Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Obvious_child lie

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211

    Obvious_child lie

    From post 62in the recent "numbers" thread, obvious_child called me a liar.

    This is a step by step example of how it all came about, and it shows how long and drawn out the details in these kinds of things can be. I believe those who do what obvious_child did hope that most peoples' attention span is too short to notice it. There may be many who will not have the patience to read through this. It will be interesting to see how many read this and determine if I am right or wrong. Comments?

    The Numbers thread was started by obvious child on 1-30-08, taking exception to my claim in a recent earlier thread that multiple posters opposing only one poster of another view can be questionably unfair. My first paragraph of post #4 - my first response read like this;

    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000
    When a number of posters on a forum such as this answer questions for each other, (answer questions not directed at them) it shows a lack of confidence in the person at whom the question was directed. That can often relieve the original questionee of the responsibility of answering the question. When there is a gang of posters against only one, no one member of the gang has much, if any, obligation to the debate.
    I also made this more clear in post #7.

    Obvious_childs response in post #14 read like this;

    "How does that show lack of confidence?" He also said in that post;

    Originally posted by obvious_child ] How does that prove that the majority are wrong?
    If I ask Electro what 2 + 2 is and if TQ answers, does that anyone wrong on the basis of who outnumbers who?
    That was all he said about that topic in post #14.

    My post #18 responded to his “how does that show lack of confidence” question like this;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] By being afraid that the original person won’t answer it as well, or forcefully enough to maybe drive the one poster away, so he can be taunted. You do it all the time.
    And in the same post, I answered the “If I ask Electro…” question like this;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] No, but these debates aren’t about anything that simple, and you know it. Worldview differences aren't as simple as 2+2.
    Some other irrelevant things went on up to post #35. He answered my “by being afraid” answer like this;

    Originally posted by obvious_child ] How are we afraid that the other person won't answer it? In many instances we know that the person won't answer for various reasons. Many people just post what everyone already knows. You don't have any examples of this where this is actually occurring. The archangel examples are all of us asking him to defend his positions and address ours. You won't find any of his where he actually defends his position and addresses points against him.
    I then quoted the first sentence of this paragraph only;

    "How are we afraid that the other person won't answer it?"


    And my response was;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] You show it by answering in his place.
    SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING HOW EVOLUTIONISTS ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR EACH OTHER. ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT – CAN EVERYBODY SEE THAT CLEARLY?

    My paragraph then continues;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] If it were a 2+2=4 question, as you falsely imply that these type of debates are, you would let him answer it, since the question was directed at him, and since it only has one answer. By answering for him, you are showing that your answer may be more complete, or forceful than his answer would be. This shows that it is not as simple as 2+2=4. Then, the person who was originally asked the question won’t answer it in a direct, basic way, he will expound on YOUR answer from different angle, or a more complex angle, often demanding more proof or sidetracking the issue. As the debate goes on, the burden put on the single poster constantly multiplies.
    His response to my point “they show it by answering in his place” was;

    Orignially posted by obvious_child ] And if they never answer? We all know that creationists are fundamentally some of the weakest debaters out there. It took 20 pages before an creationist tried to argue that my arguments against the flood were not valid.

    His implication was clearly that one evolutionist has a right to answer for another since there is always a chance that the original EVOLUTIONIST will never answer, since creationists are such lousy debaters. My response was;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] They always answer, show me where they don’t.
    Then he put up links showing where CREATIONISTS didn’t answer his questions!!

    My response in post #50 went like this;

    Originally posted by marc9000 ] This is UNBELIEVABLE. We’re now going to do an experiment, we’re going to find out the extent of just how much two gang members really stick up for each other.

    ELECTROLYTE, this question is for you. Read it carefully and make sure you understand it. The topic was how multiple evolutionists will answer the same question posed by a creationist. The reason given was that maybe the original evolutionist won’t answer the question right away or at all, so another evolutionist is justified in answering the question. My claim is that the original evolutionist always answers the question, that there’s no need for someone else to answer for him. My accusation was that uncertainty in the original questionee is shown by others by answering for him. Obvious_childs question was, “how does it show uncertainty”? My response was, "you show it (uncertainty) by answering for him". His question was, “and if they never answer?” And my response was above, “they always answer, show me where they don’t”. AND HE POSTS THREADS WHERE CREATIONISTS DON’T RESPOND TO HIS TOPICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT CREATIONISTS ANSWERING, I’M TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTIONISTS GIVING MULTIPLE ANSWERS!

    He’s LYING, he’s deliberately trying to frustrate and confuse, exactly the way multiple posters try to frustrate ONE creationist poster!
    It was quite a revelation, and I wanted to see how someone else who generally “sides” , or “gangs up” with this poster would dance when pressed to give their opinions about this exchange. It was quite a dance as anyone can see. (“I digress, wait no, I don’t digress”, etc)

    In the following post, obvious_child lied again, by saying this;


    Originally posted by obvious_child ] To my quote of which asked "And if they never answer?" which was obviously in the context of creationists.

