In addition to his contradictions in the thread above, notice the contrast between what he said about "dialogue", being "mutually edifying", etc. in our initial discussion and what he's doing now. Here's what he said earlier:
I have been rather saddened, I must admit, by your seeming lack of congeniality in the discussion. I understand that you disagree with me thus far, but you seem to go further in imagining that my positions are obsurd or grossly misusing the data. Do you really think that is the case? Do you see how my being in dialogue with such an individual immediately downgrades the quality of the discussion?...
I am more than capable of responding to each and every one of your rejoinders, and I am sure you are aware of that by now, but I do not find discussion with you for the aforesaid reasons, to be mutually edifying or on a proper footing. Best of luck to you. (source)
More cowardly "gatling gun" rhetoric, instead of informative discourse. Jason, you have little idea about my position or its relation to the data. That would take work on your part and character. Since when are laziness, misrepresenation, and arrogance Christian virtues?
If you want to interact with my position, then ask questions that unpack that position. Instead you just fire off your amatuer assault on strawmen congratulating yourself on how airtight your positions must be. Pathetic. (source)