Jason Petersen young Earth creationist

[a_haworthroberts]

OK. I now see that Petersen HAS made a post. Which might explain WHY Brian made his comment at this time.

Once again, that should make NO difference. If you censor posts by him or by me you will be behaving JUST like the creationists, Brian.

[Answersforhope]

MOD NOTE
Maybe we should leave Ashley and Jason to slug it out on their own. Preferably on Jason's blog.

The problem is, I'm not going to allow him to use my blog as his litter box.(Then again, this is not your problem.) However, if you don't want us to have a formal debate here then I suppose Ashley and I will have to find a different venue if he accepts my challenge. If mudslinging is your concern then you have no need to be concerned.(I don't plan on compounding his childish behavior with more childish behavior.) I am interesting in a formal, civil, written debate, not a mud slinging match. Either way it's your choice. Thanks Brian.

I'd also like to note that I have not received notification on whether or not Ashley accepts my challenge.

[Brian Jordan]

MOD NOTE
Maybe we should leave Ashley and Jason to slug it out on their own. Preferably on Jason's blog.

WHY?!

Your comment is totally ignorant and foolish, Brian. I thought better of you.

Jason STARTED all this not ME. I have exposed his dishonesty. THAT is what this website is ABOUT!!

I CANNOT 'slug it out' on his website because he CENSORS me. I have NO option but to reproduce the censored comments HERE (where HE is free to address them but has NOT done so, thus we are NOT 'slugging it out' here).

Do you not UNDERSTAND?!

Your ignorant, ill-thought out, comment plays RIGHT INTO HIS HANDS.

By the way, Petersen is no better than Sorensen - and Peter H and other people have joined in the discussion on THAT thread.

If you hide my posts I will certainly protest. I thought this website was about free speech as far as possible?!

Your comment suggests otherwise (yet Roger tells someone to put their head in a bucket of ***t and you say NOTHING).

Why? Because (and here I speak for myself, not the BCSE) this forum is not here as a post-box for your missives to sundry creationists with whom you are having personal disagreements. An occasional snipe is one thing, but an endless tirade is boring in the extreme and does nobody any good. I suggested that people left you and Jason to yourselves in the hope that it would be an end of the matter, not with a view to censoring their terminology. (Though I might wish people were a bit more polite.) I suggested having your debate on Jason's blog because he invited you to do it there and we've already seen your opinion of him and his ideas - not to mention your refutation of everything he has to say.
So I suggest you calm down and concentrate more on the quality of your posts than the overwhelming quantity of them.
Goodnight and sleep well.

[Answersforhope]

MOD NOTE
Maybe we should leave Ashley and Jason to slug it out on their own. Preferably on Jason's blog.

WHY?!

Your comment is totally ignorant and foolish, Brian. I thought better of you.

Jason STARTED all this not ME. I have exposed his dishonesty. THAT is what this website is ABOUT!!

I CANNOT 'slug it out' on his website because he CENSORS me. I have NO option but to reproduce the censored comments HERE (where HE is free to address them but has NOT done so, thus we are NOT 'slugging it out' here).

Do you not UNDERSTAND?!

Your ignorant, ill-thought out, comment plays RIGHT INTO HIS HANDS.

By the way, Petersen is no better than Sorensen - and Peter H and other people have joined in the discussion on THAT thread.

If you hide my posts I will certainly protest. I thought this website was about free speech as far as possible?!

Your comment suggests otherwise (yet Roger tells someone to put their head in a bucket of ***t and you say NOTHING).

Why? Because (and here I speak for myself, not the BCSE) this forum is not here as a post-box for your missives to sundry creationists with whom you are having personal disagreements. An occasional snipe is one thing, but an endless tirade is boring in the extreme and does nobody any good. I suggested that people left you and Jason to yourselves in the hope that it would be an end of the matter, not with a view to censoring their terminology. (Though I might wish people were a bit more polite.) I suggested having your debate on Jason's blog because he invited you to do it there and we've already seen your opinion of him and his ideas - not to mention your refutation of everything he has to say.
So I suggest you calm down and concentrate more on the quality of your posts than the overwhelming quantity of them.
Goodnight and sleep well.

