It was said that
> when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> His ruling says he is an Atheist.
If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
Is that your position?
If you are liberal, you will accept an endorsement by the L.A. Times.
Conservapedia accepted an endorsement by the L.A. Times.
Therefore Conservapedia is liberal.
Is that your position?
Lee Jay
Greg Guarino
>Ray is unable to consider the possibility that any word or action of
>his might be wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. I don't
>know what the DSM-IV calls that exactly.
Most of us have at least a little of that particular character flaw.
Ray's condition is quite a bit past that. His writing makes it clear
that everyone who disagrees with him is not merely wrong; they are
identical. If they accept any facet of evolution, or stray in any way
from his religious views, thay are Atheist, Evolutionist, Racist
Idiots.
Makes life simple, I suppose.
Greg Guarino
rupert....@gmail.com
My position is in the howdah on Socrates' back.
Rolf
"John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1187910262.5...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
ignored my kind suggestions that he ought to talk to people at his church,
friends or other people that he trust, and have them look at some of the
things he write.
Does he ever talk to anyone but himself? When he posts here, he actually is
speaking to the monsters of his mind and not to anyone else.
DougC
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front,
If the first line is a paradox how scholarly can it be? I immediately
got discouraged about reading the rest of it.
Doug Chandler
Frank J
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
>
>
> The criticism contained no profanity or invective which means the
> truth really hurt (banishment explained). I am also a Old Earth/Young
> Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist. I also reject
> the death penalty; minors being tried as adults; and I am very happy
> to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress.]
Ouch! Next you'll be telling us that Average Joe and you are drinking
buddies.
Really, stop wasting your time with Schlafly and get that paper
published. Supposedly you are the only one with the science, so all
that religion and politics, "was Darwin agnostic", "did Behe really
say that the malaria parasite is designed", yada, yada, will all be
moot.
(snip)
Dick C
Yep, he is the only theist. All others are atheists.
>
> Greg Guarino
geo...@hotmail.com
Except that he's already told us his paper tackles religious themes,
which goes even more to evidence that his paper is a nonexistent sham
that includes whatever question he wants to run away from at the
moment. I mean, he can't even use logic here, where we repeatedly
correct him, so why should we bother wasting our time with what will
be more of the same shit, but even worse?
Fancy posting any excerpts from your invisible paper Ray? Five months
to go, you must have quite a lot there now?
John Bode
*I* think he is, but I'll bet when they interview his neighbors,
they'll claim to be shocked that he'd be capable of <fill in the
blank>.
Jeez, I could actually *hear* him frothing at the mouth while reading
that last screed.
JohnN
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
>
> http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Martinez_user
>
> The criticism contained no profanity or invective which means the
> truth really hurt (banishment explained). I am also a Old Earth/Young
> Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist.
"Creationist-Designist." Gods that's funny!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Greg Guarino
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I also reject
>the death penalty; minors being tried as adults; and I am very happy
>to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress.
Many people would use your own brand of "invulnerable" logic to
"prove" that the statement above makes you a traitor, a
liberal-atheist double-agent commie and a dupe of Satan. They might
even toss a few "equals signs" into the mix for good measure. And if
we lived in a world where there were only two or three ways to think
they might have a point.
Greg Guarino
*Hemidactylus*
> > <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ray is unable to consider the possibility that any word or action of
> >>his might be wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. I don't
> >>know what the DSM-IV calls that exactly.
>
> > Most of us have at least a little of that particular character flaw.
> > Ray's condition is quite a bit past that. His writing makes it clear
> > that everyone who disagrees with him is not merely wrong; they are
> > identical. If they accept any facet of evolution, or stray in any way
> > from his religious views, thay are Atheist, Evolutionist, Racist
> > Idiots.
>
> > Makes life simple, I suppose.
>
> Yep, he is the only theist. All others are atheists.
>
viewed Owen Lattimore. If he starts producing lists of known atheists
working in various institutions we are in for a real treat. Take
McCarthy's stance and morph it into a crusade against atheism (instead
of communism). Losing the battle over evolution in schools in certain
states could be like losing China. Ray getting booted from
Conservapedia is akin to McCarthy's censure from the Senate.
