rationalskepticism.org

Nevets wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: At least make the effort to read the source you quote.
William was Duke of Normandy, not king.

I never ever said he was. I said William was "the first Norman king of England".t

Abject fucking lie.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2736043

Nevets wrote:And if we go to William the conquror in 1066, he was a direct descenant of Rollo, the Roman Catholic, and William was also the first king of England, a position he assumed during the early Norman invasions

Your argument is extreme.
The Normans became catholicised.
The whole point is how they connect to the pope.
My link clearly says, First Norman King of England.
If i said "first king of England", it is because i made a typo error, and forgot to include Norman, which goes against my whole point, which is pointing out the Norman conquer of England in 1066 and its Catholic elements.
But the entire argument is based around the Norman invasion, and implimentation of Catholicism, and religion.
You are strengthening my argument by pointing out my typos. Not weakening.

I suspect you will now pick me up on "the normans becoming catholicised", because you will take it literal, and claim that i am claiming this means "all" normans in the world became catholicised, and not only just those rulers from Normandy, even though i did not explicitly include that in my statement.

You're talking shit Nevets. Everyone can see I made no 'argument' at all - just pointed out your lie (in red) where you claimed not to have said X yet I cited you saying exactly that.

In the previous thread, you made a claim that was wrong. I corrected the claim. Rather than acknowledge your error, you just waltz off into La La land spinning out more and more distractions that aren't confusing anyone.

And you're lying again. You expressly claimed that William the Conqueror was the first King of England. I cited you saying it, I cited the link wherein you said it, and I don't think it's really difficult to convince people at this point that the reason you abandoned that thread to start this one is because you want to bullshit that the prior conversation never happened.

There were no 'typos' and you're just blagging an argument now that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of conversation that was being discussed when you made that false claim.

I don't know if you think you can sow enough confusion here to sneak this bullshit past people, but you're going to find that people are just a bit too clued up to be misled.