>>Huxter: Be wary of imposters and posters using mulitple names to appear to
have support - nucacids and DNAunion appear to be the same person, and it
also
appears that 'Mike B. Gene' may be making a comeback under a different name.
>>>DNAunion: Huxter is spewing nothing but unsupported "gossip". Where's
your evidence that Nucacids and I are the same person? Totally absent.
>>Huxter: The reasonable reader will notice that I said 'appear to be', not
is.
*************
DNAunion: And the reasonable reader will notice that you gave the
sensational warnings *"Alert!"* and *"Be wary"* (I guess I was supposedly a
dangerous person of some kind!) and then began talking about *"imposters"*
immediately followed by your mentioning of my name explicitly. And after
such extravagant "warnings" to everyone here, you have to go back and eat
your words!
*************
>>Huxter: You should at least admit that you have posted on the Metacrock
board under at least 3 different names, did you not?
**************
DNAunion: How would that be at all relevant to the site here? The question
is, have I posted under multiple names here? The answer is no, despite your
insinuations. The other question on the table is, have I posted under
multiple names at ARN? The answer to that is also no, despite your
insinuations. Of the several hundred posts I have made at ARN, every single
one was done under DNAunion.
And how many other names have you posted under at OTHER sites, "Huxter"?
Warning! Alert! Be on the watch! Keep your eyes peeled! It appears that
Huxter has been posting under the aliases Pantrog and IamNoOne at other
sites! Be wary of such deceitful and underhanded tricks, like Huxter may
have done. Huxter also may be a felon, may have robbed a bank, may have
atheletes' foot, may have nasty gum disease because he may not brush his
teeth, may suffer from extreme bad breath, and may have toenail fungus!
The careful reader will notice that I said MAY in each instance of my counter
sensationalist alert. Is that how it works Huxter? Implications and
insinuations are fine, as long as one refrains from actually making the
statement as fact? I'll remember that when next we exchange messages.
******************
>>Huxter: The ARN discussion board was shut down in part due to the fact that
ID
advocates were posting under multiple identities ...
>>DNAunion: Nope, more unsupported "gossip" by Huxter. The ARN moderator
began logging IP addresses after the assertions were made and instructed
those posting that it was against the rules to post under multiple names, and
that anyone found doing so would be prevented from posted at ARN. No one was
prevented from posting there, thus, the evidence points to no one posting
under multiple names.
>>Huxter: This is demonstrably false. 'Jimmy' and 'Ecko' are/were the same
person.
******************
DNAunion: Nope, my statement is not demonstrably false. My statement was
that no one was prevented from posting at ARN because he or she was found to
be posting under multiple names - that is demonstrably TRUE. I then stated
that this evidence POINTS TO the conclusion that no one was posting under
multiple names. Funny how you pay so much attention to the small print in
your own statements, but totally overlook it in mine!
By the way, you yourself show your above statement to be wrong. Don't worry,
I'll make sure to point it out later.
>>Huxter: 'Ecko' admitted in an email posted on Meta's board that he has
been posting at ARN all along under a different name.
**************
DNAunion: Was this in the putative e-mail from Ecko that Pantrog posted at
Meta's board? Pretty flimsy evidence. Anyone could make up an e-mail saying
whatever he/she wanted to, type in the opponent's name (which by the way, the
typist despises), then claim it was received from that person. As gullible
as you are Huxter, I sure hope you are never on a jury!
Now, if you have something from Ecko himself - his own words posted where
everyone can see them, and not some putative personal e-mail - then that
would be different. Which is it? I know of only the supposed e-mail. In
fact, I asked Pantrog to support the alleged authenticity of the e-mail and
he could not.
Oh, by the way. Does Ecko post at this site? If not, then how is he in the
least bit relevant? And how is Meta's board in the least bit relevant? Why
do you make such sensational and grand warnings about someone who does not
even post here, or about alleged goings on at another site? You just like to
stir up trouble, don't you Huxter.
**************
>>Huxter: Using a different computer or internet service will alter the ISP
address. By the way - did it not occur to you that after the moderator had
posted the warning that the multi-persona posters might have been more
cautious?
*************
DNAunion: I see, so you are now claiming that the alleged unscrupulous
people that were supposedly posting under multiple names became more cautious
and cunning and began posting from different computers (remembering which
computer was associated with each of their names). More unsupported "I have
a gut feeling" gossip, huh Huxter.
By the way, you as much as admit above that by their supposedly being so
sneaky, that they were not caught. If they were not caught, then posting
under multiple names would not have been part of the reason the ARN board was
suspended! (This is the part I said I would point out - where you contradict
yourself).
*************
>>Huxter: In aqddition, the person posting as 'frank', 'tom24', bndfngr, and
a few others were all the same person. I know this for a fact since I
corresponded with him on several occasions.
**************
DNAunion: And this was instrumental in the suspension of the ARN discussion
forum because….? When was the last time Frank, Tom24, and/or Bndfnger posted
at ARN? Furthermore, why was he not mentioned by IamNoOne and his
co-conspirators when the discussions of multiple names came up at ARN?
Sorry, but that person was not responsible in any way for the ARN board's
being suspended.
***************
>>DNAunion: And even if someone were to have been doing so, that single
person would have been banned (as the trouble maker Pantrog was) - the whole
board wouldn't have been shut down (you don't think things through, do you
Huxter?).
*************
DNAunion: Why didn't you respond to this point of mine Huxter? Speechless?
Confounded by the pure logic?
*************
>>Huxter: DNAunion, you don't read for comprehension, do you? You just read
to find a snippet that you can twist to prop up your self-righteous
gibberish. A competant reader would have seen that I said 'in part'. Please
read for comprehension, not sound bites.
*******************
DNAunion: Huxter, you don't think clearly, do you? As any competent thinker
could see, posting under multiple names was not even "in part" responsible
for ARN's discussion group suspension. What was "in part" responsible - and
indeed, a major factor - was the *implications* (by people like you - or was
it actually you?) that people at ARN were doing so - it was not the supposed
act, but the discussions centering around the alleged act that tied up the
board in useless bickering that led to the discussion forum's being
suspended.
****************
>>Huxter: .. which, big surprise, heaped accolades on each other (which
were in fact themseves!).
>>DNAunion: Nope, yet more "gossip" by Huxter. I complimented Mike Gene
several times on his ability to pinpoint the flaws in his opponents'
position, and I complimented Nelson (I believe it was) for pointing out the
idiocy of someone's implication that I was a Creationist. Sorry Huxter, but
I am neither Mike Gene, Nelson, Jimmy, nor Ecko (as Pantrog and IamNoOne
incorrectly claimed at ARN), nor am I nucacids here.
>>Huxter: I find it even more amusing that you call the implication that
you may be a creationist to be 'idiocy.' I have observed your posts on
several boards and on here for some time. It is clear that you do indeed use
creationist style argumentation, whether or not you can see it.
***************
DNAunion: So give us one valid piece of evidence that shows I am a
creationist. Can't? Didn't think so!
You people just like labeling as Creationists everyone who doesn't agree
fully with methodological (or philosophical) naturalism. You do so to win
some quick, underhanded, and easy "discredit points". Just four little words
- "You are a creationist" - and your opponent is automatically labeled as
scientifically incompetent (the other common ploy is to *strongly insinuate*
that the opponent is a Creationist without actually coming out and saying
it). After this dirty little tactic, you no longer have to even address the
opponent's position: just wave it off as "Creationist distortion".
Sorry, Huxter, but the label falls off me every time someone like you
attempts to stick it on me. You will have to address my points head on.
***************
>>Huxter: I cannot wait until 'WWUSIAC' or 'ARNORG' or 'veutron' 'start'
posting to this list!
**************
DNAunion: And I can't wait until Pantrog and IamNoOne (which may be other
names you post under) begin posting here!
By the way, I have never posted under the name of veutron. More of your
unfounded and incorrect gossip nonsense! Here you go - open your mouth wide
and I will spoon feed you your own words - eat up!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 22:21:30 EDT