Petersen to Gilleand:
"No one who follows my site, to my recollection, has been convinced by
anything that he says. The only impression that they get is that Ashley
stalks me. I have challenged Ashley to a formal debate on creation v.
evolution in the past, I even came to his forum, but Ashley would never
accept it. He'd rather argue through comments, and I just don't have
time for a conversation that would never end. I am a graduate student,
I have a 40 hours a week day job, and I run a non profit organization.
Ashley's comments will remain where they belong--in my spam folder.
God Bless,
Jason"
My response to both:
"The many posts of mine that you have hidden (yes some of them did
complain about your prior censorship) were not 'spam'. If you run a
blog, you should be prepared to read and consider the responses you
receive - not just shove those from known critics into a 'spam' folder
as you habitually do.
My censored posts can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225You are a fraud Mr Petersen. Though not quite as bad as Jason Lisle
and AiG - who hide criticism or fail to moderate it without even
announcing online that input is being deliberately suppressed (because
they cannot deal with it).
You also seem to have forgotten that I came to your blog after you
mentioned me by name in one of your blogs and speculated that I might
be 'bat crazy'. It seems like you are only able to dish out name-
calling but not take it. Playing to the gallery.
If anybody said they found my comments convincing, Jason would no
doubt censor them.
I refused a specific 'formal' debate with Jason as he wanted me to
argue for some proposition of other of HIS choosing! Meantime, Jason
came onto the BCSE site briefly but then rapidly scarpered. If Tim
searches there he will see that I am speaking the truth".
Jason again:
"Let me explain this to you, Ashley. It is my website. I can allow comments and send them to spam or trash I please. Most of your comments are mean-spirited, dishonest, not related to the subject, or all of the above. I have tried to give you a benefit of a doubt several times, in hopes that we could have a cordial discussion, but unfortunately, you were unable to behave. Thus, I started openly sending your comments to spam again. Due to your recent antics, I will not be giving you another chance.
You have now gone and called me a "fraud." That type of behavior is unacceptable and unprofessional. Every time you talk about me, you only prove my point. You need to start thinking about what you say about other people before you actually say it. All you are doing right now is making yourself look like a pretentious jerk. I am sure that you are an overall nice guy, but people who read what you say about me will not get that impression. I encourage you to take my advice to heart, and to not continue acting like someone who is foolish. I think you are a smart individual;however, you are letting your emotions run wild, and it is not benefiting you or anyone else.
If you decide to accept the challenge that I put forth months ago, please let me know and I can arrange the discussion for December."
My response:
"You are misrepresenting my hidden posts - which are in the public domain on the BCSE site as I have just told you. Thus you are a fraud. It is not my largely reactive behaviour which is the main problem. Sensible people will judge between us by seeing all the evidence. I provide all the evidence.
You provide SOME of the evidence, hide the rest, and then try to tell people what they should think about what you have hidden."
Jason again:
"Where has this "alleged" misrepresentation taken place? Please be
specific";
My reply:
""Most of your comments are mean-spirited, dishonest, not related to the subject, or all of the
above".
I suggest you go through the BCSE thread about you (the latest
exchanges today in fact appear at the '6,000 year' thread), pick out
the comments of mine that you sent to 'spam' and identify WHICH ones of
those fit your description above and why.
Alternatively we could just end this conversation".
Jason again:
"I have already pointed out that your posts prove my very point. In fact, my point was proven in the email that you sent me. The title of your thread says that I am a liar. And you didn't call me a liar because I lied, it was because you disagreed with me. My suggestion is that you pick up a dictionary or thesaurus and start reading. You might want to start at the word "lie." None of my readers who have seen your thread has been convinced by you that I'm a "liar."
Again, please let me know when you are ready to accept the challenge that I have issued to you months ago.
I am finished with this conversation, have a nice day Ashley!".
I have refrained from reacting to THAT.
If anybody wants to reach a conclusion on whether Jason has lied or has misrepresented the sum of my posts that he sent to 'spam', I simply suggest that they work their way through this other thread chronologically.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225PS And now ANOTHER email from Jason:
"Oh, you asked me to tell you which posts that you made that were mean-spirited, dishonest, off topic, or all of the above. The answer is: all of them.
Now I am good with ending the conversation. Have a nice day, and don't forget to pick up a dictionary or thesaurus".
AGAIN: If anybody wants to reach a conclusion on whether Jason has lied or has misrepresented the sum of my posts that he sent to 'spam', I simply suggest that they work their way through this other thread chronologically.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=225They way to establish facts is NOT to trust an authority (including me) but to EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. I implore open-minded people to do so (as far as I recall I identified in the Petersen thread WHICH posts he censored - so all that is needed is to verify whether or not 'all' of them are "mean-spirited, dishonest, off topic, or all of the above".
I have nothing to fear from anybody (including Jason himself) doing just that.
I wanted to let Jason have the last word. However, I'm emailing the link to this thread back to him so he is fully in the picture.