This will be my last blog posting for some time on this particular link. Maybe forever unless things change.
I think I'll simply put my hat on, get the keys out of my pocket, and walk tall out of the room. For whatever attempts might be made in the future to actually have a formal debate will likely be what has happened now for nearing nine years - nothing - and life is too short to worry about such things.
What HAS been conclusivley established however - beyond all refutation - is that Ante Pavkovic can shoot his mouth off boasting about his debate exploits and how smart he is. Finding evidence of this, however, is about like trying to find evidence of the Loch Ness Monster. Since such a thing doesn't exist in the first place there is no actual evidence of it.
Challenged to debate one on one - mano a mano - Ante Pavkovic turned tail and ran as fast as his little legs could take him away from LAD, CARM, and God Himself knows where else. These are NOT the actions of someone who is as accomplished in debate as Pavkovic THINKS he is. His use of the epithet liar seems to me to stem from TWO problems.
First of all it has become CRYSTAL CLEAR from my own documentation that Ante Pavkovic himself has a SERIOUS PROBLEM with lying. He has been caught over and over and over and over again just on his CARM posts. They are here for ALL to see. Confronted with this what does he do? He simply says that to PROVE he's lying is to actually prove that the one making the case against him is a liar. He appears to be guilty of psychological projection, a concept where the one actually committing the deed accuses others of committing that same deed as a personal defense mechanism. In Christianity, we call this type of defense HYPOCRISY.
The second point I make about this liar is the fact that this rhetorical use of the term liar, particularly in the unproven sense where Pavkovic uses it, is a sign of personal insecurity in his own position or ability to actually DEFEND it. This no doubt explains his aversion to an actual debate (as opposed to discussion board back-and-forths that he erroneously assumes constitute debates). Michael Patton drove this home recently on the "Parchment And Pen" blog. He noted the following that seems to address Pavkovic quite well. In discussing one of many emailers who wrote him and called him a 'liar,' Patton noted:
Extreme rhetoric such as this can often be a sign of personal insecurity about our own position and our ability to defend it. I see it all the time. If you are ignorant but passionate about your own position, things are often more black and white than they would otherwise be. I just tweeted this today, “Often, the more militant you are, the less confident you are. Calm down. Be cool. Excessive combativeness can evidence insecurity.”
There is, furthermore, evidence that Mr. Pavkovic's tactics are little more than devilishly clever schemes - his methodology. His slash and burn approach and immediate use of the ad hominem appears to be a contrived and intentional effort on his part to get threads removed. In all sincerity, it would not surprise me if he was the one who tore into someone with a personal attack - and then waited a few days to turn himself in under another name. It is after all an ESTBALISHED FACT that Mr. Pavkovic LIES and posts under more than one name, all the while pretending to be someone else. So this works in a simple way.
1) Post as your primary name.
2) Register a second name at another ISP.
3) Attack whomever under your primary name.
4) Sign in under your secondary name and turn yourself in.
Because folks remember the tiff but nobody really saves the details (more on that bizarre notion in a moment), you accomplish the mission of 'winning the debate' by insulting the other poster, providing no argumentation of your own, and then referencing the deleted thread (which nobody has) as proof of your superiority.
I would not have thought anyone - especially a professing Christian - would have been so evil and manipulative to do such things but then again when confronted with EVIDENCE that people might do that one must change his tune.
SAVING THREADS FOR EIGHT YEARS?
The most stunning development over the course of the last year, however, has been the notion that this obssessive-compulsive fool has actually saved threads from a message board from EIGHT YEARS AGO!! Now make no mistake - this makes some sense if you're say, James White (or another apologist), and you have interactions with KNOWN PEOPLE who are involved likewise in apologetics ministries. However - I honestly wonder what kind of sick mind would obssessively hold on to threads that were deleted for EIGHT YEARS.
His excuse CANNOT be, "Because this shows I won the debate" because if that were true then we would not be six months removed from his opening of a forum to impugn me - and eight months removed from his subtle suggestion that he actually possesses these threads. Let's face it - if this clown wiped the floor with me in an actual debate, do you HONESTLY think it would have taken him eight months (to this point) to follow through with his threat? Of course not. But you will learn when dealing with Ante Pavkovic, you throw 'honestly' out the window.