My MWCD10 defines McCarthyism as: "a mid-20th century political
attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be
subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on
individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations
esp. on the basis of unsubstatianted charges."
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 23, 1:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
> > person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> > Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> > what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> > contradict.
>
> If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
> TK advocates evolutionary positions.
> Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>
> Is that you position?
>
Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
> > It was said that
> > when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> > AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> > His ruling says he is an Atheist.
>
> If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
> Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
> Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
>
> Is that your position?
>
Yes, and I included other reasons, logic and facts.
Of course I never said CP was liberal. I said they got snookered and
outsmarted by liberals. You need to pay attention or, more likely, you
are misrepresenting because you cannot refute.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Classic "correction tactic" = rage caused by the inability to refute.
Since we know you are an Atheist who claims to be open for the
evidence of God and the Bible, but when shown you say it is not
evidence, thus the "openess" is exposed to be disingenuous, it is
understandable that you must rely on "tactics" to cover up your
intellectual shortcomings. Atheists, as a group, are not known to be
bright outside of evolutionary topics, anyway. In fact, they are just
plain stupid when it comes to everything else, especially the Bible,
history and general science.
Ray
geo...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 23, 7:59 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
> > > person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> > > Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> > > what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> > > contradict.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
> > TK advocates evolutionary positions.
> > Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that you position?
>
> Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
>
> > > It was said that
> > > when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> > > AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> > > His ruling says he is an Atheist.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
> > Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
> > Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Yes, and I included other reasons, logic and facts.
>
examples of the above logical arguments to show how wrong they are. I
advise you to try it yourself. Just interchange the words Atheist,
Evolutionary Positions, and Intelligent Design with words of your
choice and see how the argument doesn't make sense. That's logic,
baby. It only makes your claims of invulnerable logic more funny. It's
like watching a child trying to make sense of the world, the
difference being that while a child makes mistakes, they eventually
learn from them.
Bob T.
> On Aug 23, 7:59 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
> > > person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> > > Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> > > what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> > > contradict.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
> > TK advocates evolutionary positions.
> > Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that you position?
>
> Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
>
> > > It was said that
> > > when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> > > AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> > > His ruling says he is an Atheist.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
> > Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
> > Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Yes, and I included other reasons, logic and facts.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ray got pwned!!!
- Bob T.
<snip additional evidence of Ray being a fool>
geo...@hotmail.com
I'm not angry, Ray. I'm laughing. :)
> Since we know you are an Atheist who claims to be open for the
> evidence of God and the Bible
Yep.
>, but when shown you say it is not
> evidence
It isn't, Ray. It's a book. Your 'evidence' is actually the claim that
the Bible's veracity is confirmed by historical events. That still
doesn't prove God exists, or that the Bible is the word of God.
>, thus the "openess" is exposed to be disingenuous
I prefer to call it skepticism. Claiming the existence of an invisible
fairy who shapes man's destiny is an extraordinary claim which
requires more than a two-thousand year old book to confirm.
>, it is
> understandable that you must rely on "tactics" to cover up your
> intellectual shortcomings.
Like understanding logic, for example.
> Atheists, as a group, are not known to be
> bright outside of evolutionary topics, anyway.
Bwahaha!
I'm not even going to ask for evidence for that. I'm just going to let
the dumb insult stand. ^_^
> In fact, they are just
> plain stupid when it comes to everything else, especially the Bible,
In my experience, the real hardcore atheists know the Bible almost
back to front, and most of the regular ones can certainly quote more
verses than I can.
Tiny Bulcher
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>> On Aug 23, 7:59 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
>>> TK advocates evolutionary positions.
>>> Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>>>
>>> Is that you position?
>>>
>> Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
>
>
> A fish is an animal that swims in the sea.
> A whale swims in the sea.
> Therefore, a whale is a fish.
Oooh, I like this game.
An ape is a creature with hands.
Ray has hands.
Therefore Ray is an ape.
Ah, shit, actually Ray /is/ an ape, so that one didn't work.
A moral coward will never answer difficult questions.
Ray never answers difficult questions.
Therefore Ray is a moral coward.
