Today @ 04:19 PM post located here
jpholding:

Till:
Well, anyone with a lick of critical sense can see that my opponent is not answering my arguments/rebuttals but is simply asserting that he has already answered them. As I have said umpteen times, if he really has answered them, why doesn't he quote those answers? That is what I do when he claims that I haven't answered his arguments. I search for my previous answers, find them, and requote them, and I am probably the biggest computer klutz in this forum.

My Opponent:
Told ya for the umpteenth time. The formal start of my answer is in Gaffe Thread 2. Beat that and you can save yourself some typing.

I have told my opponent that I will not reply to his allegation of a "gaffe" # 2 until he replies to my rebuttals that he has evaded in "gaffe" #1, so if he wants my reply to #2, he will have to answer my rebuttals to #2. His introduction of a #2 is simply an attempt to shift attention away from his inability to reply to my rebuttals of # 1.

My opponent's tactic is to evade my arguments/rebuttals by claiming that he has "already" answered them somewhere else.

My Opponent:
By chance did one of those tornados blow away your ability to go there?

Nope, I have been to number 2. I replied to it in the second-round rebuttals at www.theskepticalreview.com. If I debated like my opponent, I would simply make the claim that I have "already" answered this and let the matter go with that. However, I will be very happy to cut and paste my replies here if my opponent will just reply to my #1 rebuttals.

If I repost rebuttals that my opponent has evaded in the gaffe #1 thread, will he reply to them? If so, I will gladly repost them. If he refuses this request, I will not reply to his allegation of a second gaffe.

To give him the opportunity to reply to rebuttals he has evaded in thread #1, I will repost just one of my rebuttals that he has not yet answered.

1. Yahweh promised to the Israelites all the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River over to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea on the west at the going down of the sun.

2. Both Gaza and Jerusalem were within these borders.

3. Joshua 21:43-45 said that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land that he had promised to their fathers and that the Israelites had possessed and dwelt in this land.

4 My opponent claims that the Israelites did not take Gaza and Jerusalem during the initial conquests before it was said that the Israelites had possessed and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised.

My opponent must therefore explain how the Israelites could have possessed and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised if they had not at that time possessed and dwelt in Gaza and Jerusalem.

I predict that my opponent will again evade this argument, yet he expects me to leap whenever he starts another thread to draw attention away from his evasions.

Nope, I have looked at the Gaffe #2 thread and have seen that I have indeed already answered it in my first- and second-round rebuttals in the land-promise exchanges at www.theskepticalreview.com. I will be glad to cut and paste those replies here when my opponent replies to my rebuttals that he has evaded in the Gaffe #1 thread.

Why does he seem to think (1) that he can reply to an argument by just saying that he has "already" answered it but that his opponents must show the replies that they have already posted, and (2) that he is entitled to set the agenda by starting threads that his opponents are obligated to go to immediately.

Thread #2 is an obvious tactic intended to draw attention away from his evasions of rebuttals in #1, and I do not intend to accommodate his evasion. When he answers my rebuttals in #1, I will gladly reply to his allegation of a gaffe #2.

To assist him in replying to rebuttals he has evaded in thread #1, I will repost one of my arguments.

1. Yahweh promised to give to Abraham's seed all of the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River over to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea at the going down of the sun.

2. Gaza and Jerusalem were within these borders.

3. Joshua 21:43 claims that Yahweh had given to the Israelites all the land he had promised and that they had possessed it and dwelt in it.

4. My opponent claims that Gaza and Jerusalem were not taken by the Israelites at this time.

He must therefore explain how the Israelites could have possessed and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised them if they had not at that time taken Jerusalem and Gaza.

I predict that he will ignore this argument again or else claim that he has "already" answered it but not show us where he has already answered it.

Does my opponent want me to reply to his allegation of a second gaffe? I will gladly do that when he replies to my rebuttals, like the above, that he has evaded throughout the #1 thread.

Watch him evade this again.


Moderator note: Mr. Till you have been warned repeatedly about back to back post to the same poster. This time you have back to back responses to the same quote from the same poster What I have done is copied your second post and pasted them after the appropriate quote from JP in the first post inthis color. I do this so you can not accuse the moderators of somehow "protecting" JP because of your inability to follow the very simple rules. Your second post responding to the same quotes will be deleted. This is a time consuming process, and I will not do it again. Next time I will just edit your post like I should have done this time. Please do not violate this rule again.

Faramir.

In rides FTill, spinning in the middle of a tornado named Holding!

I have told my opponent that I will not reply to his allegation of a "gaffe" # 2 until he replies to my rebuttals that he has evaded in "gaffe" #1, so if he wants my reply to #2, he will have to answer my rebuttals to #2

Ah, yes, the usual rationalization scheme. I begin my answer to your stuff in #1 over in #2, but gee, Farrell, the above makes no sense. If I want you to reply to #2, I will have to answer your rebuttals to #2? Whazzup wit dat?

His introduction of a #2 is simply an attempt to shift attention away from his inability to reply to my rebuttals of # 1.

Doesn't make much sense if what is in #2 is the beginning of how I would reply to #1. Are you sure you weren't spun by a tornado? Sorry -- you're obviously trying to poorly imitate my own exposure of your lame manipulation tactics, but JPH is here with the firstest, the mostest, and the most accurate. You're a pale second. Your techniques are outdated and on the run.

I replied to it in the second-round rebuttals at www.theskepticalreview.com.

Er, no you didn't. You're waaaaaaay behind the times. That's all from my Round 3 replying to your Round 2. If you cut and paste you'll be way out of date. But that's nothing new.

If I repost rebuttals that my opponent has evaded in the gaffe #1 thread, will he reply to them? If so, I will gladly repost them. If he refuses this request, I will not reply to his allegation of a second gaffe.

Then you can sit here and rant to yourself. Meanwhile Gaffe Thread 3 goes up tomorrow. But who cares? You're way behind on every reply to me; you're wallowing in your own mud of starting new topics all the time; you're pounding your chest with a new challenge every five minutes. How does it feel to smoke your own crack?

I guess we'll leave it to your enterprising slaves to do the job. Like Stevie "Posting While Stoned" Carr.

I almost pity you. But not quite.