    I then gave you four examples of where creationists never argue.

    Seriously. You're caught red handed.
    It was obviously in context of evolutionists, and obvious_child knew that. And then he accused ME of being caught red handed! How amazing is this?

    Now that we have the “liars corner” forum, will obvious_child admit his lie? Will others who generally agree with him come here, do a dance and call me wrong in this case? Or will they come here and show some objectivity by admitting what I’ve shown?
    Last edited by marc9000; 02-20-2008 at 06:35 PM.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    I've asked Marc9000 to edit the post a little to make it more clear about where obvious_child accused him of lying per instructions on the forum description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forum Description
    If someone claims you are lying, you can use this forum to have them prove it. A quote and a link to the accusation are mandatory. Keep it to one specific accusation per thread. Remember, being mistaken or wrong is not necessarily lying.
    Last edited by Steeeeve; 02-20-2008 at 06:54 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I've asked obvious child to edit the post a little to make it more clear about where obvious_child accused him of lying per instructions on the forum description.
    No, you asked marc9000 to!
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,691
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000 View Post
    His implication was clearly that one evolutionist has a right to answer for another since there is always a chance that the original EVOLUTIONIST will never answer, since creationists are such lousy debaters. My response was;

    Quote:
    Originally posted by marc9000 ] They always answer, show me where they don’t.

    Then he put up links showing where CREATIONISTS didn’t answer his questions!!
    marc, we've already been over this. child was unclear. The antecedent of "they" was switched without specification. If you look at the rest of his comments -- even the ones you've quoted -- it is clear that child was saying that the creationists don't always respond. He says that creationists are notoriously weak debaters. He posted examples of where creationists don't respond.

    As much as you'd love to show that someone set out to purposely confuse you, this isn't such a case.
    Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds that crawl.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    At worst I see here is a misunderstanding. If an actual accusation of lying can't be demonstrated, the thread will be closed.
    Last edited by Kronus; 02-20-2008 at 07:19 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by electrolyte View Post
    Where's the accusation that Steeeeve is trying to confuse you?
    Read the quote in MY post - I see he's now corrected his innocent mistake. It's really no big deal.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus View Post
    At worst I see a misunderstanding here. If an actual accusation of lying can't be demonstrated, the thread will be closed.
    If it would have been just a misunderstanding, he wouldn't have accused ME of being caught red-handed. If he innocently misunderstood, he would have re-acted differently.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000 View Post
    If it would have been just a misunderstanding, he wouldn't have accused ME of being caught red-handed. If he innocently misunderstood, he would have re-acted differently.
    You haven't specified the accusation. Give the specifc quote and the specific link to the one accusation you want substanciated.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000 View Post
    If it would have been just a misunderstanding, he wouldn't have accused ME of being caught red-handed. If he innocently misunderstood, he would have re-acted differently.
    Not at all. Your post made it clear, after reading mine that the discussion was about the alleged weakness of evolution backers. You claimed that they [evolution backers] always answer each other for some asinine reason. I claimed they answer because Creationist rarely or never do. You then stated "that they always do" for which I then supplied evidence in the form of four links to four separate threads that creationists do not answer threads or questions.

    Hence why I stated you got caught red handed when you tried to argue that we the positions of the non-answering parties were switched as I clearly showed that creationists do not answer threads or questions where you claimed that creationists did in contrast to my initial claim about why evolution backers answer each other's threads: because creationists don't.

    Perhaps we should ban the use of pronouns?
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  10. #10
    SpicyGirl Guest
    I'll have to agree with Mark. Anytime you have a bunch of people gang up on one person, its because they are not strong enough to stand on their own in a debate. So they relay on others in their group to distract from the original question, and before long no one has to answer the question because everyone has gotten so off-topic that the real essence of the topic is lost.

    Granted, this is an open debate and others will express their views. But it is quite another thing when you have two or more of the same people constantly badgering a member, on almost every topic he/she posts on. It's a sad day in debate world when the ones who consider themselves good debaters, cannot debate without an entourage. That really shows a great deal of weakness.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by SpicyGirl View Post
    I'll have to agree with Mark. Anytime you have a bunch of people gang up on one person, its because they are not strong enough to stand on their own in a debate.
    Except all of us can hold our own. many of us even have offers for one on one. many of those go unanswered.

    Even still, are you actually agreeing with his insane idea that numbers actually prove who is right rather then the arguments themselves?

    So they relay on others in their group to distract from the original question, and before long no one has to answer the question because everyone has gotten so off-topic that the real essence of the topic is lost.
    Except that hasn't happened here.

    It's a sad day in debate world when the ones who consider themselves good debaters, cannot debate without an entourage. That really shows a great deal of weakness.
    Then you believe that marc must be a poor debator as he doesn't stay on topic, uses the glish glop, relies on personal insults and ignores posts left and right.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  12. #12
    SpicyGirl Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    Except all of us can hold our own. many of us even have offers for one on one. many of those go unanswered.

