WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

A busy day today and likely will be outa town tomorrow. Gotta get some sleep. May God bless all!

The destruction of the Temple appears nowhere in the list of events given by Mark or Matthew. I've asked you more than once to show otherwise - and every time you run away. Because it isn't there.
If you honestly thought that it was there then you would at least quote the relvant verse or verses rather than running away.As I said the mention of the destruction of the Temple is NOT part of the Oliver Discourse proper - it is a remark made by Jesus. And the disciples ask Jesus to say when it will happen and say what the signs of its happening will be - and the answer to THAT is the list of prophecied events. In Mark and Matthew there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in the answer at all, so the only sensible place to put it is at the end.I pointed all this out in the first discussion in the "Prophecy for Buzsaw" thread. I still haven't had an adequate answer.My first post in *this* thread simply alluded to a subject you have repeatedly run from discussing. That was why there was no need to say any more.

It's not that long, and we are talking about the whole thing.In Mark the introduction is 13:1-4 and the remainder of chapter 13 (5-37) is the Discourse proper.In Matthew the introduction is 24:1-3 and the remainder of the chapter (4-51) is the Discourse properIn Luke the introduction is 21:5-7 and the Discourse proper is 21:8-36The destruction of the temple is explicitly mentioned in Mark 13:2,
Matthew 24:2 and Luke 21:6 (Luke's siege and fall of Jerusalem is in 21:20-24)In every case Jesus remarks that the Temple will be destroyed and the Disciples ask to be told when it will happen and what the signs will be that it is about to happen - and the answer to that is the Discourse proper. Buz is trying to argue that the initial remark should be considered the first item in the list of events. But that's such an obvious distortion that it is hard for me to accept that he actually beleives it himself.

I will point out that if this is not really your problem then it is in your interest to work at changing behavior so it does not seem to be a problem you have. I am being completely honest in saying that it appears to me that when the chips are down you cut and run.I should also point out that you are not being singled out (at least not by me). I have already stated that I called schraf on this issue. She admitted this was a problem she had with me.And while I do not have THAT problem, I do have my own set of problems. Clearly you are correct that I have a problem (not always but enough of the time) with length of my posts, and schraf is right that I make statements which (althought not meant, certainly can come off as) putting words in her mouth, or extending her position.I also can be a little overenthusiastic at times, hyperbolic if you will, an irony since I blast into that in others.No one is singling you out for blame, but you ARE catching the blame for an apparent behavior. If you are as innocent of this as you claim you are, then you need to make adjustments (which you seem to be doing already so that's cool) to alter this appearance. Have you seen his comments to me regarding my position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Join the club.(edited in to risk the threat of lightning bolt)... heheheh, I should add something which you might like. I do believe, and have stated to him before, that I think the King is guilty of the cut and run as well, specifically with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-07-2004 06:01 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Why can't you and Schraf stop the generalized insolence about my conduct and work with the content of my op by pasting each item and documenting specific discrepancies on my part concerning each.

---

For goodness sake, buz, I HAVE DONE THIS.In fact, I did it 100 posts ago, and you didn't reply.You complained in another post about a lack of specific examples, and I provided post numbers AGAIN, and you didn't reply.So, here they are FOR THE THIRD TIME.From message #134:

quote:

---

I have asked you to go to my op and critique specifics I have posted in my defense, but no, all you care to do is malign my character by these generalized bogus charges that you have not been willing to document and that my accusers have failed to document also, though they tried their best.

---

You've just given a pretty good description of one of the ways you get yourself into so much trouble. You echo a statement you've heard or read somewhere but that you don't understand, in this case "Evolution is no more disprovable than the supernatural". Then you support it with spurious arguments and cut-n-pastes that you also don't understand. When told the arguments and cut-n-pastes are nonsensical or irrelevant you compound your error by arguing they are too sensible and relevant, even though by your own admission you don't really understand the issue, and of course everyone else could already see you didn't know what you were talking about, anyway.As I said in this thread a long time ago, I think you would be better served to focus your efforts away from having to always be right, and toward trying to understand what you're talking about. In the future, only offer cut-n-pastes because they said it better than you could, not because you don't understand it well enough to say it yourself. If you don't understand it, don't discuss it. Or at least don't offer opinions on it.By the way, as I said at least a couple times, requesting that you reply forthrightly to the falsification issue was intended as an opportunity for you to demonstrate that you could actually respond forthrightly to an issue. I specifically instructed that it wasn't to be interpreted as a change of topic, and that respondents should comment on how well you met the challenge of responding forthrightly, and not on whether they agreed with the content. Assuming you read where I said this, I can only conclude that your evasive approach to discussion continues unabated.--Percy

My, my, what nice folks. Schraf n Percy on a mercy mission for poor ole unrepentant skidrow buzzy boy who hasn't yet learned to debate. Magine that!!