It also begs the question as to why he's so afraid of an actual debate. He was declaring victory on opening threads in CARM, without even engaging the issue. When I confronted him with EVIDENCE that Donald Waite LIED about Westcott and Hort's positions on numerous things, he simply dismissed the evidence and asserted that I was the one who was lying. (Ante posted here as Servetus; kind of fitting he'd take the name of an anti-Trinitarian heretic).
WHAT EXACTLY IS LYING ANYWAY?
A bigger problem for Ante, however, is that he is more concerned in the labeling of his opponent than in the actual exchange of information. Yet even his attacks are not just overstatements, they reveal a deficient grasp of the English language. A LIE - by definition - is characterized by an INTENT to deceive. You know, like registering under other names on a discussion board and PRETENDING to NOT be who you are, which Ante has done numerous times. Clark Pinnock, for example, is an excellent Arminian scholar. His writings show an intellectual depth that few attain in this life. However, he is also an annhilationist. The reason he is an annhilationist is because he believes - sincerely and with all his heart - that that is what Scripture teaches. I believe - with all of my heart - that Pinnock is wrong on that issue. But that does not make him a 'liar' because lying would entail Pinnock saying something intended to deceive his audience (for example, declaring himself to be a Bible-believing atheist). Thus, while Pinnock may be deceived, his intent is not deceiving itself.
This repeated use of such tactics really makes me think that Ante must have - for whatever reasons, fair or not - never finished high school. I can hardly bring myself to believe that a person with even a minimal college education would "communicate" in the third-grade way he does. Feeling intellectually inferior to others, he can assert his (in his mind) "superiority" by insulting you more than you insult him. If you turn him in, you're a big baby who can't take it. If you respond in kind, he calls you a hypocrite. If you don't respond at all, he accuses you of being a coward. Beat him senseless with information - and he'll simply lie himself and fall back on, "You didn't refute anything I said."
I say that because not only did Ante ADMIT he had never proven I had lied about anything - yes, he actually admitted that on CARM (December 15, 2008) - "He has been shown much patience, as I did not bother trying to prove he was as I have asserted for a long time." - but his 'proof' on his Slander Maestroh site falls so far short of proving deception that I seriously wonder if the man doesn't need a dictionary. His proof? Maestroh said in his initial response that Ante called him a liar, but it wasn't the initial response. Even assuming Ante is right about all this (because, after all, he did keep the threads for eight years), that doesn't prove I'm a liar; it MAY prove I'm MISTAKEN as to how quickly he said it - but it doesn't change the facts that: a) He attacked me first by calling me a liar REGARDLESS of whether it was the next post or the one after it; and b) there is no INTENT to deceive on my part. (Again - what difference does it make whether it was one or three responses afterward? The bottom line is that Ante attacked me as a liar and - BY HIS OWN ADMISSION - never PROVED it).
Thus - out of all his deceit, lies, and hypocrisy - was born the Ante Pavkovic website. And now the ENTIRE WORLD knows that Ante Pavkovic - who accuses others of lying but never proves it - is himself a liar. Much as Haaman made his own gallows upon which he was hanged, Mr. Pavkovic made the mistake of his life by crossing swords with someone who simply knows a whole lot more than he does.
I would have let it go. I didn't care. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who kept deleted threads from a discussion board eight years ago to fill what must be a very boring life (his, not mine). But his posting of an attack piece on Amazon (where he referred to himself as 'scholarly' and claimed he 'pummeled' me in a debate) revealed that Ante Pavkovic himself would not let it go.
Maybe he's upset because I compared his actions to that of terrorists. (Given his loud threats that suggest he may inflict bodily harm on me, the only difference in Ante and Al-Qaeda is that they are actually willing to die for their stupidity while he isn't). Or maybe he's upset because of the veracity of the comparison. Either way, life is too short to waste any more time on third grade juvenile argumentation like that advanced by Ante Pavkovic.
Therefore, I will no longer make posts here for the forseeable future. There are, of course, two exceptions. The first one is obvious - if he updates his blog and smears me then that will be met with retribution as need be. The second one will never happen - Pavkovic actually grows the balls to defend his KJV Only position. But if by some quirk of fate such a miracle happens, I also reserve the right to reply.
