PMCC 4th Watch Truth Project

Roland's Turn

AGAIN, YOU SKIPPED the cross examination part. You are incapable of cross examining me.


	Once again, you believed that I made a mistake, and that is why you acted like a Christian. Just because you believed I made the mistake, does not mean that I did. Your logic is completely flawed. Further more, you cannot prove that I made a mistake, but I have proven that you took out the cross examination part.

That is not a belief. It is a reality that you did. You made a mistake and IT WAS PROVEN.


	Just because I now know that taking out the cross examination part was not your intention, it doesn't mean I made a mistake.

Because BEFORE you DID NOT know, and NOW you know, you have misinterpreted and misunderstood me:
misinterpret - to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly

1. misunderstand - to take (words, statements, etc.) in a wrong sense; understand wrongly.
Random House Dictionary, 2011
For your information, that is an OBVIOUS MISTAKE:
4. mistake - to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret Random House Dictionary, 2011

Thank you for ADMITTING YOUR MISTAKE.


	You made the mistake of taking out the cross examination part and so my reasoning was based on the mistake that you made.

THIS IS A WRONG STATEMENT.
Let us go back to the original statement YOU made.


	You took out the cross-examination part. Obviously, I now know this was not your intention, but I was only following your format.

Where is your mistake here (misinterpretation)? You believed that I took out the cross examination part. BEFORE you DID NOT know my intention about the cross examination part (you believed I removed it); and NOW you know my intention about the cross examination part (that your belief was wrong, that I DID NOT TAKE IT OUT).

You based your reasoning with your belief that I took out the cross examination part, which was a mistake (see the previous paragraph). So the CORRECT statement should be:

Joe: I made the mistake of misinterpreting you and so my reasoning was based on the mistake that I made.


	I have already proved it to you, but your Christian brain does not allow you to understand evidence or proof when you see it. You're trained to ignore the facts and to believe what you want by making up your own.

You already admitted that you misunderstood/misinterpreted my intention about the cross examination part. You believed I removed it, but NOW you know that your belief was wrong, that I DID NOT TAKE IT OUT.

Additionally, I will prove to you that indeed I DID NOT TAKE OUT the cross examination part, and I DID NOT CHANGE the debate proper and debate format: The debate proper states that there will be two sets for the debate. In either of the sets, one is in the affirmative side, and another is in the negative side.

So in the actual debate page, I posted this:
1st set
Roland - affirmative side
Joe - negative side
Roland will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is the true church, according to the Bible.
2nd set
Joe - affirmative side
Roland - negative side
Joe will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is a cult of Christianity.

CHALLENGE: Prove that I took out the cross examination part in the above scenario.


	If a debater chose NOT to USE his parts, let us say he DID NOT USE ALL of the following: First Cross Examination of N, First Negative Constructive of N, Second Cross Examination of N, Second Negative Constructive of N, and Third Cross Examination of N, is he following the debate format, or NOT?

Yes, he is.

WRONG ANSWER.
My question is this: If a debater chose NOT to USE his parts, let us say he DID NOT USE ALL of the following: First Cross Examination of N, First Negative Constructive of N, Second Cross Examination of N, Second Negative Constructive of N, and Third Cross Examination of N, is he following the debate format, or NOT?

If the debater DID NOT USE ALL of those enumerated parts above, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL. Look at the debate format:

First Affirmative Constructive of A
First Cross Examination of N
First Negative Constructive of N
First Cross Examination of A
Second Affirmative Constructive of A
Second Cross Examination of N
Second Negative Constructive of N
Second Cross Examination of A
Third Affirmative Constructive of A
Third Cross Examination of N

The parts in blue are the ones I enumerated in my question. They are also the parts of debater N. If debater N DID NOT USE ALL of these parts, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL, because he took out ALL of his parts (AND THAT'S MY QUESTION). He is NOT following the debate format. He is a debater and yet he is not debating. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.


	Okay I looked at it again and once again you are making no sense. The comments you make have no relation to what was originally stated, but that doesn't surprise me considering you're a Christian and nothing you say ever makes sense anyway.

Your statement below started this:


	You set the topics, I let you go first, even before the coin toss...I have been very giving in this debate so far, I would think that the least you could do is be a little forgiving if I didn't follow the debate exactly as you wanted me to.

I replied:


	The topics I gave are my suggestions. I even told you too suggest your own.

You replied:


	I realize that, but I'm just saying that I gave you a lot in this debate, so the least you could do was not act like a Christian if I made a mistake in the debate format.

Here you said that you gave a lot. So I showed your posts (March 30) to prove that it is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. Below are the posts I am talking about.

BEFORE I suggested the topics, you said:


	You may start.

AFTER I suggested the topics, you said:


	Okay, well let's get this party started. Okay, let's just start. We really need to start this.

It's evident. I gave the topics but they are suggestions, and I told you to suggest your own. And the posts before and after I suggested the topics show that you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. It is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics.


	Go ahead and post this to your site so that they will see how you defend your violation.

Oh I will. Everyone's going to see what a screw-up you are. It will be almost as much fun as the fun I'm having right now crushing your weak arguments.

Give me the link that you posted this whole conversation.


	I know you do not trust atheists. You only trust cult leaders because that is what they programmed your robotic brain to do. Considering the fact that you believe in God because the Bible says he's real, and believe what the Bible says because God says it's real, shows you know nothing of logic. In fact, just about every other argument that comes out of you is either a logical fallacy or contains one.

Then do not say this again:


	Trust me


	So in other words, you want me to post a picture of my penis to Maritess? Because if I go by your logic, I have to do something just because I can and not because I actually want to. Where does she live? I'll get my camera out tonight. Would she rather have an erect penis or a flaccid penis? Should I be ejaculating when I take the picture? Advise please. Thank you.

Your questions are versions of tying fallacy, wherein unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together, but your questions are more of a red herring fallacy. This kind of fallacy has no place in a serious debate like this.