If Ashley can not find another comfortable venue for a debate then it looks like I will have no choice but to host it on my blog, should he accept. Thanks again Brian.

Ashley, you do have the option of making your own blog. Both Google and Wordpress does allow you to have a blog for free. Just a thought.

[a_haworthroberts]

I'm still catching up with this thread since last night and with Jason's new blog post about me dated 26 March.

However - in case Jason has not seen it - around two hours ago I wrote at the Sorensen thread:
"PS And I see Petersen has just posted THIS utterly misleading hate-inspired, revenge-motivated, nonsense dated 26 March (not yet read apart from its pompous title):

Like his friend Sorensen (who at least is ignoring me in his blogs now), the man is evil.
Is there a single YEC on the planet who tells the truth?
If you don't believe me, just look at THIS thread: [current thread]
- and ask yourself WHY is he blogging about me like he is dated 26 March (Florida time, five hours behind the UK I think)?
Note in particular my comment made at 9.43 pm GMT on 26 March (before Petersen's new blog 'challenge'):
"PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SPIN THAT I 'RAN AWAY' FROM A DEBATE WOULD BE A TOTAL LIE. How can I debate when I am being censored?"
I have ANSWERED Petersen's stupid question/challenge. My answer is that I TRIED to debate him - and all I got in return was CENSORSHIP, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE DELETED POSTS, HIM BEHAVING AS THOUGH HE DID NOT EVEN READ/COMPREHEND THE POSTS, AND (MORE) NAME-CALLING.
(Petersen has now written THREE lying blogs about me this week! I sense utter desperation here.)
Petersen - I HAVE ALL THE TIME I NEED AND I WILL EXPOSE ALL OF YOUR DAILY LIES ABOUT ME - IN PUBLIC. EVERYWHERE ON THE INTERNET AND BY EMAIL (EVERYWHERE EXCEPT YOUR BLOG PAGE WHERE YOU CENSOR ALL MY REBUTTALS OF YOUR LIES AND THEN PRETEND TO YOUR RABBLE OF FANS THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED THEM OR THAT YOU 'DISAGREE' WITH THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - UNREFUTED).
Once I have read your latest blog (and email message) Petersen (after 10 pm tonight), I will be sending another email to everyone about your wilful or simply chronic inability to tell the truth to the public.
Petersen is clearly a stupid, untruthful, apparently brainwashed, man who will never climb down and never admit his falsehoods - because he is vain and because he does not want to lose face (assuming some of his followers are honest, deceived, people).
PPS I offered him a 'truce' in one of my censored comments. But he prefers to carry on being a LIAR, a HYPOCRITE, and a COWARD. He CANNOT change it seems. He started all this with his blog post dated 30 January (revenge for me targeting the liar Bob Sorensen by email apparently). And it is HE who has ESCALATED our dispute since Sunday this week."

[Answersforhope]

Ashley,

You don't accept my challenge then? This is the only way you will get a chance to debate me. I have offered you a challenge to defend the misconceptions that I responded to in my Question Evolution Day blog post. If you are able to defend those contentions then I would think that you would be willing to engage in a formal, civil, open, written, debate. Otherwise I have no desire to participate in your endless quest for a mudslinging match.(Even some of the admins here think that this is getting ridiculous.) We will debate on whatever venue you'd like. Just name the site and I'll be there. Do you accept or decline my debate challenge?

[a_haworthroberts]

MOD NOTE
Maybe we should leave Ashley and Jason to slug it out on their own. Preferably on Jason's blog.

The problem is, I'm not going to allow him to use my blog as his litter box.(Then again, this is not your problem.) However, if you don't want us to have a formal debate here then I suppose Ashley and I will have to find a different venue if he accepts my challenge. If mudslinging is your concern then you have no need to be concerned.(I don't plan on compounding his childish behavior with more childish behavior.) I am interesting in a formal, civil, written debate, not a mud slinging match. Either way it's your choice. Thanks Brian.