    Even still, are you actually agreeing with his insane idea that numbers actually prove who is right rather then the arguments themselves?
    No, I didn't say that numbers prove who is right, because nothing can change the information. BUT, I'm saying that several people jumping on one person in a debate tends to lead the topic off of a debate and into a childish flame war. As a matter of fact, I believe that, that point is what Mark was trying to explain. I've seen you and your crew, gang up on him on several occasions. It seems as if you have a personal problem with him. Anytime there is the doubt whether a poster is just trying to prove a person wrong because they don't like that person, instead of just trying to state their case. Then it tends to make the offender's argument constantly seem rather weak, and vicious.

    And if you can Hold your own, why do you constantly need to be backed up by the same people. Why not just debate with whoever you're debating with one on one?! And why is it that you don't take people up one their offer for a one on one?! Is it because you can't do one on one?! Or are you saying they don't want to challenge you one on one?! Because if that is the case, it's probably because they are not interested in what you want to debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    Except that hasn't happened here.
    You sure about that?! I beg to differ with you.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    Then you believe that marc must be a poor debator as he doesn't stay on topic, uses the glish glop, relies on personal insults and ignores posts left and right.
    Read what you quoted better then that. Because what was quoted, and what you just said, are not on the same page. I do believe that I was talking about people who like to argue in a group. Not personal attacks.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,943
    Why not just debate with whoever you're debating with one on one?! And why is it that you don't take people up one their offer for a one on one?! Is it because you can't do one on one?! Or are you saying they don't want to challenge you one on one?! Because if that is the case, it's probably because they are not interested in what you want to debate.
    I give you these

    Speaking of "the same gang jumping in", I notice you're primarily active in forums Marc's posted in, and you only seem to be posting to defend him. Why is that?
    "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
    Isaac Asimov

    "Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived"
    Oscar Wilde

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by SpicyGirl View Post
    No, I didn't say that numbers prove who is right, because nothing can change the information. BUT, I'm saying that several people jumping on one person in a debate tends to lead the topic off of a debate and into a childish flame war. As a matter of fact, I believe that, that point is what Mark was trying to explain.
    Wrong. Marc9000's entire point, which tried to dishonestly weasel out of was that numbers define who is wrong. His first post stated absolutely nothing about the arguments themselves. This has been a long running annoyance for me and electro on Marc. But he's massively dishonest anyways.

    I've seen you and your crew, gang up on him on several occasions. It seems as if you have a personal problem with him. Anytime there is the doubt whether a poster is just trying to prove a person wrong because they don't like that person, instead of just trying to state their case. Then it tends to make the offender's argument constantly seem rather weak, and vicious.
    He won't own up to his dishonesty. What is so wrong about hounding him on that? And Marc has consistently failed to refute anyone here.

    And if you can Hold your own, why do you constantly need to be backed up by the same people. Why not just debate with whoever you're debating with one on one?! And why is it that you don't take people up one their offer for a one on one?! Is it because you can't do one on one?! Or are you saying they don't want to challenge you one on one?! Because if that is the case, it's probably because they are not interested in what you want to debate.
    See T.Q's post for how you are wrong.

    You sure about that?! I beg to differ with you.
    Cite examples.

    Read what you quoted better then that. Because what was quoted, and what you just said, are not on the same page. I do believe that I was talking about people who like to argue in a group. Not personal attacks.
    You should learn the context of this discussion instead of just jumping in blindly.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  15. #15
    SpicyGirl Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    Wrong. Marc9000's entire point, which tried to dishonestly weasel out of was that numbers define who is wrong. His first post stated absolutely nothing about the arguments themselves. This has been a long running annoyance for me and electro on Marc. But he's massively dishonest anyways.
    Then why do you keep challenging him to a debate if he does these things?! I would think that if a debater is this annoying you would want to try and ignore him. Instead you continue to challenge him, and so-called annoy yourself, and him. If you don't respect a debater, why keep debating with him?! Because you have a personal problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    He won't own up to his dishonesty. What is so wrong about hounding him on that? And Marc has consistently failed to refute anyone here.
    Do I smell personal problem?!



    Quote Originally Posted by Obvious_child View Post
    See T.Q's post for how you are wrong.
    Actually, it only shows that I'm right. One of the topics/challenges you put up is to harass the same person you've been hounding since you've been here. As far as your invitation to me. Take a look at my response to that on the thread you made.





    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    You should learn the context of this discussion instead of just jumping in blindly.
    Actually I did learn the context, and I responded the way I saw fit. Not my problem if you don't like it. Plus, you still did not touch on anything I said in the last thing you quoted me on. All you're doing now is trying to be insulting. Be a little more mature dear. Silly comments like this is not a good way to win a debate with me.
    Last edited by SpicyGirl; 04-03-2008 at 12:10 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •