Battle Royale Rules

[me again]

Come, let us reason together.

Come, let us reason together.

• Posted by Knight
  I thought you once said you were a police officer? I am really beginning to wonder about you.

Well, it doesn't make me a bad person!!!

I'm also a detective and am in charge of a special unit. In the civilian world, I have achieved a Bachelor of Science and am diligently working on a Master of Arts. I may or may not pursue a Ph.D. It remains to be seen. If the Lord needs me to have it, then I'll pursue it.

I'm actually a very nice guy and I always try to be fair in everything I do. I try not to be motivated by malice or revenge because it tends to cloud the judgment, which results in poor decisions being made. I have been in the presence of what appeared to be "incarnate evil" due to being in law enforcement. But police work is drastically different then judging someone over an internet forum. On an internet forum, the only thing that we can judge others by is by their printed words. Without voice inflections, subtle body mannerisms, hand gestures, facial expressions and eye contact -- It becomes even more difficult to judge the motivations of people.

Before I became a cop, people used to say "you're too nice to be a cop," but nonetheless, the Lord called me to this profession. I'm really a softie and a liberal at heart. Maybe I'm too nice on the internet too (except for my argument with Jay Bartlett which, by the way, was my first argument ever with anyone on an internet forum).

If Evangelon is in the wrong, then I just don't see it. I just don't see any malice, ill will or bad intentions on his part. But maybe I'm too naïve and too trusting. Time will tell.

You threw in your two cents about my job, so I thought I'd give you two dollars in return. Wonder no more!!!

If my words have offended you, then please accept my apology.

 

[Freak]

When will evangelion catch on?

When will evangelion catch on?

Evangelion,

You said: I agree that I have bent (and broken) the rules on several occasions!

Then leave it at that.

We know you have bent the rules and have at times broken it!

What I did was a mistake for not being more clearer. But your claim to plagiarism is wrong. I did in fact reference the material I used. But, the fact is you dislike me and nothing I say will change your mind. I have exposed your cult and will continue to do so.

Now to Me Again,

Just drop it. You admitted your error now move on like a big boy (I mean detective).

 

[Evangelion]

:down:

 

[Freak]

In response to my last post Evangelion posts: :down: and a

Hmmmmm.....

I just simply quoted you. You admitted you were in fact in error, now just leave it at that.....

For you have admitted: I agree that I have bent (and broken) the rules on several occasions!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh "E" what will we do with you? Comprehension can be so hard for you at times!

You say...

Everyone from Jaltus to Pilgrim agreed..

[sarcasm] Oh I didn't realize that........ case closed then! [/sarcasm]

You continue....

I already did this in my previous post. Your statement tacitly implies that plagiarism is legitimate under certain conditions. Hence my use of the word "corollary."

No.... my statement implies that what Freak did was in error and probably wrong. But, I don't consider what Freak did plagiarism in any real sense. Therefore my statement doesn't even come close to implying that plagiarism is appropriate at times.

Your wrong on this whole issue, just like you were wrong on the tax fraud issue and the smoke plume issue. Why not just admit your error and move on? Oh yea.... nevermind.... there's that issue with your bloated ego.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Me again writes...

Well, it doesn't make me a bad person!!!

No, but it could mean you are not a very good police officer. Do you now agree that a question can also be an accusation?

You continue...

If Evangelon is in the wrong, then I just don't see it. I just don't see any malice, ill will or bad intentions on his part. But maybe I'm too naïve and too trusting. Time will tell.

Of course you don't see it! You don't see it because you don't want to see it.

You continue...

You threw in your two cents about my job, so I thought I'd give you two dollars in return. Wonder no more!!!

Actually I never made any statement about your job. I was only demonstrating hypothetically that a question can also be an accusation which you had denied.

 

[Evangelion]

Knight -

No.... my statement implies that what Freak did was in error and probably wrong.

That's not what you implied - that's what you said. An implication is another thing entirely.

Which is why I wrote:

• 
  The corollary of this...
  
  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  What Freak did was not appropriate. Maybe even wrong.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  ...is that there are occasions when plagiarism is right. This is tacitly implied in the words "maybe even wrong" - which, at the very least, clearly means "Freak's plagiarism was not wrong."

Note the use of the word "corollary."

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm simply pointing out the other side of the logical coin - an implication which results from the necessary corollary of your own statement.

But, I don't consider what Freak did plagiarism in any real sense.

Your opinion about what constitutes plagiarism and what does not, is neither here nor there. A definition exists which is independent of your opinion, and that's what the rest of us are working with.

*snip*

Your wrong on this whole issue, just like you were wrong on the tax fraud issue and the smoke plume issue.

ROTFL... I already challenged those who accused me of slandering Freak, to explain how my tax issue comment could have been remotely plausible (i.e. a genuine accusation, instead of a joke), and nobody stepped up to the plate - not even you. Case closed.

And I was not wrong on the smoke plume issue, because I never contradicted your smoke plume claim in the first place. Case closed.

Why not just admit your error and move on?

Because I haven't made one.

Oh yea.... nevermind.... there's that issue with your bloated ego.

No, there's that issue with your fanatical desire to find fault with everything I say, regardless of whether or not you have a legitimate grievance. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Freak]

Ladies and Gentleman, we have liar in our midst and his name is Evangelion

Ladies and Gentleman, we have liar in our midst and his name is Evangelion

David Burke (Evangelion), when will you ever learn?

Knight stated: Why not just admit your error and move on?

In which David (Evangelion) responds by saying: Because I haven't made one.

