DavidMcC wrote:
Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.
Still blaming others for your own behaviour eh?

This tricky subject causes much confusion among atheists
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
DavidMcC wrote:
Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.
DavidMcC wrote: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?
OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).
Fallible wrote:DavidMcC wrote:newolder wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
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?
OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).
This didn't happen. Do you remember a few years ago when you made similar accusations that your posts had been removed? You were certain. Surprise surprise, it turns out they hadn't been, and you climbed down and, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, admitted you were mistaken. You're mistaken again. I was seriously worried about you that time. To see you claiming exactly the same thing now has me worried all over again. The mods can't seem to manage to deal with most reports within the same week, how likely do you honestly think it is that they can be bothered to follow a thread, monitor it and single out one post to delete? There's 4 of them, total, and one of them hasn't even been online for a year and a half.
DavidMcC wrote:So in your mind, once guilty always guilty? On this occasion at least, no-one is going to tell me I just imagined a post that I had made the prevuious day, along with the post from RS that it was in response to, The fact is that Roger made a mistake of eye biology/evolution, then deleted it, but not before I had replied to it, so he had to use his influence with the mods to have the whole thing air-brushed out. Remember, Roger's area of expertise is skeletal evolution, not eye evolution.
DavidMcC wrote:Fallible wrote:DavidMcC wrote:newolder wrote:
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?
OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).
This didn't happen. Do you remember a few years ago when you made similar accusations that your posts had been removed? You were certain. Surprise surprise, it turns out they hadn't been, and you climbed down and, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, admitted you were mistaken. You're mistaken again. I was seriously worried about you that time. To see you claiming exactly the same thing now has me worried all over again. The mods can't seem to manage to deal with most reports within the same week, how likely do you honestly think it is that they can be bothered to follow a thread, monitor it and single out one post to delete? There's 4 of them, total, and one of them hasn't even been online for a year and a half.
So in your mind, once guilty always guilty?
DavidMcC wrote: On this occasion at least, no-one is going to tell me I just imagined a post that I had made the prevuious day, along with the post from RS that it was in response to, The fact is that Roger made a mistake of eye biology/evolution, then deleted it, but not before I had replied to it, so he had to use his influence with the mods to have the whole thing air-brushed out.
DavidMcC wrote: Remember, Roger's area of expertise is skeletal evolution, not eye evolution.
DavidMcC wrote: but I DO know that Roger was over-reaching himself on eye evolution (before withdrawing the claim, that the vertebrate imaging eye coud have evolved from any invertebrate imaging eye, that is).
DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar" and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".
DavidMcC wrote:
He used that exact word. Didn't you notice?![]()
Of course, it is only him making stuff up about me, trying to brand me a liar, perhaps to cover for his own failings (as a poster of zero-content posts, whose only purpose is to smear).
DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar"
DavidMcC wrote: and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".
DavidMcC wrote:I don't know why you accuse me of "well-poisoning"
DavidMcC wrote: - which "well" would that be,
DavidMcC wrote:but I DO know that Roger was over-reaching himself on eye evolution (before withdrawing the claim, that the vertebrate imaging eye coud have evolved from any invertebrate imaging eye, that is).
DavidMcC wrote:What "evidence" would that be?
DavidMcC wrote: For starters, I posted a whole thread on the subject years ago, including many scientific references.
DavidMcC wrote:It included work by Lamb et al, which I referenced here only the other day, but there was much more. How you can just ignore that, I've no idea. Perhaps you just put your hands over your ears and go "la-la-la"
I recently re-posted quite a lot on a serious science site, but I'm reluctant to give details, because you might go and make a mess of it, giving the page manager a head-ache.
DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, ignoring TE's irrelevant wibble,
Sendraks wrote:DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, ignoring TE's irrelevant wibble,
Yes, amazingly convenient that you get things back on topic when Thomas where he points out the numerous problems with your comments and also dismiss what he says as "irrelevant wibble."
Pray tell, who is the audience you're trying to convince that what Thomas said is "irrelevant wibble"? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, audience is you and you alone.
DavidMcC wrote:
You shouldn't do yourself down so, Sendraks.
DavidMcC wrote: Of course TE's posts here are irrelevant - irrelevant to the biology and evolution of the vertebrate eye -which he hasn't yet mentioned in his posts.![]()
DavidMcC wrote:Can you tell me what I said in the past that got you so angry, and siding with his irrationality?
DavidMcC wrote:Sendraks, I'm sorry to see that you share TE's propensity for driving the topic way off, and even go so far as to praise him for it!
DavidMcC wrote:You are just like TE, with his "provoke David at all costs" attitude. (Never mind the thread topic, the mods won't mind you ignoring it, even if it does damage recruitment to the site.)
Return to Evolution & Natural Selection
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest