Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

On 1/1/2025 1:30 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:27:08 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 12/30/2024 4:07 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 16:30:50 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:38:20 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 12/29/2024 2:59 AM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:33:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I'm not going to repost all the crap you keep reposting

>
>
For a refreshing change of pace, follow your own advice and KF "you".
>

>
I do not interact with Harran very much, but how long has he been likely
insane?  You seem to have more experience with him.  How insane do you
have to be to simply lie about something insane that you have been doing
throughout the thread?  How insane do you have to be in order to think
that removing the evidence means that it doesn't matter?  I know that
snipping and running is a common dishonest ploy that posters like Nyikos
would routinely indulge in, but Harran doesn't seem to be mentally aware
of what he is doing.

>
The best example I see of insanity here is somebody with scientific
expertise who dismisses the documented conclusions of qualified
researchers in favour of some guy trying to make a case for
geocentrism.

>
>
Once again, follow your own advice...
>

>
Projection is something I do not understand.

 But something that you are particularly good at. Trying to lable your
opponents as insane is just about the worst possible argument you
could use and shows more about your own lack of reasoning than your
opponent's.

See.  More projection from Harran.  If you are not insane, you should be able to go through this thread and determine for yourself that it has been you that have consistently snipped out the evidence and run.  You can try to figure out why you started to claim that I was the one that was running from the evidence.  Some of that evidence came from your own trusted source, and what did you have to do each time that it was presented?
I put up the evidence and you kept running.  Your claims that I was doing what you were doing was projection.  That evidence directly countered your claims, and vindicated my claims.  There are obviously two types of heresy that even your recent quote wants to make a distinction between types.  Your reference just calls it a heresy in both 1616 and 1633, and your recent quote just claims that it was not a "formal" heresy in 1633.  The Geocentric wiki and the other two sources agree that it was a formal heresy charge that Galileo faced in 1616, but they differ in their claims about what type of heresy it was considered to be in 1633.  The 1633 sentencing clearly call it a heresy, they define the heresy and claim that Galileo is guilty, and "you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions", but that "we are content that you be absolved, provided that, you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies...".
No reinterpretation of the 1633 Galileo affair seems to be needed.  It is true that the word "formal" does not fall before "heresy", but does that really matter?
REPOST:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/copernicanism-is-never-declared-to-be-formally-heretical-in-the-1633-decree/
QUOTE:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents.  From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use [sic; us] the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto

 

Nyikos would do it
routinely.  If he was doing something stupid and dishonest someone else
had to be guilty of doing it.  What I do not get is that the person
doing it obviously understands what they are doing well enough to accuse
someone else of doing it instead of themselves.  Here Harran is the one
that can't deal with the evidence even when it comes from his own
trusted source, and his means of dealing with it is to remove it and run
in denial.  I have been the one putting up the evidence, and he has been
the one that can't deal with the conclusions of the people that have
written up their evaluation of the incidents.
>
Ron Okimoto