Ladies and Gentleman, another lie by David.

This is simply amazing coming from someone who ealier stated: I agree that I have bent (and broken) the rules on several occasions.

Evangelion had indeed admitted to making some errors. Your words indict you David!

Does your fellow Christadelphians know that you lie? This sin, according to your founder John Thomas, can cause one to lose ones salvation. Are you in danger, David, of losing your Christadelphian salvation ?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What a joke!

What a joke!

"E" writes...

ROTFL... I already challenged those who accused me of slandering Freak, to explain how my tax issue comment could have been remotely plausible (i.e. a genuine accusation, instead of a joke), and nobody stepped up to the plate - not even you. Case closed.

LOL! Your a hoot! You have your own nice little revisionist history dream world that you live in, only you and your small group of cohorts trick yourself into believing this dream world is reality.

You continue...

And I was not wrong on the smoke plume issue, because I never contradicted your smoke plume claim in the first place. Case closed.

First you lie.... then you swear by it! I and several others caught you red handed and you know it.

When does your sabbatical start???

 

[Evangelion]

As usual, Freak adds misrepresentation, lying and deception to his responses. The issue with Knight is "Did I make a mistake about what he wrote", not "Have I ever made a mistake or broken any of the rules at TOL."

The two questions are entirely different, and anyone with a half-decent ability to read can see that. You're just angry because I caught you plagiarising, and it embarrassed you.

Now you're deliberately lying about me (as usual.)

 

[Pilgrimagain]

This thread seems to be going the root of the threads that Knight thought should be closed.

Knight, I totally agree that a question can be posed in such a way as to really by an accusation. Which is why I think some of Freaks thread titles are in violation of the rules at TOL. But I wouldn't expect anything to come of that.

Oh, and I understand what you were saying about Jay's alleged plagerism. What you are saying there is that what he did was wrong but not necessarily plagerism. The question then remains, "if it was not plagerism, what made it wrong?"

Pilgrim

 

[Evangelion]

Knight- no answer from you, then?

LOL! Your a hoot! You have your own nice little revisionist history dream world that you live in, only you and your small group of cohorts trick yourself into believing this dream world is reality.

I didn't even know that I had a "small group of cohorts." Could you name them, please? And while you're at it, could you name the people who were allegedly "scared off" by me?

You continue...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was not wrong on the smoke plume issue, because I never contradicted your smoke plume claim in the first place. Case closed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First you lie....

What was the lie?

then you swear by it!

I did what?

I and several others caught you red handed and you know it.

No, you did nothing of the sort. Let's remind ourselves of your original contention:

• 
  Zakath and Evang claim that my photo was actually a photo of a regular water vapor cloud and not that of a smoke plume.

Neither Zak nor myself had claimed that your photo was actually a photo of a regular water vapour cloud, and neither one of us had denied that it was a smoke plume.

When does your sabbatical start???

Wouldn't you rather I left it as a pleasant surprise?

 

[me again]

Is the following statement constructive?

Is the following statement constructive?

• Posted by Freak
  Now to Me Again, You admitted your error now move on like a big boy (I mean detective).

Huh?

Here we go again.

 

[me again]

Can't we all just get along? -- Rodney King

Can't we all just get along? -- Rodney King

• Posted by Pilgrimagain
  This thread seems to be going the root of the threads that Knight thought should be closed.

Yes, it does appear that way.

• Posted by Pilgrimagain
  Knight, I totally agree that a question can be posed in such a way as to really by an accusation. Which is why I think some of Freaks thread titles are in violation of the rules at TOL. But I wouldn't expect anything to come of that.

Jay Bartlett "cooled his jets" for a while. He now seems to be taking his engines out for a test flight.

• Posted by Pilgrimagain
  Oh, and I understand what you were saying about Jay's alleged plagerism. What you are saying there is that what he did was wrong but not necessarily plagerism. The question then remains, "if it was not plagerism, what made it wrong?"

I haven't really been involved in the plagiarism discussion, but now that you mention it, what is it called, if not "plagiarism?"

Exactly what is it called?

 

[Freak]

Pilgrim, I was wrong for not being clearer. Thanks for allowing me to clear that up.

David Burke (also known as evangelion the Christadelphian) the facts speak for itself. You have lied on numerous occassions and have broken the rules on TOL.

For you even stated: I agree that I have bent (and broken) the rules on several occasions.

Just leave it at that, David. No need to go on...

Me Again, the detective,

I didn't think you would get it...

 

[me again]

Jay continues:

Jay continues:

• Posted by Freak
  Me Again, the detective, I didn't think you would get it...

Did you "get it" when you were taken into custody by the police?

 

[Freak]

Yes, the corrupt military police is such places like the Republic of Benin, make sure you "get it".

Hey, Me Again (the wanna be detective of some police force), let's not get back to your false accusations, ok?

 

[me again]

Here come the insults:

Here come the insults:

• Posted by Freak
  Yes, the corrupt military police is such places like the Republic of Benin, make sure you "get it".

Yes, I used to be in the military police.

• Posted by Freak
  Snip…
  Me Again (the "wanna be" detective of some police force)…

"Wanna be?"

You don't like law enforcement officers, eh? Okay, I won't take it personally.

 

[ATAT]

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD .

 

[Ian Day]

Knight

Why did you not acknowledge my emails & messages regarding a battle royale on the subject of Bible interpretation?

OT prophecy centres on Christ NOT Israel

All OT prophecy should be "spiritualised" or understood figuratively.

Any "literalists" out there prepared to stand up & fight ?????