Therefore - until duty calls again - I am officially retired from beating the dead horse that is lying Ante Pavkovic.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Ante Lies About James White
The problem with liars is that they require good memories in order to maintain their lies. One great example of this is Ante's constant lies about James White, the well-known Christian apologist. It is here that the Ante-Christ shows his lies at their most amusing points.
This is what Ante told us on March 7, 2001 on 'Charisma.'
It seems to me you are under the influence of one James White, whose writing on this issue is very deceptuive. I challenged the man privately via E-mail to debate a Greek scholar who was pro KJV, and I myself personally challenged him to debate his hyper calvinistic views on his radio program, which is now defunct. He refused, and arrogantly claimed it was becasue he didn't want to embarrass me. I pleaded with him to please do so if he could. He refused. Typical.
Note that Ante tells us that James White refused to engage a debate with him. I don't know whether this is true or not but given the fact we're already talking about a DOCUMENTED LIAR here - Psychopathkovic - it probably isn't.
But then just this past February 1 on a thread where I broke down the Ehrman vs White debate from last year, Ante proceeded to tell us that James White had 'come to Charisma' and wanted a debate with Sola Scriptora and, of course, in his delusional incapacity, Ante wiped the floor with James White on the KJVO controversy.
Anyone notice the illogic of Pavkovic's claim? First, he says White ducked a debate with him. But then he wants us to believe that James White - the same guy who has some sixty debates available for sale at his ministry - sought out some unknown poster on a CHARISMATIC board (White is a traditional cessationist, I believe) with which to have some sort of 'anonymous' debate.
This defies all logic and common sense. When I asked James White about it, he stated very clearly that not only did he not recall such a thing but that these kinds of claims were made all the time about him and he would have to see the actual evidence of these alleged encounters.
So in his delusional fantasy world, Ante Pavkovic lies about just about anything - including James White.
This is what Ante told us on March 7, 2001 on 'Charisma.'
It seems to me you are under the influence of one James White, whose writing on this issue is very deceptuive. I challenged the man privately via E-mail to debate a Greek scholar who was pro KJV, and I myself personally challenged him to debate his hyper calvinistic views on his radio program, which is now defunct. He refused, and arrogantly claimed it was becasue he didn't want to embarrass me. I pleaded with him to please do so if he could. He refused. Typical.
Note that Ante tells us that James White refused to engage a debate with him. I don't know whether this is true or not but given the fact we're already talking about a DOCUMENTED LIAR here - Psychopathkovic - it probably isn't.
But then just this past February 1 on a thread where I broke down the Ehrman vs White debate from last year, Ante proceeded to tell us that James White had 'come to Charisma' and wanted a debate with Sola Scriptora and, of course, in his delusional incapacity, Ante wiped the floor with James White on the KJVO controversy.
Anyone notice the illogic of Pavkovic's claim? First, he says White ducked a debate with him. But then he wants us to believe that James White - the same guy who has some sixty debates available for sale at his ministry - sought out some unknown poster on a CHARISMATIC board (White is a traditional cessationist, I believe) with which to have some sort of 'anonymous' debate.
This defies all logic and common sense. When I asked James White about it, he stated very clearly that not only did he not recall such a thing but that these kinds of claims were made all the time about him and he would have to see the actual evidence of these alleged encounters.
So in his delusional fantasy world, Ante Pavkovic lies about just about anything - including James White.
Friday, January 8, 2010
What Did Ante "Psycho" Pa(th)kovic Drink On New Year's Eve?
I gotta admit I asked myself that question. He replied on two of his three 'I hate Maestroh' blogs. I'll deal with the other one shortly, but since this one is short and succinct, let's deal with it. This is the actual blog statement as he wrote it. First I will quote it entirely and then take it apart line by line.
You cannot help but to tell lies and avoid facts.
This issue is not "debating" you. The issue is that this would be a Christian debate involving Christians who would act accordingly. You are utterly disqualified. You have been lying and lying for years, you have yet to repent for your slanders, and you want all of that to be ignored so you can have a "debate". You need to repent. That is all you need. Then you need to confess your public sins against others and make things right. That is all you are qualified to do.
