God and Dreamtime stories.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 117
#61
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.

Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim. You just want to be the one that selects which claim is to be discussed, and TS won't stand for that bit of trickery.

But please read my post to Stephen. I'm also not interested in discussing TS with you. Discussing the topic is fine, but your personal opinion of him doesn't interest me. 

Stephen seems greatly interested in TS. Perhaps you and he can start a TS thread where you 2 can obsess about him without "interference". Does that appeal to you?
#62
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Checkmate
maybe he won't keep us awake.
Sorry that you let TS keep you awake at night. Can't control yourself, by yourself? Pity. That's not a great admission, but that's what you've said. Be yourself, everyone else is taken.
Topic's author
#63
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@fauxlaw
Haha, at least I don't spend the night dreaming about an invisible man who I hope loves me. 
Topic's author
#64
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
Nope. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". 

Stephen seems greatly interested in TS. Perhaps you and he can start a TS thread where you 2 can obsess about him without "interference". Does that appeal to you?
Why don't obsess, we're just having a chuckle at a confused lad of whom's PoV has been cleanly dissected. 

#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.

You just cannot help persistently embarrassing your friend, can you?

Show me where s/he has been correct on the matter of where the Burden Of Proof lays.
 



 

#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
-
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .


 
Do I?   It may well be because of something he may  have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree  with.

Or it could be that I may  value  the importance of  his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.

Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere  where it wasn't even asked for. 


 But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time  comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession? . s/he is welcome to do that of course and I couldn't stop him even if I wanted to. But I don't.


So lets look at just my last 14    threads starting from my last  and  what one could also construe as  "an obsession " , shall we.

 for instance here > https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters he joined the thread at post 4
joined Here post 53   where he was rather late to the party but come he did https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4518-when-will-they-ever-get-it-right?page=3

i'll stop there as I think you should  get the picture? 

But I don't consider  this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you? 

If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.

Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him.  I hope soon that s/he will wake up to realise that you do her/him no favours when you do this and make her/him appear to be quite retarded and incapable of handling her/his own.  When, with all of his/her qualifications , I am sure s/he considers her/him self  more than capable to live up to any challenge that comes his or her way.

And you probably didn't know but S/he does tutor and  lecture at universities you know, and so is more than prepared for any challenges that come her/his way from all those  curious students that are eager to learn from her/his own experiences with god and the scriptures and   that she doesn't even charge  but accepts a fee from the university.  Look >>> "I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them". #20

So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone butting in and speaking for her and making comments on her behalf that make her look  defenseless and incapable and stupid and silly.

If you were to ever once attempt to interfere   on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed and ask you to stop.  

And s/he certainly doesn't need anyone feeding him/her lines and questions to pose to others, that certainly leads to bad things.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument .

And the author  shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.

#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Checkmate
Nor do I. Sorry you think I do, but, your beliefs are your limitations, not mine. I have my own, thanks.
#68
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
Nope. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". 
As your argument on BoP was.

Why don't obsess, we're just having a chuckle at a confused lad of whom's PoV has been cleanly dissected.
Ok, but Stephen's chuckle sounds a lot like a whine. I've know TS a while, and I've read your posts, TS could run logic rings around you in his sleep. But if feeding yourself fairies tales makes you happy, more power to you.

Do you play chess?

#69
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.

You just cannot help persistently embarrassing your friend, can you?
No one is as perpetually embarrassed as you seem to believe Stephen. When you feel embarrassed, it is likely that you're the only one feeling so.

Show me where s/he has been correct on the matter of where the Burden Of Proof lays.
 TS believes tha,t "Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim." This is true and logical. Of course, that makes it less likely that you will agree with it.

#70
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .

Do I?
Yes, you do. You seem obsessed and angry at his credentials.

It may well be because of something he may  have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree  with.
Then take it up with him. Stop obsessing about him to everyone you post to.

Or it could be that I may  value  the importance of  his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.
It has nothing to do with me. Get a grip of yourself.

Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere  where it wasn't even asked for. 
How does one "interfere" on a public board? Do you want TS all to yourself?

I will skip the rant you went into about TS. I'm not interested. I'm not obsessed with him. I'm here to debate religion. What TS needs or doesn't need is of no interest to me, and I cannot fathom why you're telling me. Address what I say to you, and address to TS what He says to you. That is how sane people operate.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter..
That would be great, as this obsession of yours was already old 2 months ago.

I hope you won't mind if I remind you if you ever start obsessing on him again. Thanks.
#71
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
Show me where s/he has been correct on the matter of where the Burden Of Proof lays.
You just cannot help persistently embarrassing your friend, can you?



 TS believes tha,t "Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim." This is true and logical. Of course, that makes it less likely that you will agree with it.

 I did not ask YOU for   what YOU say  "Tradesecret  believes".   

And I don't even care what YOU say  "Tradesecrete believes".  That is not evidence of  her/him being "correct" or even "consistent" about anything at all as only YOU say she is and has been. Now support you statements.



 I asked you where she has been "correct and consistent" on the matter of the Burden of Proof that  ONLY YOU claim she has. 


 YOU can start by producing the actual evidence that s/he actually states what only  YOU say  she "believes".







#72
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5


-
@ethang5 wrote: You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .


 
Do I?   It may well be because of something he may  have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree  with.

Or it could be that I may  value  the importance of  his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.

Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere  where it wasn't even asked for. 


 But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time  comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession? . s/he is welcome to do that of course and I couldn't stop him even if I wanted to. But I don't.


So lets look at just my last 14    threads starting from my last  and  what one could also construe as  "an obsession " , shall we.

 for instance here > https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters he joined the thread at post 4
joined Here post 53   where he was rather late to the party but come he did https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4518-when-will-they-ever-get-it-right?page=3

i'll stop there as I think you should  get the picture? 

But I don't consider  this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you? 

If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.

Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him.  I hope soon that s/he will wake up to realise that you do her/him no favours when you do this and make her/him appear to be quite retarded and incapable of handling her/his own.  When, with all of his/her qualifications , I am sure s/he considers her/him self  more than capable to live up to any challenge that comes his or her way.

And you probably didn't know but S/he does tutor and  lecture at universities you know, and so is more than prepared for any challenges that come her/his way from all those  curious students that are eager to learn from her/his own experiences with god and the scriptures and   that she doesn't even charge  but accepts a fee from the university.  Look >>> "I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them". #20

So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone butting in and speaking for her and making comments on her behalf that make her look  defenseless and incapable and stupid and silly.

If you were to ever once attempt to interfere   on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed and ask you to stop.  

And s/he certainly doesn't need anyone feeding him/her lines and questions to pose to others, that certainly leads to bad things.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument .

And the author  shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.


#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, repeating your post in its entirety is spam.

And that spam does nothing to address the rebuts I posted.

YOU can start by producing the actual evidence that he actually states...
I posted what TS said. What else would convince you? An audio recording?
Is the statement true? If it is, then you are wrong.
#74
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
Show me where s/he has been correct on the matter of where the Burden Of Proof lays.
You just cannot help persistently embarrassing your friend, can you?


 TS believes tha,t "Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim." This is true and logical. Of course, that makes it less likely that you will agree with it.

 So you are speaking about what only  YOU believe someone else believes. Sorry, that is not evidence . So you have no evidence.


So show me a direct quote or simply Now leave me alone.  

 This is stalking and intimidation  for the sake of it

I have no interest in what YOU believe about what  Tradedsecret believes about the Burden of Proof.  Tradesecrete has made it more that clear what s/he thinks of the B of P   but you are just to dumb and lazy to have read all of this tread. 

 Spamming
Yes you really aught to consider the amount of times I have to repeat myself ESPECIALLY after  I made it crystal clear to YOU at post #53  Stephen : THAT 

" This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument" .

and you fall for it every time don't you?  Is it any wonder that your friend appears to have had the good sense to have  distanced him/herself from you. 

 So you chase as much as you like sunshine my answer will always be the same. 
#75
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So you are speaking about what only  YOU believe someone else believes. Sorry, that is not evidence . So you have no evidence.
The evidence is the persons post. That is all the evidence any of us have of what each other believes. Do you have any evidence other than that?

So show me a direct quote or simply Now leave me alone.
If you want me to leave you alone, stop replying my posts.

This is stalking and intimidation  for the sake of it
Are you intimidated?