	Yes, this time I knowingly violated the rules. So now you can finally jump for joy and point your finger at me.

I was correct when I said this:


	You must follow the rules, proper and format of the debate. Do not be a VIOLATOR. You are a VIOLATOR of forum rules. You need to be ashamed of yourself.


	But you must know that it is your own wrong-doing which has allowed me to do this. You see, you were the first one to break the rules. Now I'm a forgiving person, but because of your immature behavior, I see no reason to be so nice to you. Thus, I broke one of your rules.

It was you who made a mistake by misinterpreting me. You believed that I took out the cross examination part. BEFORE you DID NOT know my intention about the cross examination part (you believed I removed it); and NOW you know my intention about the cross examination part (that your belief was wrong, that I DID NOT TAKE IT OUT).


	So in other words, erect or flaccid? Ejaculating or dry? ...Would Jonathon like one too?

You are trying to divert attention from the original issue. You are guilty of red herring fallacy. Atheists, especially you, are fallacious.


	You are a VIOLATOR of forum rules. THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW IT. Since we do not have a moderator to WARN YOU of your violations and DISQUALIFY YOU as a debater, I will be the one to CORRECT YOU since it is in your character to DISOBEY RULES.

Lol. You're such a joke. I love it how you actually talk as if you're important to the world. Christians mean nothing on this Earth. They are a perversion of humanity and a perversion of life. Atoms are wasted on the vessels which contain Christian minds.

It is obvious that you did not give attention to my point here, for the plain reason that you are guilty of being a debate VIOLATOR.


	When you look at the fact that I debunked everything you said and made you look like a fool, and when you have to rely on logical fallacies and made-up facts to try and prove your weak arguments, I'd say that it matters not whether I asked you questions. In the end, I have destroyed your arguments...and I didn't need the questions to do it.

You cannot prove that I made mistakes, but above I posted the proof that you made a mistake.


	I am the one who requested the debate. But initially you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate.

Great, but remember, I demand decent courtesy if I am to take the debate seriously.

First point, you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate, which you agreed here. Second point, you do not have decent courtesy because you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.


	You look forward to the next set, full of violations from you.

Well now, I guess that sort of depends on you now doesn't it...

Wrong. It depends on you, because you admitted that you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.


	"I'm invincible." - Gulliver's Tavels (2010)

Gulliver's Travels (2010) - Nah, nah...


	I have clever responses to all of your questions. But you are INCAPABLE of asking questions because you CANNOT NEGATE my affirmative constructive in the first place.

And that's probably why you're acting like a baby trying to get me to ask you questions. But again, I assure you, I would have just as easily destroyed your answers, just like I have destroyed every argument you have made so far, including your most recent posts. You better ask your momma' for another tissue to dry your tears, because no matter how much you cry, I'm not going to ask you the questions you want me to ask. You can keep crying about it, but it's just not going to happen. Why don't you pray about it?

You are not using the cross examination parts because you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.


	I got news for you, waiving your right to ask questions does not need to be stated in order to be allowed. If someone doesn't have questions, they don't have questions. End of story One day you might realize how stupid you are making yourself look by continuing to drag this issue along.

If a debater DID NOT USE ALL of his parts, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL, because he took out ALL of his parts. He is NOT following the debate format. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

I will ask the following question again since you did not answer it:

QUESTION 5:
Do you accept that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA?

Atheist Jesus' Turn


	AGAIN, YOU SKIPPED the cross examination part. You are incapable of cross examining me.

Again, you fail to understand that I do not wish to ask you questions. I am perfectly capable of cross-examining you, but I have no questions that I wish to ask you. When I do have questions, I will ask them. Now, put the pacifier back in your mouth and ask mommy to change your diaper. You're starting to smell. Thank you.


	That is not a belief. It is a reality that you did. You made a mistake and IT WAS PROVEN.

You must be confused, because while I proved that you made a mistake, you weren't able to show me what mistake I made. I'm still waiting for that. Any time you want to show; feel free.


	Just because I now know that taking out the cross examination part was not your intention, it doesn't mean I made a mistake.

Because BEFORE you DID NOT know, and NOW you know, you have misinterpreted and misunderstood me:

misinterpret - to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly
1. misunderstand - to take (words, statements, etc.) in a wrong sense; understand wrongly.
Random House Dictionary, 2011
For your information, that is an OBVIOUS MISTAKE:
4. mistake - to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret Random House Dictionary, 2011

Thank you for ADMITTING YOUR MISTAKE.

Thank you for reading up on your terminology. Now that you looked in your dictionary, maybe you will understand what a mistake is; And maybe you'll now understand that you made a mistake.

It is true that you did not intend to take out the cross-examination part, and I now know this. However, I did not misunderstand you, nor did I make a mistake. You are forgetting that it was your mistake that resulted in me believing what I did. You were not clear in your debate format and accidentally left out information you wanted to include. So my understanding of the situation was based on your mistake. Therefore, even though this was not your intention, I did not actually misunderstand or mistake anything. It was all you.


	You made the mistake of taking out the cross examination part and so my reasoning was based on the mistake that you made.

THIS IS A WRONG STATEMENT. Let us go back to the original statement YOU made.


	Obviously, I now know this was not your intention, but I was only following your format.

You based your reasoning with your belief that I took out the cross examination part, which was a mistake (see the previous paragraph). So the CORRECT statement should be:

Joe: I made the mistake of misinterpreting you and so my reasoning was based on the mistake that I made.

You would be correct, except you keep forgetting one thing. My belief was based on your mistake. In other words, my belief was only incorrect because you provided me with incorrect information. So it wasn't my mistake; it was yours.

It's like this:

Suppose I'm having sex with my girlfriend. We're naked in bed, and she asks me to put my penis in her butt. So I stick it in there and she yells at me, asking me what I think I'm doing...I tell her, you told me to put it in your butt; and she's like, no I told you to put it in my vagina. I tell her what she really said and she apologizes, knowing she accidentally said the wrong thing. We then proceed to abort the anal sex and have vaginal sex instead.