Lastly, if I had been run out of the military, like you have been, I'd be very careful about what I said about others, and the types of questions I asked.
Now as I said earlier, he must've had something that gave him quite a bit of sudden courage. Think about the idiocy, folks - who IN HIS RIGHT MIND spends moments just after midnight (the time posted is a couple of minutes after midnight) blasting somebody on a blog? Answer: nobody but a drunk.
Anyways, let's deal with this line by line.
You cannot help but to tell lies and avoid facts.
Mr. Psychopathkovic, I have two points to make here.
1) YOU, sir, are the one who promised to debate me face to face - simply pick a moderator. I have the email where you wrote a check your ego can't ca$h, so don't even try to deny it. Then - when I did pick one - you backed out like a coward. Hence - YOU LIED.
So once again, you calling me a liar is about like Adolph Hitler calling a bug collector a murderer.
2) BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION - you have NEVER PROVEN a single lie I've told. (This is documented elsewhere on this blog). The only thing you can come up with on your 'I'm Mad Because Maestroh Kicked My Ass* Forum' is to say that on post A I said it was the next post and post B I said it was somewhere on the next post. That, of course, is memory, not proof of any lie at all. The FACT that your gnat straining doesn't answer is that you opted to go for the early insult and accuse me of lying. When you did not document it - and by your own admission you never did so (unless, of course, you were lying then, too, which wouldn't surprise anyone who knows you) - you were yourself guilty of bearing false witness AKA lying.
But in hopes of getting around that you simply retreat to the original unproven accusation. Kinda like a cultist does.
This issue is not "debating" you.
You're right. The issue is that you LIED about your big bald claim that you would do so. May as well not deny it Ante-Christ because the proof is in black and white.
The issue is that this would be a Christian debate involving Christians who would act accordingly. You are utterly disqualified.
Hmm. Sounds EXACTLY LIKE THE RULES I PROPOSED to me - and you ducked and dodged. Besides, I'm not the blowhard who said only a face-to-face debate simply pick the moderator - and then chickened out. That's Ante "I'm Coming To Dallas To Beat You Up" Pavkovic who did that.
You have been lying and lying for years,
You haven't PROVEN THAT by your own admission - and yet you AGAIN retreat to arguing in a circle. Are you one of those book burning fundamentalists who, when at a loss for any kind of intellectual argument, insults the inquirer? Come to think of it, you are. We know you burn books, and we know you're a fundamentalist - and we also know that you insult the inquirer.
you have yet to repent for your slanders,
I'm not repenting of something I didn't do. You haven't repented of calling me a liar in the first interaction without proving it - have you hypocrite?
and you want all of that to be ignored so you can have a "debate".
Nope.
You've been challenged. You went around the Net for years saying you had beaten me in two debates and you've beaten James White in debate blah blah blah. Did you take drugs before you got saved or are you just naturally that much of a liar? I could have compassion on someone having an LSD flashback, but you're just plain mean.
But I challenged you. You said you'd meet face to face. Then you ran like a little coward after that.
Which begs an obvious question? Since you first called me a liar in 2001, why did you ever say you WOULD debate (June 2007) and now you're suddenly saying I'm disqualified?
Answer: because you got your ass* handed to you on CARM and people saw it. People know what an uneducated and ignorant buffoon you actually are now. So instead of engaging the issue, you simply assert "I won twice years ago," which everyone knows if that was true you wouldn't have run faster than Usain Bolt away from the challenge.
You need to repent.
You ain't God even if you think you are.
That is all you need. Then you need to confess your public sins against others and make things right. That is all you are qualified to do.
Translation: Ante Pavkovic lied and is mad.....not about HIS OWN LYING which the whole world now knows, but the FACT that the world knows what a liar he is.
That's why you only have three basic things to say to me:
1) You're a liar.
2) You're a slanderer.
3) You need to repent.
Actually, you need to repent of your lying sin of just making up 'facts' on the spot. I offered you the olive branch and you simply want to go off and say you 'bested' me. Ain't happening, sly. You went around 'Charisma' and CARM for years accusing people falsely and now you're paying the price. I'm not paying any 'price' because the only thing you have to post about me is personal attacks based on little more than your active imagination.
