When you have to twist words in an attempt to gin something up
I believe I was very clear. What do you think I'm "ginning up."
Let's see... you snip a couple of sentences out-of-context, acknowledge that you understand the original author's intent was different than the impression given by out-of-context quote, and then turn around and require Abishag to answer for those very same words as if you were quoting her own words verbatim.
I think it's pretty clear what you were attempting to gin up, and how you went about making the attempt.
We do have a rule about false accusations, mind you.
What false accusations. I was being clear and honest, please tell me what you think I'm making up.
Oh? Forgotten already? You accuse a party of insulting you when it hasn't happened. That constitutes a false accusation.
This "telling someone that they're not holy enough to be spoken to" is nonsense. Abishag has already done spoken to you in the past, so to even try to misinterpret any of the posts that way is doomed to fail.
What I gather is that Abishag has learned a little from experience, and perhaps followed a thread or two around here.
As for avoiding thoughtful discussion, what prevents you from posting? Have you anything on-topic to submit yet?
Have you actually read the full discussion here? I posted questions about a post Abishag made about evolutionary humanists and I was attempting to see how much Abishag understood of what she typed.
She probably read it in full context before typing it. What you were trying to find out is if you could pull a fast one. You have the result of your experiment.
Russ began a conversation with me, which is fine and what I'd expect here. Abishag has done everything possible to avoid my questions and her first post to me here consisted of nothing but character assassination, look for yourself.
I have looked. I have looked at several posts more than once. I take it you're talking about the post that begins "First of all, Abishag does NOT 'copy and paste'." There's nothing at all even close to "character assination"; neither is there anything insulting. If you
choose to claim you're offended, or even be offended, I don't see what would make you think anyone else is responsible for your choice.
It would be nice if you could show me that a forum with creationist moderators attempts to be fair to non-creationist posters.
If I did, would you see it? I know your idea of fairness, by the way: a dozen outright liars slinging nonstop propaganda & slander against a creationist who gets suspended or banned if he even demonstrates a single slander to be untrue. No real creationist would be party to such, but you might try Glen Kuban's place. Or was it Glen Morton? I'm bad with names & they're so much alike...
