newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

Unfortunately, I didn't think to make a note of the post numbers, or copy them into my computer. All I remember for sure is that, yesterday, he posted that he thought there were many different imaging eye types around from which he thought that the vertebrate eye could have evolved. In other words, he was trying to imply that the vertebrate eye might have been derived from any of them, and I implied that this is false. However, today, I noticed that that entire discussion had vanished. (Which means that the mods must have removed it.)

If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

DavidMcC wrote:

scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

[aside]Now that this thread as gone so wildly off-topic, I might as well mention that, in fact cdesignpropentsist and newolder were the main FTL-ers, with newolder storming out of the debate (throwing insults at Albert Einstein on the way, IIRC), while cdesgn... merely fell silent.[/aside]

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

The thread reeks of your imaginings that people have hidden agendas.

It isn't imaginatioon, Sendraks, it's a rational conclusion,

False, it's either delusional or dishonest straw-man, as I've repeatedly made it clear why I respond the way I have.

That's your opinion,

DavidMcC wrote: and I suppose you're entitled to it. However, that does not make it correct.

DavidMcC wrote: mainly from TE's flagrant disregard for the OP topic,

Still hypocritical bullshit David. You pulled your own thread off-topic with baseless accusations and insinuations aimed at interlocutors.

DavidMcC wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:plus his obsession with attempts to draw an insult out of me.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Because you're obvious trolling this much to distract from the beatings you keep giving your wife.

Bizarre! Truly bizarre!

DavidMcC wrote:I notice that most of the people currently on-line are guests. What must they think of a site that contains such absurd posts as yours!

DavidMcC wrote:

theropod wrote:Just what, exactly, have I assumed? Did I assume you, David, placed an arbitrary cut off date on tracing the origin of the vertebrate eye? No, that was you. Did I lump all atheist into a single group and then use a well know evolutionary biologists as an example of misguided thinking? Nope, that was you again. Did I address you personally, or quote any of your posts in this thread? Nope, I commented on the topic, and provided my own thoughts independent of yours.

This obsession with me is becoming quite tedious. No matter the content, or formulation, you distort my posts to make it all about you. Just fucking stop. I really find your posting behavior to be increasingly disturbing, and down right irrational. If you actually think I spend my time mulling over ways to chip away at your fantasy version of reality you have become a candidate for institutional help. This latest claim that some of my posts in this thread have been removed is a clinical example of pure delusion.

Just so you can rest easier, and maybe dismiss some of your fabricated demons, I will never again comment on any position you may take on any subject on this forum. I am making a public vow to ignore anything and everything you post. Those memebers aware of my posting history, which includes cases of self punished suspensions, can relate to you that such a vow will be honored. So, continue to misrepresent, belittle and attack me at your pleasure. I will no longer play a role in this insanity.

RS

Your posts are now as bizarre as TE's.

DavidMcC wrote: And yes, your recent erroneous posts (and my replies) have been removed, and it can only have been done by a mod.

DavidMcC wrote:
I can only assume that you two are tryig to convince me that this is some kind of mad-house, and that I will snap, throw insults at you, and get suspended, or even banned.

DavidMcC wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

It is David’s belief that moderators remove posts in order to make him look bad.

Actually, no, it was likely more to save RS from looking bad. There's a subtle, but real difference.

DavidMcC wrote:

scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

[aside]Now that this thread as gone so wildly off-topic, I might as well mention that, in fact cdesignpropentsist and newolder were the main FTL-ers, with newolder storming out of the debate (throwing insults at Albert Einstein on the way, IIRC), while cdesgn... merely fell silent.[/aside]

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

DavidMcC wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.

Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.

scott1328 wrote:
Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.