Lastly, if I had been run out of the military, like you have been, I'd be very careful about what I said about others, and the types of questions I asked.
Uh, except I wasn't 'run out of the military.'
I do wonder one thing, though. Since you downloaded so much information from Classmates, why are you not registered there? Is it because you're a high school dropout with an education that makes Jethro Bodine look like a Ph.D.?
I have an honorable discharge and draw over $15,000 per year of your tax money in disability. And there is NOTHING you can do about it - except pay your taxes. I am out of the military because I was no longer worldwide qualified. Why? Because I contracted a pulmonary disorder. And if you had even the slightest concern for the FACTS (which you don't) you would have ASKED rather than slandered me, but it was a matter of making accusations or telling the truth and you unfailingly hate me so badly that you were willing to say ANYTHING, including something that is not true.
Hence, I not only reject your statement out of hand because it is at variance with the FACTS, but I know now that you are capable of making the sewer go even deeper than I ever thought.
I will have one or two more things to say and then I'm retiring from this blog. But the information about you - that you hang out with registered sex offenders, that you burn books, that you'll lie about just about anything - will remain here. If you ever grow a brain (since I believe in God, I consider that at least a possibility since miracles do still occur) and simply publicly state, "I'm sorry, I never should have called Maestroh a liar because it wasn't/isn't true," then I will shut down this blog.
Since your pride is too deep for that, though, I guess it will just have to stay here until God sees fit to give you an ounce of common sense.
* - Please note that since Ante tells us that using biblical designations is NOT name calling, it is NOT wrong to use the KJV word 'ass' by the man's own rather flimsy standards.
You cannot help but to tell lies and avoid facts.
This issue is not "debating" you. The issue is that this would be a Christian debate involving Christians who would act accordingly. You are utterly disqualified. You have been lying and lying for years, you have yet to repent for your slanders, and you want all of that to be ignored so you can have a "debate". You need to repent. That is all you need. Then you need to confess your public sins against others and make things right. That is all you are qualified to do.
Lastly, if I had been run out of the military, like you have been, I'd be very careful about what I said about others, and the types of questions I asked.
Now as I said earlier, he must've had something that gave him quite a bit of sudden courage. Think about the idiocy, folks - who IN HIS RIGHT MIND spends moments just after midnight (the time posted is a couple of minutes after midnight) blasting somebody on a blog? Answer: nobody but a drunk.
Anyways, let's deal with this line by line.
You cannot help but to tell lies and avoid facts.
Mr. Psychopathkovic, I have two points to make here.
1) YOU, sir, are the one who promised to debate me face to face - simply pick a moderator. I have the email where you wrote a check your ego can't ca$h, so don't even try to deny it. Then - when I did pick one - you backed out like a coward. Hence - YOU LIED.
So once again, you calling me a liar is about like Adolph Hitler calling a bug collector a murderer.
2) BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION - you have NEVER PROVEN a single lie I've told. (This is documented elsewhere on this blog). The only thing you can come up with on your 'I'm Mad Because Maestroh Kicked My Ass* Forum' is to say that on post A I said it was the next post and post B I said it was somewhere on the next post. That, of course, is memory, not proof of any lie at all. The FACT that your gnat straining doesn't answer is that you opted to go for the early insult and accuse me of lying. When you did not document it - and by your own admission you never did so (unless, of course, you were lying then, too, which wouldn't surprise anyone who knows you) - you were yourself guilty of bearing false witness AKA lying.
But in hopes of getting around that you simply retreat to the original unproven accusation. Kinda like a cultist does.
This issue is not "debating" you.
You're right. The issue is that you LIED about your big bald claim that you would do so. May as well not deny it Ante-Christ because the proof is in black and white.
The issue is that this would be a Christian debate involving Christians who would act accordingly. You are utterly disqualified.
Hmm. Sounds EXACTLY LIKE THE RULES I PROPOSED to me - and you ducked and dodged. Besides, I'm not the blowhard who said only a face-to-face debate simply pick the moderator - and then chickened out. That's Ante "I'm Coming To Dallas To Beat You Up" Pavkovic who did that.