Now, even though I now know that she clearly intended to have my penis in her vagina and not her butt, is it my mistake that I put it in the incorrect hole, or is it hers? Of course, any logical person knows that it would be my girlfriend who made the mistake. I didn't misinterpret her; she simply gave me incorrect information. In her apology, she would say something like this:

"Sorry honey. I accidentally told you to put it in the wrong hole. I deserved to be punished. I'll go get the whip and chains."

And so on a similar note, the correct response that you Roland should give to me should be something like this:

"I am sorry. I accidentally took out the cross examination part, so there was no way for you to know what I really meant; And being a Christian cult member, I am taught to think illogically, so I was blaming you for my mistake. The god I worship doesn't forgive anyone, but I ask that you please find it in your heart to forgive a cultic fool like me. Thank you."

Ask for forgiveness Roland, and I will give it to you.


	WRONG ANSWER. My question is this: If a debater chose NOT to USE his parts, let us say he DID NOT USE ALL of the following: First Cross Examination of N, First Negative Constructive of N, Second Cross Examination of N, Second Negative Constructive of N, and Third Cross Examination of N, is he following the debate format, or NOT? If the debater DID NOT USE ALL of those enumerated parts above, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL. He is a debater and yet he is not debating. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

Wrong answer. The right answer is that yes, the person is still following the rules just fine.

I know you like looking in the dictionary, so here you go:

Debate:
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

-Random House Dictionary, 2011

You see Roland, you are very incorrect in your "knowledge" of debates. Debates are special discussions in which there are opposing views and everyone involved tries to convince each other and an audience if applicable, that their own views are correct. Nobody needs to ask any questions in a debate. In fact, persons rarely do. Debates are mostly comprised of each debater making statements about their views. The only reason in a debate when questions are mainly asked is for clarification of an opponent's view or statement. Opponents do not interview each other in a debate, which is what it seems you are trying to convince me of. You have a view, and you present that view. I have a view, and I present mine. We will go back and forth telling each other why the other person is wrong, but never is anyone required to ask questions. That's just dumb. For you to say that someone who does not "cross-examine" their opponent by asking questions is not debating "at all", is just silly...and wrong!

But I'll tell you what; Since you can't stop crying and acting like a baby until I ask you some questions, I'll ask you some damn questions. Will that make you feel better? Since I don't have any questions I wish to ask you about the subjects involving the debate, I guess I'll just have to ask you different questions. Let's see; how 'bout these:

1.) Is the rumor that Arsenio Ferriol has no testicles true?

2.) How many times a day do you jerk off?

3.) When jerking off, do you dream about having sex with Jesus?

4.) Who turns you on more, Maritess Ferriol, or Jonathan Ferriol?

5.) What part of Maritess's body is the best place for a sperm coating? Face, breasts, stomach, or ass?

6.) Who's cock in the whole world do you want to suck on the most?

Whoops; Looks like I went past my limit of five questions. I know; I'm a VIOLATOR of the rules. Lol. Well I figure it will help make up for all those questions I didn't ask before. So here's one more:

7.) What does semen really taste like?

If you know the answers to these questions, please answer them. Thanks.


	It's evident. I gave the topics but they are suggestions, and I told you to suggest your own. And the posts before and after I suggested the topics show that you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. It is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics.

There is no question that I was anxious to get started, but that does not change the fact that I was very giving in this debate. I gave you a lot of freedom. With this in mind, if I had actually made any mistakes with your suggestions, then you should have been kinder, and not have acted so rude. Your rudeness is the reason that I no longer take you seriously.


	Go ahead and post this to your site so that they will see how you defend your violation.


	Oh I will. Everyone's going to see what a screw-up you are. It will be almost as much fun as the fun I'm having right now crushing your weak arguments.

Give me the link that you posted this whole conversation.

Sure. I just finished reformatting the debate we have so far to be fitting for our website. Our debate is now posted in the debates area in the official PMCC 4th Watch cult website at:

http://www.pmcc4thwatchtruth.org/pages/web/debates/debate1intro.shtml

You're represented by a mindless cult zombie.


	I know you do not trust atheists. You only trust cult leaders because that is what they programmed your robotic brain to do. Considering the fact that you believe in God because the Bible says he's real, and believe what the Bible says because God says it's real, shows you know nothing of logic. In fact, just about every other argument that comes out of you is either a logical fallacy or contains one.

Then do not say this again:


	Trust me

This statement is a command, and it is stated to tell you to do something, but not necessarily with the expectation that you will follow it. Trust me, atheists are above Christian cultists, so I have every right to give you commands. You might not follow them, but I'm still going to tell you what I want you to do; And when it comes to crushing your arguments; trust me; I will have no problem doing so. Any clever thing you have to say is easily debunked by me.


	Your questions are versions of tying fallacy, wherein unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together, but your questions are more of a red herring fallacy. This kind of fallacy has no place in a serious debate like this.

There are few Christians in the world, and almost no cult members who are qualified to speak about logic and logical fallacies. The argument I presented might be a little too colorful for your cultic mind, but the logic is very applicable to this "serious" debate.

You've been making the argument that if I am really capable of cross-examining you with questions, that I have to; and that is not right. Just because you are capable of doing something, does not mean you have to do it. It's just like the fact that I am perfectly capable of taking a picture of my penis and sending it to your beloved pastor; But according to the logic that you want me to follow, if I choose not to send a picture of my penis to Maritess, then that means I am not capable of doing so. This makes no sense, and you really need to re-examine your position on this, as well as your head.

So then, if you believe that I have to ask you questions, even though I do not wish to, then I obviously have to send a picture of my penis to your pastor. Would you like one too? Are you jealous?


	You must follow the rules, proper and format of the debate. Do not be a VIOLATOR. You are a VIOLATOR of forum rules. You need to be ashamed of yourself.

Yep, and I knew you wet your pants when you saw that; jumping for joy no less. And again, it is your own wrong-doing which has allowed me to do this. You reap what you sow. Didn't anyone ever teach you that?


