Saturday, February 25, 2006

Ex post facto

Although there are bigger issues, it looks like we need to set the record straight once more:

In Exbeliever’s version of events:


In spite of the blazingly clear statement that John was adding to my post, steve (a village idiot):

1) attributes the comment to me--"posted by exbeliever"


No, I didn’t attribute the comment to exbeliever, but to the post or poster (if you prefer). Indeed, it wasn’t even my own attribution. That was a direct copy/paste from his own post. I simply excerpted the relevant material.

“posted by exbeliever” was itself posted by exbeliever.

Only a “moron” or “village idiot” or “crap-brain” like exbeliever could miss the “the blazingly clear” referent.


2) writes some response to John's comments (that I didn't bother to read), and says, "So that, Exbeliever, is the proper exegesis of these verses."


Yes, since I’m responding to something on his post. The post goes under his name. He is the responsible author.

If exbeliever has a complaint, he should redirect his complaint to Loftus. Loftus was the one who hijacked exbeliever’s post instead of doing his own post. I’m not responsible for the editorial and administrative screw-ups at Debunking Christianity.

And, of course, his whole exercise is a diversionary tactic to distract attention from the substantive comments which he is impotent to rebut. Cute decoy, but the rubber ducky doesn't look like the real quarry.

No comments:

Post a Comment