Damn. Can't seem to get the hang of this logic thingie. Try again.
A paranoid narcissist believes only he is right, and all others are
wrong.
Ray .... oh, crap.
I'm not doing very well at this, am I?
Bob T.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in Zeus
Ray is a human who does not believe in Zeus
Therefore Ray is an atheist.
- Bob T.
*Hemidactylus*
became infatuated with her own reflection nor the resultant evil well
dwelling Japanese School Girl of the demiurge. He is an atheist on
both counts. You know what happens to atheists! JSG calls them on the
phone then sends scary Japanese boy and his gurgling mom over to the
house for a proselytizing visit. No watchtowers involved, but
eventually JSG crawls trough the TV set and sets the record straight.
Do you dare not believe in the FSM/JSG duality?
*Hemidactylus*
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Ray doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster whose wisdom became
> > infatuated with her own reflection nor the resultant evil well dwelling
> > Japanese School Girl of the demiurge. He is an atheist on both counts.
> > You know what happens to atheists! JSG calls them on the phone then
> > sends scary Japanese boy and his gurgling mom over to the house for a
> > proselytizing visit. No watchtowers involved, but eventually JSG crawls
> > trough the TV set and sets the record straight. Do you dare not believe
> > in the FSM/JSG duality?
>
> right? There could be some worth in worshipping Her. Disregarding, of
> course, all the sleazy comic books that have already been made about Her.
>
I rely solely on the Japanese "Ringu" movies, and "The
Grudge" (American version), and a vague knowledge of the Gnostics for
my syncretist theology about JSG. I'm not aware of the heretical works
you discuss. JSG shuld call the authors of these sleazy works
(mangas?) and send scary Japanese boy and his gurgling mom for a
proselytizing visit capped off by a TV extrusion of JSG. Tim LaHaye
has nothing that compares with this eschatology! Nobody gets beamed up
beforehand. They all fall victim to the girl in the well. Didn't you
see the movies???? Kirk Cameron and his Tribulation Force wouldn't
have lasted two minutes in these circumstances.
Earle Jones
John Bode <john...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Ray
>
> You are genuinely mentally ill. Nuts. Woo-woo. As in I think you
> are a danger to yourself and others. I'd advise you to seek
> professional help, except I know that it would be a waste of time.
>
> I await the inevitable news report in which you are described as "the
> kind of guy you'd never expect to do this."
>
> The only question at this point is how many people you'll take with
> you.
*
May I respectably disagree with you.
I think Ray is relatively normal (as Christian fundamentalists go). He
lets go occasionally and rants, "Fuck you!" That is a good sign.
Normal people get fed up and yell, "Fuck you!" The guy you described:
"the kind of guy you'd never expect to do this" is a quiet and
introverted soul. He finds a half-dozen guns and climbs up to the top
of Texas Tower and fires away at strangers.
That's not our Ray.
The most curious thing about Ray is that someone as obviously bright as
he is (he can spell, for God's sake!) fell for a line from someone as
obvious as Gene Scott. Falwell, Robertson, even Billy Graham would be
one thing, but Gene Scott?!! To me, that's hard to understand.
I suspect his forthcoming (?) paper will expand on his "the earth is old
but mankind is young" theme. In a gruesome way, I'm sort of looking
forward to it!
earle
*
_
_/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Earle Jones
JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Some days C-SPAN works for me.
>
> JohnN
*
Hooked on Phonics works for me.
Lee Jay
> On Aug 23, 7:59 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this
> > > person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> > > Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> > > what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> > > contradict.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
> > TK advocates evolutionary positions.
> > Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that you position?
>
> Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
>
> > > It was said that
> > > when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> > > AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> > > His ruling says he is an Atheist.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
> > Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
> > Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Yes, and I included other reasons, logic and facts.
[snip]
As you're doubtless aware by now, you have just admitted to stepping
squarely into a logical fallacy, and calling it "invulnerable logic".
It's called "affirming the consequent" and even though it's at
Wikipedia, it's worth a read, even for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Basically, arguments of the form:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
are in general fallacious. A number of examples, some humorous, have
been provided for you to help you understand why this form of argument
is fallacious.
I now think your belief in the logic of this logical fallacy is in all
likelihood the cause of your belief in Dr. Scott and what he says.
I'll give you some examples.
Smart people often get Ph.D.s
Gene Scott has a Ph.D.
Therefore Gene Scott is smart.
If you tell the truth, you are a smart person.
Gene Scott is a smart person.
Therefore Gene Scott always tells the truth.
You use similar arguments in support of the Bible stories.
You have just used these arguments in support of your contentions
about Conservapedia and about Judge Jones. These arguments are all
fallacious and I hope you have the intellectual honesty to learn that
such lines of reasoning are most certainly not "invulnerable logic."
Further, you should consider whether or not any of your past
conclusions are even true, given that this form of inquiry seems to be
the basis of many of your beliefs on many subjects.
Think about it. You're not a dyslexic or a moron like McClueless.
You've at least shown the ability to do some research and try to
understand things, even if you have used fallacious reasoning to come
to most of your conclusions.
I hope I didn't further delay your paper.
Lee Jay
DJT
> > If you are an Atheist, then you advocate evolutionary positions.
> > TK advocates evolutionary positions.
> > Therefore TK is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that you position?
>
> Yes, that is my position based on the facts and logic argued.
But, Ray, your position is not based on any facts, and any logic.
Don't you see how the above is totally illogical? The fact is that
not all atheits advocate evolution, and not everyone who advocates
evolution is an atheist. Therefore your position is based on a false
premise. False premise leads to a false conclusion.
>
> > > It was said that
> > > when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> > > AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> > > His ruling says he is an Atheist.
>
> > If you are an Atheist, then you are against Intelligent Design.
> > Judge Jones ruled against Intelligent Design.
> > Therefore Judge Jones is an Atheist.
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Yes, and I included other reasons, logic and facts.\
Again, your premise is false. Not everyone who is an atheist is
against intelligent design. Not everyone who is against intelligent
design is an atheist. Therefore your assumptions are illogical, and
false.
snip
> > If you are liberal, you will accept an endorsement by the L.A. Times.
> > Conservapedia accepted an endorsement by the L.A. Times.
> > Therefore Conservapedia is liberal.
>
> > Is that your position?
>
> Of course I never said CP was liberal.
That is, however what you are claiming.
>I said they got snookered and
> outsmarted by liberals. You need to pay attention or, more likely, you
> are misrepresenting because you cannot refute.
Ray, nothing you write is ever any effort to refute. Your buddies at
CP accepted the "endorsement" the same way that you lap up attention
from anyone who agrees with you. The fact that the LA Times said
something favorable about Conservipedia doesn't mean that anyone was
"snookered". It just means that the LA Times made an assertion.
DJT
DJT
snip
> > Except that he's already told us his paper tackles religious themes,
> > which goes even more to evidence that his paper is a nonexistent sham
> > that includes whatever question he wants to run away from at the
> > moment. I mean, he can't even use logic here, where we repeatedly
> > correct him, SNIP...
>
> Classic "correction tactic" = rage caused by the inability to refute.
Ray, your claims are laughably easy to refute. The only "rage" here
is your own, at your inablity to express yourself logically. Also,
if you say something that is obviously wrong, you will get
corrected.
> Since we know you are an Atheist who claims to be open for the
> evidence of God and the Bible, but when shown you say it is not
> evidence, thus the "openess" is exposed to be disingenuous, it is
> understandable that you must rely on "tactics" to cover up your
> intellectual shortcomings.
Ray, take a breath, you are raving here. Atheists, like anyone else
are open to evidence, if that evidence is presented in a logical, and
open manner. Your own idea of what constitutes evidence, however, is
qutie lacking.
>Atheists, as a group, are not known to be
> bright outside of evolutionary topics, anyway.
That's an interesting claim, do you have any evidnence to back it
up? While I'm not an atheist, I don't know of any studies done that
indicate that atheists, as a group are less intelligent than any other
group of people.
> In fact, they are just
> plain stupid when it comes to everything else, especially the Bible,
> history and general science.
Then why are they right more often about the above topics than you
are?
DJT
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Aug 24, 11:26 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Smart people often get Ph.D.s
> Gene Scott has a Ph.D.
> Therefore Gene Scott is smart.
This is not Ray's "logic".
It goes like this:
Smart people get PhDs
Gene Scott claimed to have two PhDs, which makes him extra smart.
Therefore Gene Scott's claim to have two PhDs must be true because
smart people must always be honest.
Anyone who disagrees with Gene Scott must be less smart than Gene
Scott and therefore dishonest.
It's all about Ray's mastery of the non-sequitur.
RF
Frank J
Worse - if his hints are accurate - what he attempts to confirm is a
*minority* interpretation. The 6-day YECs won't like it, nor will the
progressive OECs.
Of course you can count on the "big tent" IDers to ignore it. Or if
they get desperate, quote mine it.
>
> >, thus the "openess" is exposed to be disingenuous
>
> I prefer to call it skepticism. Claiming the existence of an invisible
> fairy who shapes man's destiny is an extraordinary claim which
> requires more than a two-thousand year old book to confirm.
>
> >, it is
> > understandable that you must rely on "tactics" to cover up your
> > intellectual shortcomings.
>
> Like understanding logic, for example.
>
> > Atheists, as a group, are not known to be
> > bright outside of evolutionary topics, anyway.
>
> Bwahaha!
>
> I'm not even going to ask for evidence for that. I'm just going to let
> the dumb insult stand. ^_^
>
> > In fact, they are just
> > plain stupid when it comes to everything else, especially the Bible,
>
> In my experience, the real hardcore atheists know the Bible almost
> back to front, and most of the regular ones can certainly quote more
> verses than I can.
>
>
>
> > history and general science.
>
> > Ray-
Richard Clayton
But his corrections are perfectly valid, Ray... because you're wrong.
Why are you so resistant to admitting error? You won't even accept that
you're wrong on simple matters like the distinction between slander and
libel. Learning from your errors doesn't make you stupid, it makes you
smarter.
And I notice you snipped the part where he invited you to post some
excerpts from your upcoming paper.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187977022.6...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Atheist's would queue at your door.
Or better yet, finish that paper! You owe us that!
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ray Martinez
> How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Aschlafly
>
> [Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a
> person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this
> criticism:
>
> http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_...
>
> The criticism contained no profanity or invective which means the
> truth really hurt (banishment explained). I am also a Old Earth/Young
> Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist. I also reject
> the death penalty; minors being tried as adults; and I am very happy
> to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress.]
>
> saying one thing ("we exist to counter the lies of Wikipedia") then
> turning around and not doing it when a golden opportunity arose to do
> just that. When the time came to counter the lie that Charles Darwin
> was an Agnostic, when in fact we know he was an Atheist, Andy allowed
> an Atheist Moderator (who intentionally dresses in sheeps clothing) to
> reverse the truth and have Conservapedia say what Wikipedia says
> (Darwin was Agnostic).
>
> This Atheist Moderator at Conservapedia (TK) dresses his talk page
> with scripture quotations:
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/User:TK
>
> person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent.
> Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are
> what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two
> nothing.
>
> As we know, Conservapedia dresses its Front page with scripture
> quotations, giving the appearance that they are pro-Bible, yet the
> person most responsible for the "perception" that the Bible and
> when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the
> AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative.
> Christian") is explained the same way the Bible explains Judas:
> deceived. Judas walked "with" Christ too ("I am a Christian"). Again,
> you are as you argue and say and not as you label yourself is the two
> contradict. Jones is an Atheist and like Judas, completely deceived
> that he is walking with Christ because a real Christian would never
> rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution created by non-
> Atheists. The New Testament says that Jesus chose Judas knowing (in
> advance) that he was a son of the devil from the beginning (John
> 6:64,70,71 KJV). The point is that we have an explanation for the
> Judge Jones's and TK's of this world.
>
How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Schlafly (Second
edition)
Ray
Richard Clayton
BWAHAHAHAH! Ray, instead of wasting time on self-aggrandizing Google
Groups pages and conspiracy theories about Conservapedia, why don't you
concentrate on finishing up your paper?