	You are a VIOLATOR of forum rules. THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW IT. Since we do not have a moderator to WARN YOU of your violations and DISQUALIFY YOU as a debater, I will be the one to CORRECT YOU since it is in your character to DISOBEY RULES.


	Lol. You're such a joke. I love it how you actually talk as if you're important to the world. Christians mean nothing on this Earth. They are a perversion of humanity and a perversion of life. Atoms are wasted on the vessels which contain Christian minds.


	It is obvious that you did not give attention to my point here, for the plain reason that you are guilty of being a debate VIOLATOR.

And that should have given you a clue. I did not care about your point. Your "point" has already been debunked several times within that posting and ones before it, and is actually irrelevant to our debate anyway. In this post, I was addressing your desire to somehow make me believe that you are important somehow...that I would actually care about you warning me and disqualifying me or something. Get a clue. You're not important. You mean nothing to the world. You are dirt. If you don't want to be dirt., leave the cult, and find a decent church; one that doesn't teach you to hate and to follow false prophets.


	First point, you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate, which you agreed here.

No, really? Lol.


	Second point, you do not have decent courtesy because you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.

You have been nothing but rude and unkind during this whole debate. As for violating the rules; I only violated the rules after you did. You want to be mean, you want to use logical fallacies, so how can you complain?


	You look forward to the next set, full of violations from you.


	Well now, I guess that sort of depends on you now doesn't it...


	Wrong. It depends on you, because you admitted that you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.

You were the first violator, and a much worse one.


	"I'm invincible." - Gulliver's Tavels (2010)


	Gulliver's Travels (2010) - Nah, nah...

"Come on little man. Let's see how good you really are." -The Karate Kid Part III


	You are not using the cross examination parts because you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.

Lol.


	If a debater DID NOT USE ALL of his parts, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL, because he took out ALL of his parts. He is NOT following the debate format. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

Wrong again. If a debater did not use all of its parts, that doesn't mean it took out all of its parts. This is more failed logic. Choosing to waive their opportunity to ask questions in no way means that the person is no longer debating. Duh. If that was true, we wouldn't be having a debate now. You are so brainwashed by the cult, it's not even funny. Look what they did to you. It looks like they drained all of the logic out of you and dumped it somewhere like it was toxic waste.


	I will ask the following question again since you did not answer it: QUESTION 5: Do you accept that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA?

No; I do not accept that. Do you accept that the head leader of your cult is Joseph Smith?

Roland's Turn


	Again, you fail to understand that I do not wish to ask you questions. I am perfectly capable of cross-examining you, but I have no questions that I wish to ask you. When I do have questions, I will ask them. Now, put the pacifier back in your mouth and ask mommy to change your diaper. You're starting to smell. Thank you.

You are PERFECTLY INCAPABLE of cross-examining me.

One cannot speak well to his mother with a pacifier in his mouth. Very poor common sense.

How can you debate with me with this ridiculous way of thinking?


	You must be confused, because while I proved that you made a mistake, you weren't able to show me what mistake I made. I'm still waiting for that. Any time you want to show; feel free.

You are just PRETENDING that you did not see the proof, trying to escape from shame. But I will not permit this.


	Thank you for reading up on your terminology. Now that you looked in your dictionary, maybe you will understand what a mistake is; And maybe you'll now understand that you made a mistake.

This is not my dictionary, this is an American dictionary available to all. Defining the words above makes it clearer that you made a mistake.


	It is true that you did not intend to take out the cross-examination part, and I now know this. However, I did not misunderstand you, nor did I make a mistake. You are forgetting that it was your mistake that resulted in me believing what I did. You were not clear in your debate format and accidentally left out information you wanted to include. So my understanding of the situation was based on your mistake. Therefore, even though this was not your intention, I did not actually misunderstand or mistake anything. It was all you.

WRONG. I did not take out the cross-examination part. You have no proof that I took it out. That's where your mistake came in: you thought I took it out, but in reality I didn't (and you have no proof that I took it out). You misinterpreted and misunderstood me - equals YOUR MISTAKE.Roland's Argument:


	You would be correct, except you keep forgetting one thing. My belief was based on your mistake. In other words, my belief was only incorrect because you provided me with incorrect information. So it wasn't my mistake; it was yours.

We have two stories here. Roland's story vs. Joe's story.

Joe's story:
Roland took out the cross-examination part. Joe proceeded to the negative constructive part instead of the cross-examination part. Here, Roland made a mistake. Joe's reasoning was based on the mistake that Roland made.

Roland's story:
Roland did not take out the cross-examination part. Joe misinterpreted/misunderstood Roland. Joe believed that Roland removed the cross-examination part. Joe proceeded to the negative constructive part instead of the cross-examination part. But now, Joe realized he (Joe) was wrong in believing that Roland took out the cross-examination part.

Here, Joe made a mistake. Joe's reasoning was based on the mistake that he (Joe) made.

Three points here. First, I have a proof that I did not take out the cross-examination part. Second, you have no proof that I took out the cross-examination part. Third, I have a proof that you made a mistake of misinterpretation.

And to add, you again VIOLATED the following debate rule:

3) No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images. Both parties will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, against another member.

THE PUBLIC ALREADY KNOWS that YOU are a VIOLATOR of forum rules.

Again, I will prove to you that indeed I DID NOT TAKE OUT the cross examination part, and I DID NOT CHANGE the debate proper and debate format. This was posted several times but you are just ignoring it. So I WILL POST IT AGAIN, including the CHALLENGE:

The debate proper states that there will be two sets for the debate. In either of the sets, one is in the affirmative side, and another is in the negative side. So in the actual debate page, I posted this:

1st set
Roland - affirmative side
Joe - negative side
Roland will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is the true church, according to the Bible.

2nd set
Joe - affirmative side
Roland - negative side
Joe will prove that PMCC 4th Watch is a cult of Christianity.