I'd also like to note that I have not received notification on whether or not Ashley accepts my challenge.

The mud I sling towards you is sadly necessary, Jason.

I do not make things up nor do I hide anything. I cannot say the same for you. That is what this is about.
http://answersforhope.com/why-i-stop-at ... ting-here/ (banned from making meaningful responses)
http://answersforhope.com/god-answers-p ... ange-ways/ (banned from making meaningful responses)
http://answersforhope.com/a-challenge-f ... h-roberts/ (banned from making meaningful responses)

[Answersforhope]

MOD NOTE
Maybe we should leave Ashley and Jason to slug it out on their own. Preferably on Jason's blog.

The problem is, I'm not going to allow him to use my blog as his litter box.(Then again, this is not your problem.) However, if you don't want us to have a formal debate here then I suppose Ashley and I will have to find a different venue if he accepts my challenge. If mudslinging is your concern then you have no need to be concerned.(I don't plan on compounding his childish behavior with more childish behavior.) I am interesting in a formal, civil, written debate, not a mud slinging match. Either way it's your choice. Thanks Brian.

I'd also like to note that I have not received notification on whether or not Ashley accepts my challenge.

The mud I sling towards you is sadly necessary, Jason.

I do not make things up nor do I hide anything. I cannot say the same for you. That is what this is about,
http://answersforhope.com/why-i-stop-at ... ting-here/ (banned from making meaningful responses)
http://answersforhope.com/god-answers-p ... ange-ways/ (banned from making meaningful responses)
http://answersforhope.com/a-challenge-f ... h-roberts/ (banned from making meaningful responses)

Are you declining my challenge?

[mathunt]

Ashley, if I can make a suggestion. If you do debate him then make sure it is about a scientific subject as science is Petersens weak point.

[Answersforhope]

Ashley, if I can make a suggestion. If you do debate him then make sure it is about a scientific subject as science is Petersens weak point.

I wouldn't be taking any advice from Matthew about debating me. He has not fared well against me in the past.

[a_haworthroberts]

Brian

"I suggested having your debate on Jason's blog because he invited you to do it there ...".

NO, he did NOT. I am BANNED from posting under his blogs - he has confirmed this again today.
http://answersforhope.com/a-challenge-f ... h-roberts/
"I do not plan on holding the debate on this page..."

I am pleased to read that you weren't considering censorship but I still think you are being unreasonable and also jumping to conclusions (because you are 'bored' - but nobody else has yet agreed with you).

And what about the quality of your post above?

Anyhow, I am saying 'no' to his 'formal debate' idea. (More shortly.)

Once again, the quantity of my posts (is there a law against that?) results from the number of misleading blogs about me posted this week by Petersen (and the fact that I CANNOT challenge him there because I am not 'allowed'). That is why I called him 'evil' this evening. He of course calls it 'mud'.

I suppose you 'have' to read my posts because you are a moderator. I don't 'try' to be 'boring'. Honest.

Ashley

EDIT He now appears to be suggesting that a 'formal debate' on his website is 'possible'.

Yet an informal one appears impossible because he has not stated that I am no longer 'banned' (even with his pre-moderation in place!).

Thanks for Mat's suggestion btw.

[a_haworthroberts]

"Ashley, you do have the option of making your own blog. Both Google and Wordpress does allow you to have a blog for free. Just a thought."

Thanks for that last suggestion. If Brian becomes excessively bored I may have to do that (another YEC said the same thing to me).

[Answersforhope]

If Ashley won't debate me then I'm out of here. Thanks for allowing me to post here Brian. I'll announce that he declined and then I won't waste anymore time on him.

[a_haworthroberts]

"This is the only way you will get a chance to debate me."
Why?

[a_haworthroberts]

"I have offered you a challenge to defend the misconceptions that I responded to in my Question Evolution Day blog post."

I don't know what you are referring to here.

However, the ball is in YOUR court. It has been since mid Feb. My (censored) response to your blog post of 12 Feb (reproduced on this website) STILL awaits a meaningful response by you (or is 'rubbish' your final answer? - that's not much of a 'debate' )