As of this moment, Petersen has simply been blustering again (with a couple of emails copied to the same people I copied in).http://answersforhope.com/god-answers-p ... /#comments
My detailed rebuttal to his libellous comments here remains CENSORED and UNREFUTED and he has FAILED to tell me WHY.
My latest wide circulation email:
"Well, I think the person who owes people an apology is probably Jason.
I am emailing again tonight because he is libelling me again on his
blog page - and NOW, apparently, unfairly CENSORING my detailed
response to his latest blog about me. Lest his band of blog followers
might read it (presumably because he has no answer to what I have
written and that might be embarrassing).
"I do believe that you will find that Ashley is just erecting straw
men, abusing semantics and using unsubstantiated conjecture." Repeating
a claim does NOT make it true, Mr Petersen. In my rebuttal, which you
appear to be CENSORING yet again, I asked you to "Please give me and
your readers chapter and verses on when and how I have employed "straw
men and manipulating of semantics"". Your FAILURE to address this
question, and to bluster instead, is clear.
Please either Put Up or Shut Up.
As I have told you already, I quoted back to you YOUR words about
'why' you censored for days and days one of my earlier posts (about
your censorship of criticism if I recall correctly). ALL the details
are on the original BCSE thread, which also flagged the new thread on
24 March: viewtopic.php
Being persistent does NOT make me a liar, Mr Petersen.
I too am more than happy to answer any questions from copy recipients.
Including suggest which parts of the first BCSE thread about Petersen
may be best checked (but if you are able and curious please look on
your own and try to make your OWN mind up first).
I suggest that with his further blogging about me and now his emails
reacting to mine (I see that THREE more from him have landed in my
email box) Mr Petersen is digging himself into a corner. I should add
that I was prepared to let things lie if he did not blog about me again
after my email at 0.20 am on 24 March (later forwarded to him).
Clearly he must view my posts as some sort of threat. Why else does he
censor and then ignore my responses (or just repeat the same claims
without addressing my denials)?
It seems I must be depicted to his followers as a liar and 'obsessed'
ie not to be taken seriously.
The alternative would be too awful to contemplate.
PS I would apologise that O2 email sometimes makes links 'unclickable'
- I don't know how to stop it doing that."