You have been lying and lying for years,
You haven't PROVEN THAT by your own admission - and yet you AGAIN retreat to arguing in a circle. Are you one of those book burning fundamentalists who, when at a loss for any kind of intellectual argument, insults the inquirer? Come to think of it, you are. We know you burn books, and we know you're a fundamentalist - and we also know that you insult the inquirer.
you have yet to repent for your slanders,
I'm not repenting of something I didn't do. You haven't repented of calling me a liar in the first interaction without proving it - have you hypocrite?
and you want all of that to be ignored so you can have a "debate".
Nope.
You've been challenged. You went around the Net for years saying you had beaten me in two debates and you've beaten James White in debate blah blah blah. Did you take drugs before you got saved or are you just naturally that much of a liar? I could have compassion on someone having an LSD flashback, but you're just plain mean.
But I challenged you. You said you'd meet face to face. Then you ran like a little coward after that.
Which begs an obvious question? Since you first called me a liar in 2001, why did you ever say you WOULD debate (June 2007) and now you're suddenly saying I'm disqualified?
Answer: because you got your ass* handed to you on CARM and people saw it. People know what an uneducated and ignorant buffoon you actually are now. So instead of engaging the issue, you simply assert "I won twice years ago," which everyone knows if that was true you wouldn't have run faster than Usain Bolt away from the challenge.
You need to repent.
You ain't God even if you think you are.
That is all you need. Then you need to confess your public sins against others and make things right. That is all you are qualified to do.
Translation: Ante Pavkovic lied and is mad.....not about HIS OWN LYING which the whole world now knows, but the FACT that the world knows what a liar he is.
That's why you only have three basic things to say to me:
1) You're a liar.
2) You're a slanderer.
3) You need to repent.
Actually, you need to repent of your lying sin of just making up 'facts' on the spot. I offered you the olive branch and you simply want to go off and say you 'bested' me. Ain't happening, sly. You went around 'Charisma' and CARM for years accusing people falsely and now you're paying the price. I'm not paying any 'price' because the only thing you have to post about me is personal attacks based on little more than your active imagination.
Lastly, if I had been run out of the military, like you have been, I'd be very careful about what I said about others, and the types of questions I asked.
Uh, except I wasn't 'run out of the military.'
I do wonder one thing, though. Since you downloaded so much information from Classmates, why are you not registered there? Is it because you're a high school dropout with an education that makes Jethro Bodine look like a Ph.D.?
I have an honorable discharge and draw over $15,000 per year of your tax money in disability. And there is NOTHING you can do about it - except pay your taxes. I am out of the military because I was no longer worldwide qualified. Why? Because I contracted a pulmonary disorder. And if you had even the slightest concern for the FACTS (which you don't) you would have ASKED rather than slandered me, but it was a matter of making accusations or telling the truth and you unfailingly hate me so badly that you were willing to say ANYTHING, including something that is not true.
Hence, I not only reject your statement out of hand because it is at variance with the FACTS, but I know now that you are capable of making the sewer go even deeper than I ever thought.
I will have one or two more things to say and then I'm retiring from this blog. But the information about you - that you hang out with registered sex offenders, that you burn books, that you'll lie about just about anything - will remain here. If you ever grow a brain (since I believe in God, I consider that at least a possibility since miracles do still occur) and simply publicly state, "I'm sorry, I never should have called Maestroh a liar because it wasn't/isn't true," then I will shut down this blog.
Since your pride is too deep for that, though, I guess it will just have to stay here until God sees fit to give you an ounce of common sense.
* - Please note that since Ante tells us that using biblical designations is NOT name calling, it is NOT wrong to use the KJV word 'ass' by the man's own rather flimsy standards.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
So Why Doesn't Ante Debate?
I came across this letter from Mr. Pavkovic online. It's at the bottom of the page.
From: "Pavkovic, Ante"
To:
Subject: Hovind debate
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:32:29 -0800
Dear Sir:
I have come across your site while looking for Hovinds. I noticed your challenge. Forgive me if my opinion is that your challenge seems like big brave talk to cover the fact that you won't debate him publicly, so you hide behind the "we refuse to help you promote your circus..." etc. That is not very convincing. I have some of his debate videos, and I think I know why you won't debate him.
END QUOTE
Hmm.