CHALLENGE: Prove that I took out the cross examination part in the above scenario.


	Wrong answer. The right answer is that yes, the person is still following the rules just fine. I know you like looking in the dictionary, so here you go: Debate: 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. -Random House Dictionary, 2011 You see Roland, you are very incorrect in your "knowledge" of debates. Debates are special discussions in which there are opposing views and everyone involved tries to convince each other and an audience if applicable, that their own views are correct. Nobody needs to ask any questions in a debate. In fact, persons rarely do. Debates are mostly comprised of each debater making statements about their views. The only reason in a debate when questions are mainly asked is for clarification of an opponent's view or statement. Opponents do not interview each other in a debate, which is what it seems you are trying to convince me of. You have a view, and you present that view. I have a view, and I present mine. We will go back and forth telling each other why the other person is wrong, but never is anyone required to ask questions. That's just dumb. For you to say that someone who does not "cross-examine" their opponent by asking questions is not debating "at all", is just silly...and wrong!

VERY WRONG ANSWER.

We are in a formal debate, and we agreed on the rules and format before we started.

In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. -Wikipedia

Formal debate has specific structures, rules and limits.

- Debate Education Project (e2405 - Debate seminar for university teachers)

For your education, a formal debate has a definite and precise structure or rules. We agreed on the following format:

The parts in blue are the parts of debater N (or the debater in negative side). If debater N DID NOT USE ALL of these parts, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL, because he took out ALL of his parts. Take a look at what it will look like if debater N DID NOT USE ALL of these parts:

First Affirmative Constructive of A
First Cross Examination of A
Second Affirmative Constructive of A
Second Cross Examination of A
Third Affirmative Constructive of A

He is CLEARLY NOT following the debate format. He is a debater and yet HE IS NOT DEBATING AT ALL. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

And for your information, a debate cross-examination is not a kind of interview. Remember that.


	But I'll tell you what; Since you can't stop crying and acting like a baby until I ask you some questions, I'll ask you some damn questions. Will that make you feel better? Since I don't have any questions I wish to ask you about the subjects involving the debate, I guess I'll just have to ask you different questions. Let's see; how �bout these: 1.) Is the rumor that Arsenio Ferriol has no testicles true? 2.) How many times a day do you jerk off? 3.) When jerking off, do you dream about having sex with Jesus? 4.) Who turns you on more, Maritess Ferriol, or Jonathan Ferriol? 5.) What part of Maritess's body is the best place for a sperm coating? Face, breasts, stomach, or ass? 6.) Who's cock in the whole world do you want to suck on the most? Whoops; Looks like I went past my limit of five questions. I know; I'm a VIOLATOR of the rules. Lol. Well I figure it will help make up for all those questions I didn't ask before. So here's one more: 7.) What does semen really taste like? If you know the answers to these questions, please answer them. Thanks.

You are guilty of two things:

- Violation of the following debate rule:
3) No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images. Both parties will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, against another member.

- Red herring fallacy. Since your arguments are getting weaker and weaker, you are resorting to logical fallacies. And because you hit the red herring fallacy twice already, one may conclude that you are either an ignorant debater who knows nothing or a fallacious debater who deliberately commits incorrect reasoning.


	There is no question that I was anxious to get started, but that does not change the fact that I was very giving in this debate. I gave you a lot of freedom. With this in mind, if I had actually made any mistakes with your suggestions, then you should have been kinder, and not have acted so rude. Your rudeness is the reason that I no longer take you seriously.

Two points here. First, I presented the proofs (posts before and after I suggested the topics) that show you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. It is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. Second, take a look at the following arguments:


	Roland's Argument: I MUST CORRECT YOU again. First, it was not an answer to any question. Second, there was no question in my quote. Try to review my post last March 30, 2011 at 6:24 pm. You ought to be embarrassed. Joe's Response: Okay I looked at it again and once again you are making no sense. The comments you make have no relation to what was originally stated, but that doesn't surprise me considering you're a Christian and nothing you say ever makes sense anyway. And then I showed the comment you described as nonsense, including your posts. But clearly in your last response you have lost your touch with what you were saying, which means your responses about my comments are wrong. My comment was not an answer to any question. There was no question in my comment. My comment was a meaningful observation and not a nonsense one.

Now you know.


	Sure. I just finished reformatting the debate we have so far to be fitting for our website. Our debate is now posted in the debates area in the official PMCC 4th Watch cult website at: http://www.pmcc4thwatchtruth.org/pages/web/debate1.shtml You're represented by a mindless cult zombie.

I already expected that, that you will represent me by an offensive figure. It is your way of personal attack since you cannot poke even a yoctometric hole in my arguments.


	This statement is a command, and it is stated to tell you to do something, but not necessarily with the expectation that you will follow it. Trust me, atheists are above Christian cultists, so I have every right to give you commands. You might not follow them, but I'm still going to tell you what I want you to do; And when it comes to crushing your arguments; trust me; I will have no problem doing so. Any clever thing you have to say is easily debunked by me.

You are saying it in vain. What you should do is have good and persuasive arguments. So far you haven't done that.


	There are few Christians in the world, and almost no cult members who are qualified to speak about logic and logical fallacies. The argument I presented might be a little too colorful for your cultic mind, but the logic is very applicable to this "serious" debate. You've been making the argument that if I am really capable of cross-examining you with questions, that I have to; and that is not right. Just because you are capable of doing something, does not mean you have to do it. It's just like the fact that I am perfectly capable of taking a picture of my penis and sending it to your beloved pastor; But according to the logic that you want me to follow, if I choose not to send a picture of my penis to Maritess, then that means I am not capable of doing so. This makes no sense, and you really need to re-examine your position on this, as well as your head. So then, if you believe that I have to ask you questions, even though I do not wish to, then I obviously have to send a picture of my penis to your pastor. Would you like one too? Are you jealous?

You are displaying erroneousness and ignorance here. Do not just repeat your arguments. Negate that you did not use red herring fallacy.