I have no interest in what YOU believe about what  Tradedsecret believes about the Burden of Proof. 
Yet you prattle on about TS in every post you make! Does that not strike you as odd?

Tradesecrete has made it more that clear what s/he thinks of the B of P   but you are just to dumb and lazy to have read all of this tread. 
There you go again.


 Posting the same thing in its entirety is Spamming
Yes you really aught to consider the amount of times I have to repeat myself ESPECIALLY after  I made it crystal clear to YOU at post #53  Stephen : THAT 
" This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument" .
And then you went right on ahead and blabbered on the matter again!

...and you fall for it every time don't you?
Would that be your spamming or your stalking?

Is it any wonder that your friend appears to have had the good sense to have  distanced him/herself from you. 
Lol. TS is not "distancing" himself from me genius. He's avoiding his obsessed stalker.

So you chase as much as you like sunshine my answer will always be the same. 
In other words, spam. OK.
Topic's author
#76
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
Lmao stop being that one person who joins the conversation with nothing to add.
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
Lmao stop being that one person who joins the conversation with nothing to add.
If you think obsessive walls of texts about another poster is "having something to add" then I think I'll just stay being that one person thanks.

I don't like bullies, and I don't like stalkers. Off or on line. I confront them on it. And I disregard the people who ignore the harassment but want to blame the Confronter for the derailed thread. Sue me.

You can enable his obsession, or you can make a post on the topic. Your choice.
#78
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Checkmate
Lmao stop being that one person who joins the conversation with nothing to add.
He is being like very bichie like he is being unclean for seven days ha ha.
Topic's author
#79
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
No one is stalking no one. Stephen is simply pointing out flaws in someone's argument, which is the whole point of this website. 
#80
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
No one is stalking no one.
The mods don't seem to agree with you.

Stephen is simply pointing out flaws in someone's argument, which is the whole point of this website. 
Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living?  Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?

Your agreement with a persons position doesn't make that position correct. No poster's career, gender, age, race, or geographic location has no bearing on the correctness of their argument. That is what should be addressed, the content of their argument.

I will not tolerate harassment and bullying. And I will not excuse those who will pretend its OK because the bully agrees with their argument. Address the argument, not the person.
Topic's author
#81
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
No one is stalking no one.
The mods don't seem to agree with you.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on the situation. 

Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living?  Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?
No, it's just funny to know that a reverend lawyer is being bamboozled about religion and law. You would think that the professionals among us would have some sort of bearing on what they are saying. 

I will not tolerate harassment and bullying.
Oh wow, thanks, this is a massive case of bullying we have on our hands isn't it?
#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
No one is stalking no one.
The mods don't seem to agree with you.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on the situation. 
You seem to think you're up on it already. The best defense against knowledge is to think you already know.

Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living?  Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?

No,...
That's all you needed to say. The rest is just your anti-theist bias masquerading as logic.

I will not tolerate harassment and bullying.

Oh wow, thanks, this is a massive case of bullying we have on our hands isn't it?
It isn't on your hands. You just stay on topic like a good boy and you'll be fine. The people equipped to handle it are on the case.
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

 Spamming
Yes you really aught to consider the amount of times I have to repeat myself ESPECIALLY after  I made it crystal clear to YOU at post #53  Stephen : THAT 

" This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument" .

and you fall for it every time don't you?  Is it any wonder that your friend appears to have had the good sense to have  distanced him/herself from you. 

 So you chase as much as you like sunshine my answer will always be the same. 

Topic's author
#84
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Stephen
Honestly, if you want my advice, stop replying to this guy. He clearly has nothing in store except for pretty threats. 
#85
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Just a heads up, you're spamming the exact thing over and over. Maybe you don't know that you're doing it. But if you're spamming deliberately, then never mind and carry on.

I hope you feel better soon.
#86
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Checkmate
All cultures claim creation by a god or gods. 

Coincidence? I think not.
#87
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Havent seen you in a while, nice to see you around
#88
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
Same here Jane. Hope you had a good holiday.
Topic's author
#89
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
I don't understand how he is spamming. He only posts as a response to you...
#90
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
When you burn Stephen and he has run out of intelligent things to say, he posts the exact same response to multiple conversations in multiple threads. He even tells us that his post 83 is spam of post his 53. Post 53 was addressed, he ignores my response to post 53 and spams post 53 again in post 83.