Mmm, well then why is it that I always pegged you as a hussie? When was that? Mmm, yah, especially the ever so biased counterparts who let their own cumbodies off the admonisment and censorship hook with narry a peep piped when they mess up. Post 45 is a divergent from the topic. You people seem to want to focus on this because you think you've found a way to make me look silly rather than on my op and those cut and run charges. You and Percy are doing you dead level best to draw me into this science debate when all I did was answer crashfrog with a simple off the cuff opinion on his statement and I ainta gona be drawn into your trap. Allowing you to do this to me is also not good debate tactics if you want to talk about debate skills and imo, breeches the forum guidelines.If I tried to do this to you, Percy, or one of your own people I'd likely get a warning from admin to forget it and get back to topic. Right? Right! Yes. Have you? Great deal? Great deal, Schraf? Another one of your generalized falacies. Mean, Schraf, mean, you sinister manipulating confuscative hussy! You've isolated outa context just one of the minor points among a number of major reasons given for this leadership hypothesis. I'm not exactly sure why I was restricted, but I've learned by it to be careful about how I exercise common sense and logic in the science arena here in town. It's advertized as EvC here, but like in the falsification problem we're engaged in, it's more like EVc. You gotta watch how much "c" you incorporate into your argument or you find yourself in hot water in town here.There, now, Percy and Schraf. I've responded to 55 so far as the topic goes and it took me so long that's all I can handle for now as I 've been outa town all day. I don't think and post fast, so bear with me. The posts seem to mount up faster than I can get to them. If I post in a hurry, I mess up, but then, of course iyo, I mess up anyhow, so whattaheck? Talk to you later.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-08-2004 12:03 AM Put quote from Schraf in a quote box. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 09-08-2004 07:57 AM

Buzz, we're up to 158 messages now, why are you responding to #55 from a week ago? Do you really have no clue that such maneuvers are evasive because you're ignoring the current discussion? Wrong. Saying this now for the fourth time, I requested that you support your "Evolution is no more disprovable than the supernatural" statement in a forthright manner to demonstrate that you understand what "responding forthrightly" means, and to demonstrate that you're capable of doing so. And I instructed members to respond to whether you achieved those goals, and not to the actual content.The moderator role is a voluntary position. Moderators are EvC Forum members who willingly give up their time to help the forum run smoothly and to be a credit to the Internet community. All the moderators constantly complain about a shortage of time, and none of them are interested in wasting even more time setting traps for members, and especially not ones of the transparent sort you're imagining here.As I have said over and over and over again, Buzz, it is your behavior, not your viewpoint, that is the problem. Your unconstructive approach is highlighted merely by the fact that a couple of paragraphs ago I was actually repeating something for the fourth time because you have yet to respond constructively to it. We have two examples from this thread alone, falsifiability and the Olivet Discourse. This brings us back to the topic of moderators. Much effort has been expended recruiting Creationist moderators, to no avail. When Creationists make as much of a contribution moderating this forum as evolutionists, then if things don't become more to your liking you can start complaining about the small "c", but you can complain to the Creationist moderators. Until Creationists step up to the moderator plate and face the pitching like the evolutionists, complaints like this will fall on deaf ears. How many times do we have to tell you that there's no time limit? Take all the time you like. I'd much rather you reply constructively once a month than evasively several times a day. And please, no more replies to messages from last week.--Percy

quote:

---

Mmm, well then why is it that I always pegged you as a hussie?

---

Probably because you would rather remember me that way than any other way.You have made your views on women quite clear.

quote:

---

When was that?

---

Years ago.

quote:

---

Mmm, yah, especially the ever so biased counterparts who let their own cumbodies off the admonisment and censorship hook with narry a peep piped when they mess up.

---

Um, excuse me?There are several banned and suspended evolutionists, last time I looked.

quote:

---

Post 45 is a divergent from the topic. You people seem to want to focus on this because you think you've found a way to make me look silly rather than on my op and those cut and run charges.

---

OK, fine.Reply to the other two examples I gave, in posts #54 and #59.

quote:

---

You and Percy are doing you dead level best to draw me into this science debate when all I did was answer crashfrog with a simple off the cuff opinion on his statement and I ainta gona be drawn into your trap. Allowing you to do this to me is also not good debate tactics if you want to talk about debate skills and imo, breeches the forum guidelines.

---

As percy said, he has asked you to provide a forthright response to message #45 to demonstrate that you can do so, purely as an example, and the rest of the participants in this thread are to evaluate the forthrightness of the response and not engage in a debate regarding the science.I am willing to do this, to be sure.

quote:

---

If I tried to do this to you, Percy, or one of your own people I'd likely get a warning from admin to forget it and get back to topic. Right? Right!

---

But, that's not what is happening, buz.

quote:

---

Yes.

---

Which ones were those? I thought you said that you couldn't remember?

quote:

---

Have you?

---

Yes. I have had to change my opinion on pornography, on humanv sexuality, and on several political issues.

quote:

---

Great deal? Great deal, Schraf? Another one of your generalized falacies.

---

Well, I cannot say "all", because that would not be true. There is some of what you say that stands up to rational scrutiny.Since I have not doen a actual count of things you have claimed, buz, I cannot give you an exact number of things you've said which are false.My impression of you as a debater, however, is that a lot of what you claim is false and does not stand up to rational and critical scrutiny.I have provided you several examples in this thread; "evolution is no more falsifiable than the supernatureal", "most male animals lead", "God uses fatal illness to punish groups of people for engaging in immoral behavior", and "split rocks are a sign of the exodus having happened like in the Bible."

quote:

---

Mean, Schraf, mean, you sinister manipulating confuscative hussy! You've isolated outa context just one of the minor points among a number of major reasons given for this leadership hypothesis.

---

...and that claim is totally and completely false anyway.Putting it in context would not change what you were claiming, would it? Please explain how I have changed the meaning by mentioning it in isolation.

quote:

---

I'm not exactly sure why I was restricted, but I've learned by it to be careful about how I exercise common sense and logic in the science arena here in town.

---

What you were doing, as I recall, is making factual claims, which others refuted with evidence. Then you would ignore all of the evidence in favor of your own opinion. When it was explained to you that your personal opinion was irrelevant regarding scientific issues, and that science is conducted via evidence, you went on, repeating your original unsupported assertions/opinions, this time calling them "common sense".You were restricted because you didn't want to support your ststements with evidence. You just wanted to repeat them as if they were true and ignore the data that contradicted your "common sense opinions".

quote:

---

It's advertized as EvC here, but like in the falsification problem we're engaged in, it's more like EVc. You gotta watch how much "c" you incorporate into your argument or you find yourself in hot water in town here.

---

Well, does "C" have evidence to support it, or just "Your Honest Opinion" and your "common sense"?

You know, where I'm from, we don't use that kind of language to talk about women; at least not where men of character might hear.I know that Schraf is above drawing attention to these disgusting slanders, but I won't sit still for them. Maybe you think that's an "ok" word, but where I come from, it has a meaning that no decent person would even countenance connecting with a person like Schraf.

You're upset at "hussie"? I was thoroughly amused because Buzz both dated himself and demonstrated he couldn't spell all at the same time. But I think the definition he intended was "bold, saucy girl", a definition Schraf would probably agree with, but sinful behavior from the perspective of Buzz, who believes that women should yield graciously to men's wishes. I guess we all kind of wish that, but where would be the challenge? --Percy

Where I'm from, I guess, that's a word that people use instead of "slut" or "whore".Anyway, I don't much care for Buz's patronizing tone when he talks to Schraf that way - "dear", etc. I can just see him at his keyboard, with a look of annoyed frustration that somebody let their breeder onto the forum.

While I wouldn't take back anything I've said, I think me and Schraf have been pretty hard on Buzz, too, with the labels and the patronizing treatment.If I were female and were given the choice of being either a slut or stupid and ignorant, the choice would be easy. No, you can't have my phone number!--Percy

Percy, It means slag, slut, prostitute where I'm from. But if that's not how Buzz meant it, & not how Schraf took it, then fair enough. No point taking offense where none was intended. A triumph of hope over expectation on my part...Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't