	Yep, and I knew you wet your pants when you saw that; jumping for joy no less. And again, it is your own wrong-doing which has allowed me to do this. You reap what you sow. Didn't anyone ever teach you that?

Nowhere in my posts did I make a mistake, specifically the one pertaining to cross-examination. Prove it. You can't simply assume.


	And that should have given you a clue. I did not care about your point. Your "point" has already been debunked several times within that posting and ones before it, and is actually irrelevant to our debate anyway. In this post, I was addressing your desire to somehow make me believe that you are important somehow...that I would actually care about you warning me and disqualifying me or something. Get a clue. You're not important. You mean nothing to the world. You are dirt. If you don't want to be dirt., leave the cult, and find a decent church; one that doesn't teach you to hate and to follow false prophets.

An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. You went off on a tangent. You hit the red herring fallacy the third time.


	First point, you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate, which you agreed here.

No, really? Lol.

Refute if you don't agree.


	You have been nothing but rude and unkind during this whole debate. As for violating the rules; I only violated the rules after you did. You want to be mean, you want to use logical fallacies, so how can you complain?

The point is you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules. Lay your proofs before me that I committed an error.


	You were the first violator, and a much worse one.

ASSUMING (WITHOUT ACCEPTING) that I made a violation, you are guilty of Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy. This set is full of YOUR violations, and I am exposing them.


	"Come on little man. Let's see how good you really are." -The Karate Kid Part III

One Piece - "You don't stand a chance against me!"


	You are not using the cross examination parts because you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules.

Lol.

YOU VIOLATED our agreed debate format.


	If a debater DID NOT USE ALL of his parts, he is NOT DEBATING AT ALL, because he took out ALL of his parts. He is NOT following the debate format. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

QUESTION: What did I say, a debater DID NOT USE SOME of his parts, OR a debater DID NOT USE ALL of his parts?


	Do you accept that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA?

No; I do not accept that. Do you accept that the head leader of your cult is Joseph Smith?

You do not accept that. Here are the PROOFS that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA. Enjoy.

(Click each image for larger view)

Philip Keenan of IL, USA made a poem and can be found in his original website. He decided to expand his original website (it will morph into a bigger website in the future).

Several months later a new site called PMCC 4th Watch Truth Project was created. The head producer of this project is the same one who authored the poem, none other than Philip Keenan. The new website is the official project.

The head producer of the website is Philip Keenan.

producer
2 ..., maker, ...
- Collins Dictionary of the English Language & Collins Writer's Thesaurus of the English Language

Main Entry: producer
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: builder
Synonyms: ..., maker, ...
- Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

maker (n). - One who brings into existence by shaping matter or combining parts or ingredients; manufacturer or producer.
- eSpindle Learning (2004), CA, USA

Main Entry: maker
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: creator
Synonyms: ..., producer
- Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

Therefore, the head maker of the website is Philip Keenan.

Atheist Jesus' Turn


	You are PERFECTLY INCAPABLE of cross-examining me.

Incorrect. What you meant to say was I am perfectly capable of cross-examining you. I just chose not to because I do not have any questions that I wish to ask you. It's not necessary. It's a debate, not an interview. If you want an interview, call CNN. I'm sure they'd like to interview your cult leader too.


	One cannot speak well to his mother with a pacifier in his mouth. Very poor common sense. How can you debate with me with this ridiculous way of thinking?

Because you don't understand logic, you mistakenly believe that when told to put the pacifier back in your mouth and to ask your mommy to change you, that it has to be done in that order. There was nothing in my passage that suggested you were to do this in any particular order. Besides, babies do not communicate through verbal speech anyway. Just as you've been crying through out this whole debate, you can continue to do so with a paciefier in your mouth...it just helps to make you sound less annoying to me.

And by the way; you still smell. It's from all the poo poo that you talk about. If mommy's not around, please ask your apostle or pastor Jonathon to wipe your ass...and don't forget your mouth, since that is where most of your poop comes from.


	You are just PRETENDING that you did not see the proof, trying to escape from shame. But I will not permit this.

You mean how you are just pretending that there is a god and how you are just pretending that Arsenio Ferriol is an apostle? I don't have to pretend and believe in things to make me feel better. I rely on evidence. You have not presented any evidence which shows you are correct. But if you want me to rely on faith, maybe I'll try it some time, and we'll see how that works...


	This is not my dictionary, this is an American dictionary available to all.

The reason why I believe you keep looking for such petty things to start an argument over, is because you know that you have already lost the main part of this debate, and that was to prove that your cult is completely Biblical. Since you have not been able to do that, you are looking for whatever you can find to try and make it look as if you are doing a good job here. It is obvious that the main part of the debate is over, and I have come out on top. Just look at how much time you spend on these petty issues, looking at your dictionary, and arguing about trivial things. Then look at how much time you spent on the actual debate. By stating that you were looking at "your" dictionary, it does not have to be intended to mean that the dictionary being referred to was yours and yours alone. Using "your" was to signify that it was a dictionary that you were using. Anyone with a brain knows this. Again; you are only making an argument out of this to try and make up for your loss in this debate. It's a red herring. In case you don't know what that is, it's a separate argument that is meant as a distraction from the main argument, often used to get out of debating the argument you were in, or to create an illusion that you were winning the argument when you really weren't. Really; I feel sorry for you. It's pathetic. Soon we'll be debating about whether or not Super Mario looks better in red or blue pants.


	Defining the words above makes it clearer that you made a mistake.

Actually, it helps to show you made a mistake...and you've made a lot of them!


	WRONG. I did not take out the cross-examination part. You have no proof that I took it out. That's where your mistake came in: you thought I took it out, but in reality I didn't (and you have no proof that I took it out). You misinterpreted and misunderstood me - equals YOUR MISTAKE.

It's not a mistake if you provided the incorrect information...which means you first made the mistake. Since my decision was based on YOUR mistake, I didn't really make a mistake at all. Remember, if a girl asks you to put your penis in her ass but meant her pussy, then if you put it in the incorrect hole, it was her fault and not yours.


