A Listing of My Insults!

   As I’m working I’m monitoring the Catholic Answers Forums, and I just saw RyanL accuse me of hypocrisy. Now, there is no end to all the things people will accuse me of, but as we are finding out, these folks are very long on accusations, very short on documentation. But at least someone tried. Here is the post. Now, let’s keep in mind the kind of stuff that is fired my direction by folks who do not even bother to read my materials or listen to my debates, and compare this list from RyanL. I’m downright proud of it. If this is the best they can come up with, well, for folks who are even slightly fair in their thinking, there is no comparison. Let’s look quickly at the list.
   First, I said Art Sippo misbehaved at our Toledo debate and that Art Sippo will insult you. RyanL, those are called completely documented facts. Do a search on “Sippo” on this blog for all the documentation of that you want. Ask anyone who has visited the Envoy forums about Art Sippo. Case closed. First example fails.
   Second, in an article responding to a series of nastigrams from Roman Catholic apologists, I spoke of their intense hatred and emotionalism. Once again, facts are facts. Read what I’m responding to. Second example fails.
   Third, responding to the same series of nastigrams, I spoke of their utter desperation. Again, read what I was responding to and see if the words are not true. And given that in each of these instances I am responding to ad-hominem, how can I even mount an argument about issues and facts when these men refuse to engage such things? Third example fails.
   Next, I said no serious scholar of the Greek language would make the claims Tim Staples made. RyanL has the wrong source listed, but I was able to find the source document. As I expected, this was about Staples’ misuse of the subjunctive, a common error of those who are not, in fact, scholars of the language. Colin Smith documented this fully in another article. Fourth example fails.
   The next example was about Phil Porvaznik, and even Phil agreed it wasn’t ad-hominem. I still have the video tapes of Gail Riplinger edited together with Monty Python Phil sent me years ago. I have the goods on him. I can insult him all I want, right Phil? Fifth example fails.
   Last example given I said that I find the use of ad-hominem indicative of a lost cause. Yes, that’s supposed to be ad-hominem itself. Needless to say, sixth example fails.
   And that is all RyanL could come up with. Not a single one was even slightly relevant. The melt down continues….
   Oh, by the way! Phil Porvaznik has extracted the Miki call today and posted it on his site in mp3 format. Here’s the link. You know what is odd about Phil? He knows he can never engage the biblical issues. He doesn’t even try. Might want to pray for that young man.