karanverma86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

peace and love to you too.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I have already guaranteed the sort of neutrality that will make a debate of this sort at least reasonably useful. You may post whatever you wish in terms of your arguments as long as what you post adheres to rules you and I will agree upon before the debate begins. You really have no legitimate reason for refusing, Josiah. What say you? Can you actually grow a pair and have a debate?

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If your comments are posted in a Google group format, you are not limited by space and your comments will be readily available for anyone to read and compare to those of your opponent. In fact, such a forum would allow point-by-point and even sentence-by-sentence commentary - the sort of detail that this kind of discussion must have to be fruitful.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The best and most honest way to have such a debate between us would be in the manner that I propose, and if you were truly confident of your abilities to "deconstruct" my arguments, you should relish the opportunity. In YouTube comment areas, all I need to do is post a series of comment such as this one, and you are pushed from the first page of that comment section. NascentAtheist discovered your hatred of this tactic, and it has served us in good stead as a result.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You said that you would debate on your blog, a place where rebuttal is not allowed (nor would you be trusted to allow rebuttal even if you stated that you would, as you have also deleted or disallowed posts in your sock channels after posting that you would allow rebuttal posts). Debate cannot occur on a blog. Readers of the debate will want "one-stop shopping," which the creation of the Google group allows.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Let me remind you and tell the readers: After nearly a day of being challenged, despite the fact that you were reading the challenges while continuing to spam comment sections, you refused to debate.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Next, I would ask how you could presume to post a "deconstruction" of my arguments to a blog when I have, in fact, offered very little that you are capable of deconstructing *and* I have challenged you to directly debate the issues in a forum much more amenable to such things than either a blog or a YouTube comment section.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I know that you have no evidence, because I know that we are not sock puppets of one another. I am sure that the accusation occurs because we all know that you are a sock puppet of TurnerDiaries - one of nearly a dozen or more that have surfaced since TurnerDiaries was expelled from the main channel comment area of Pat Condell. Yours is a juvenile retort, but it is not one that is unusual for you, nor was it unexpected.

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You claim that I am a sock puppet of NascentAtheist, and you claim the same thing of Dave0258? Other than our collective opposition and our use of some of NascentAtheist's strategies (which seem to work quite well), what evidence do you have for this accusation?

CAFoster58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

But even if we ignore that, let's look at a couple of other things that you claim.