So Ante has a problem with an evolutionist not debating Kent Hovind?
Why then is Ante too chicken to debate Maestroh?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
From: "Pavkovic, Ante"
To:
Subject: Hovind debate
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:32:29 -0800
Dear Sir:
I have come across your site while looking for Hovinds. I noticed your challenge. Forgive me if my opinion is that your challenge seems like big brave talk to cover the fact that you won't debate him publicly, so you hide behind the "we refuse to help you promote your circus..." etc. That is not very convincing. I have some of his debate videos, and I think I know why you won't debate him.
END QUOTE
Hmm.
So Ante has a problem with an evolutionist not debating Kent Hovind?
Why then is Ante too chicken to debate Maestroh?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Ante Pavkovic, Professional Liar, Is Well-Known For His KJV Onlyism
I think Ante Pavkovic would like to think the Internet is available, oh, in five or six places and that only Maestroh's family actually reads his blog. But the comments made recently in a post linking Ante with book burning struck me as funny and also made me realize why the cowardly little wimp is all hat and no cattle. It was written by somebody named Adrienne on Science Blog. If you go down to October 23, 2009 and check at 1:03 pm, you'll find this person knows our resident Fabricator:
By the way, remember those fools who disrupted the Hindu priest's prayer at the Capitol building? They are KJV-onlyists. That's how the main protester, Ante Pavkovic, made a name for himself on the 'Net before he had to go and shout down some poor Hindu priest in the Senate.
So Ante, go be a hero. Everyone who cares knows you got your ever loving tail kicked, and its why you throw out over 20 different excuses as to why you're a debate coward.
The offer still stands if you ever grow the stones.
EXCURSUS
Keep in mind that Ante's 'logic' on this issue compares well with the logic in some of his other ridiculous statements. Statements like:
"There's no such thing as the Greek."
"The TR was being qouted from often by men from 90- 300 AD!" (This must've been news to Erasmus, who put together the first TR in 1516).
By the way, remember those fools who disrupted the Hindu priest's prayer at the Capitol building? They are KJV-onlyists. That's how the main protester, Ante Pavkovic, made a name for himself on the 'Net before he had to go and shout down some poor Hindu priest in the Senate.
So Ante, go be a hero. Everyone who cares knows you got your ever loving tail kicked, and its why you throw out over 20 different excuses as to why you're a debate coward.
The offer still stands if you ever grow the stones.
EXCURSUS
Keep in mind that Ante's 'logic' on this issue compares well with the logic in some of his other ridiculous statements. Statements like:
"There's no such thing as the Greek."
"The TR was being qouted from often by men from 90- 300 AD!" (This must've been news to Erasmus, who put together the first TR in 1516).
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Hypocrite Ante Shows His True Colors
This is from Mr. Pavkovic's post on Sharper Iron - his last one before he was sent to the banishment list (apparently a second time in light of the fact that he had previously posted as A N Pavkovic).
For example?
It is EASY to make assertions, like you have. I suggest you document them. I see NOTHING of what you said to be true of my posts, especially the word "slander". That is a serious charge for you to make on a public forum, and I suggest you better back it up rather than merely assert it as you have done. I do not take such accusations lightly, though many make it lightly.
END QUOTE
Now the hypocrisy in this is absolutely HIGH-larious.
This is the same hypocrite who simply made the exact same charge at me - but asked to give actual EXAMPLES merely reasserts it.
I honestly don't know if this guys brain lobes connect. One must wonder how a guy whose posts admit he DENIES total depravity can ACT (and post) so totally depraved.
Demonization maybe?
For example?
It is EASY to make assertions, like you have. I suggest you document them. I see NOTHING of what you said to be true of my posts, especially the word "slander". That is a serious charge for you to make on a public forum, and I suggest you better back it up rather than merely assert it as you have done. I do not take such accusations lightly, though many make it lightly.
END QUOTE
Now the hypocrisy in this is absolutely HIGH-larious.
This is the same hypocrite who simply made the exact same charge at me - but asked to give actual EXAMPLES merely reasserts it.
I honestly don't know if this guys brain lobes connect. One must wonder how a guy whose posts admit he DENIES total depravity can ACT (and post) so totally depraved.
Demonization maybe?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