	We have two stories here. Roland's story vs. Joe's story.

Yes, and I've clearly already explained to you why my story is correct.


	And to add, you again VIOLATED the following debate rule: 3) No "Offensive" or "Illegal" Posts, Links or Images. Both parties will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory or otherwise violative of any local or international laws, against another member.

If you'd start following the rules yourself, I'll actually start caring about your rules Roland.


	VERY WRONG ANSWER. We are in a formal debate, and we agreed on the rules and format before we started. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. -Wikipedia Formal debate has specific structures, rules and limits. - Debate Education Project (e2405 - Debate seminar for university teachers) For your education, a formal debate has a definite and precise structure or rules.

Actually, my answer was VERY RIGHT, and your response only shows more how incapable you are of understanding reason. Here, you are making what's called a strawman argument. In case you don't know what that is, it's a type of red herring fallacy, in which you are creating a separate argument which is clearly correct, giving the illusion that you have won the argument, but which does not actually address the original argument you were having. The thing is Roland, we both already agree that we are in a formal debate, and that it has rules. I don't disagree with you on that. That's not the argument. The argument we are having is not whether or not we are in a formal debate, or if such a debate has rules. No; the argument we are having is whether or not I broke the rules when I decided not to cross examine you. Nice try, but I'm not going to let you get away with logical fallacies. You've already made two so far in just this post alone. Let's see how many more I can find... In any case, there is no need to look through your encyclopedia now. And of course, I am correct when I say that I did not break the rules, because as I have clearly explained that a debate is not an interview, and questions are not necessary in any debate; formal or not.


	He is CLEARLY NOT following the debate format. He is a debater and yet HE IS NOT DEBATING AT ALL. He is a CLEAR VIOLATOR of the debate format and debate rules.

Debating is not asking questions. You want me to interview you. I am not interested in interviewing you; I want to debate you. You are doing the same thing to me; interviewing me by asking me silly questions like what the Bible says, and what a mystery is...Again, this is not an interview. We are debating. If you don't know what a debate is, take another look at your encyclopedia; but this time, ask a grown-up to help you.


	And for your information, a debate cross-examination is not a kind of interview. Remember that.

Thank you for admitting that I taught you something. Yes, a debate cross-examination is not a kind of interview. This is what I've been trying to tell you, so I'm glad you finally get it. Thank you for that.


	- Red herring fallacy. Since your arguments are getting weaker and weaker, you are resorting to logical fallacies. And because you hit the red herring fallacy twice already, one may conclude that you are either an ignorant debater who knows nothing or a fallacious debater who deliberately commits incorrect reasoning.

I take it you didn't like my questions. How about these:

1) Do you secretly dream about burying your cock inside of Jonathon Ferriol's asshole and getting sweaty with him under the sheets?

2) Do you believe Maritess Ferriol secretly masturbates to thoughts of her husband having kinky sex with another man?

3) If Maritess allowed you to have sex with Jonathon under the condition that you have to eat her out, would Jonathon's ass be too tempting to resist that you would lick a pussy?

Aren't you proud of me this time? I kept it under five questions. See? I'm following the rules. Lol.

And just a note for you; It's not a red herring if the statement is given to prove a point. You wouldn't understand this because Christian cult members are kings at using fallacious logic, but I mention it so that you know that you are wrong...as always.


	First, I presented the proofs (posts before and after I suggested the topics) that show you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. It is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics.


	It's evident. I gave the topics but they are suggestions, and I told you to suggest your own. And the posts before and after I suggested the topics show that you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. It is not that you gave a lot, but you were either in a hurry or cannot think of other topics. And then I showed the comment you described as nonsense, including your posts. But clearly in your last response you have lost your touch with what you were saying, which means your responses about my comments are wrong. My comment was not an answer to any question. There was no question in my comment. My comment was a meaningful observation and not a nonsense one. Now you know.

Are you ever going to say anything that related to the original issue, or are you going to keep creating red herrings and straw men?

This whole thing started because you were acting like a little bitch because you believed that I didn't follow your debate exactly as you wanted to. Of course, after examination, we now know this was because you made a mistake in taking out the cross examination. But also, I have no questions to ask any way, because this is not an interview. So even if I didn't ask questions, this was still not a mistake, but simply a choice that I made not to ask questions.

However, if I did make a mistake, my thought was that you could be a little forgiving, especially after I had been very flexible and giving in the debate with you. You were the one who wanted the debate. Yes, I welcome debate, but I am still doing you a favor by debating you, especially with all of your terms, suggestions, and requests. You wanted additions to my rules, and I said fine. I didn't want a formal debate, you did, so I allowed it. You're calling me by a different name because you are rude, but I didn't bitch about it. I wanted the debate on Facebook, you wanted it here, on a site with an offensive name, but I did it any way. I let you go first, even before you did the coin toss. So again, if I made a mistake, the least you could do was not be so rude and be a little kinder, but I know that's not the Christian way.

Your first response to this was to tell me that it's not like we didn't agree on the rules, and to not make it sound like you were dictating the rules to me. You completely ignored what I had said. This response did not properly relate to the issue and statement that I had made.

You were using a red herring logical fallacy again. I already explained to you what a red herring is, so you should be able to understand what it is you did incorrectly; But basically, you diverted the attention away from the real issue by bringing up another one. This red herring argument you started was also a straw man. Again, I explained to you what a straw man is, so you should understand your error, but basically, the new argument you brought up was true and not refutable by me since I agree with it. This was done to give an impression that you were correct in the original argument, even though this is a separate argument altogether.

The original argument was that if I made a mistake, then because I was very giving to you, the least you could do was be a little forgiving. You created a red herring by diverting the attention to our agreement on following the rules, and your straw man attempted to make it seem like your response was a correct closing of the original argument; But the argument was not about following the rules, it was about you being forgiving had I broken any of them because I was giving in this debate.

