From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Meritt in Confusion
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:53:45 GMT
Organization: HTE




Meritt (recently) on my commenting upon his weak English grammar:

>What's the matter, Ted?  Can't find anything wrong with the science?

i.e. "Granted I haven't mastered anything as simple as English yet, but
you don't expect that from a great physicist and self-proclaimed
renaissance man..."

Of course, I comment upon what I see (here, the amazing slaughter of the
king's English).   If I'd SEEN any science, I might have commented on it.
Ah well...

.........................................................................

Meritt (long past) (from a sampling of standard fare from the t.o regular
crew compiled and presented by Mr. Richard S D'Ippolito.  Amazingly, I am
not even mentioned in any of this.  This is just standard howling and
wolfing at Bob Bales and one or two other people:


        Jim Merritt:

        "You are a duplicious liar."
        "Enough, child."
        "You are a fool..."
        "If you think like you write I doubt if you could make it down
        the block without breaking your leg."
        "Widdle Bobby, go look at the fishies."
        "Are you ever going to answer those 21 questions you have been
        asked" over and over and over, you liar?"
        "The person is a liar and a fraud."
        "I consider him a personal affront to thinking humanity."
        "Everyone archive his stupidity for the next go-around when he
        asks" exactly the same things?"
        "So much for your contentions.  What a fool.."
        "Answer them, you evasive bastard."
        "He is a habitual ignorant liar."
        "Evasive bastard, isn't he?"
        "Not an honest bone in his body."
        "Evasive child, isn't he?"
        "You are an evasive liar."
        "you are making yourself look like a bigger fool - if that
         is possible."
        "Nah, you're like a tick.  Irritating but useless at best."
        "Whatta twit.."
        "Nobody else is going to buy your ignorant statements, either."
        "What a fool."
        "Life MADE the oxygen, dimwit."



The word liar comes up frequently.

.........................................................................


From most versions of the Meritt anti-Velikovsky FAQ:


I.
   [Meritt]
   >Tell you what.  EVERY point that you can contest with verifiable arguments
   >with references to the original texts in a physical, biological, chemistry,
   >biology peer-reviewed INFORMED source, I'll change to your explaination.
   >Fair enough?

Meritt always goes on to claim he has never had to do this:

II.
   [Meritt]
   >Of course, since you haven't done that even once, I'm not real worried.


As I noted, there's the little matter of the problem with the Babylonian Venus
tablets.  This item has been totally and thoroughly debunked recently,
and I've pointed this out on t.o.

Nor do Meritt's claims that this is not HARD science hold water.  Stone
tablets are as hard as you could want.  If these tablets (in their original
state, undoctored by uniformitarian interpretations or apologists) indicate
Venus moving in totally unfamiliar patterns within the last 5000 years or so,
and they do, then Sagen, Meritt, and establishment science in general have
a problem.

Moreover, this evidence IS physical, and meets the requirements of I.

This little item has been conspicuously missing from several of Meritt's
recent versions of his "Velikovsky FAQ", or shatever he calls it.

If Meritt has deliberately excluded it, then sentence II. is an outright lie.

Does he still hold onto the bogus argument from the perspective of the
Venus tablets?  If so, then (I.) is an outright lie.

Kind of a nasty little catch-22.  And Meritt knows it.  After his most
recent posting of the FAQ, which included the item, Meritt claimed not to
have included the item:


>Gee.  Maybe you should READ what I posted.  That isn't there.

i.e. "Gee!  I must be a liar! ( sentence II)

Or, then again (two days later):

>Gee, maybe _I_ should read it closer.  It _IS_ mentioned in that
>copy...

i.e. "Golly! What a LIAR I am!" (sentence I).

as well as "Gee!  I sure do seem to be confused lately!"

(as in "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to
deceive...")


and finally:

> I removed it from some postings so I'd stop getting his same excuses...

i.e. "Items I. and II. were BOTH bullshit...  You know, you really shouldn't
listen to a fellow like me..."


















-- 
Ted Holden
HTE