I tried to explain this to you in my response when I told you that I was simply saying that I had given you a lot in this debate, and that I didn't need your horribly rude Christian attitude; But then, you do it again. You created another red herring, a different one this time, by telling me that it was not that I gave a lot, but that I was in a hurry or that I couldn't think of other topics; And once again, I reminded you that your response was not relating to the statement that I gave. Once again, I was saying that if I had made a mistake, that you could be forgiving since I've given you much.

You see, whether I was in a hurry or not, this does not change the fact that I was very giving to you. Telling me that I was in a hurry does nothing for you in defending yourself as to why you acted like an asshole to me if I made a mistake, especially after I've given you so much in this debate. This was a huge red herring because you ignored the issue, first by making it about following the rules, and then here, by telling me that I couldn't suggest new topics because I was in a hurry. I had no intention of suggesting new topics. Your topics were fine. The argument is that if I had made a mistake, because I had given you so much, I should deserve some forgiveness. It has nothing to do with following the rules or being in a hurry, or suggesting new topics, or anything like that.

And then this cycle starts to get repeated. You try to tell me once again that I was in a hurry and couldn't think of other topics, and once again I reminded you that this did not relate to the issue. Again, I was not interested in making other topics, and being in a hurry had nothing to do with the fact that I was giving and deserved forgiveness if I had made a mistake. You tried so hard to completely turn this into a different issue.

And then, you try the same thing AGAIN; ANOTHER red herring, by diverting the attention from the original issue by focusing on the fact that I used the word "question" in my post, and now you want to argue about whether or not you asked a question. Plus, it's another straw man, because there is no doubt that you did not ask a question, thus trying to give the illusion that you won the argument.

I gave you a lot. You acted rude because you believed that I made a mistake. I reminded you that I gave you a lot, and that if I made a mistake, you could be forgiving. Then you tell me that we both agreed on the rules, which doesn't relate to the issue, and is both a red herring and a straw man, and after reminding you of this, you create a huge red herring by telling me that I was in a hurry and I couldn't think of other topics; And when I point out your error again, once again you commit a red herring and straw man by telling me that you didn't ask a question.

Are you ever going to say anything that related to the original issue, or are you going to keep creating red herrings and straw men? By the way, that's three red herrings so far in this post you made.

Now you know.


	I already expected that, that you will represent me by an offensive figure. It is your way of personal attack since you cannot poke even a yoctometric hole in my arguments.

It's not about attacks; it's about finding a fitting representation of those who are speaking. You should be thanking me for finding an icon which represents you and your fellow cult members so perfectly. You are represented by a zombie with blood on his mouth. You are a cult member, correct? Because of the brainwashing and mind control you've been subjected to in your cult by your cult leaders, you are basically mindless, unable to think for yourself, and with no ability to think critically or with rationality and/or logic...which has been proven by your debating skills. Plus, you drink blood and eat human flesh...also like a zombie. So what icon would you suggest is better to use than a zombie? I'm open to suggestions.


	You are saying it in vain. What you should do is have good and persuasive arguments. So far you haven't done that.

My arguments will never be good and persuasive to a mindless cult zombie.


	You are displaying erroneousness and ignorance here. Do not just repeat your arguments. Negate that you did not use red herring fallacy.

Christian cult members, even though they are masters at using logical fallacies, don't actually understand why they are logical errors; so such persons like yourself are not qualified to even talk about them. The truth is, the argument I presented might be a little too colorful for your cultic mind, but the logic is very applicable to this "serious" debate.

You've been making the argument that if I am really capable of cross-examining you with questions, that I have to; and that is not correct. Just because you are capable of doing something, does not mean you have to do it. It's just like the fact that I am perfectly capable of taking a picture of my penis and sending it to your beloved pastor; But according to the logic that you want me to follow, if I choose not to send a picture of my penis to Maritess, then that means I am not capable of doing so. This makes no sense, and you really need to re-examine your position on this, as well as your head.

So then, if you believe that I have to ask you questions, even though I do not wish to, then I obviously have to send a picture of my penis to your pastor. Would you like one too? Are you jealous?


	An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. You went off on a tangent. You hit the red herring fallacy the third time.

You are incorrect. I have already clearly explained why you are incorrect. Your argument has been logically and rationally debunked, and your refusal to accept that is making you look even more foolish. I am now addressing your perceived sense of importance and value. I am simply reminding you that as a Christian cult member, you have no importance or value to this world. You seem to forget that, and actually believe that your life has meaning. I am simply reminding you that Christian cult members' lives are worthless to the world.


	First point, you are the one who invited and encouraged a debate, which you agreed here.


	No, really? Lol.

Refute if you don't agree.

Lol. I have already told you that I agree, but you are taking too much liberty with what we say on our contact page, just like with what you do with the Bible. You take a statement, and stretch it to mean whatever you want.

This is what we say on our site:

"Everyone is also invited and encouraged to visit our active dialogue piece where you can participate by leaving comments yourself and reading comments from others. This is where you can debate and ask questions for others to help you."

Now, you have tried to make it sound like I personally initiated a debate with you. This is not true. We are simply saying that we invite and encourage everyone to visit our forums where they can leave comments, ask questions, and debate. If anyone wishes to engage in a debate, it does not necessarily have to be with any of us-the Watchers of the 4th Watch, or with me, but can be with any member of the forum. Also, while there are some rules to follow, there is nothing formal in these types of discussions.

You are the one who specifically requested to debate us, particularly me, the head producer of our project, complete with a formal debate system, and additional rules of your own. This is not exactly what we meant when we said that we invite and encourage discussion. What we meant is actually clear, but can easily be misinterpreted by persons who make a living out of rewriting the intentions of the Bible to fit their own selfish desires. This does not mean that we do not desire to have any debates, and in fact, we do love debating; but you have to understand what is really meant in a statement, and you can't just make up your own meaning.

So, in getting back to the original issue, you were the one who initiated the debate, and I was very flexible for your wishes. I have given you lots of freedoms in this. So while I am open to debate, you are the one who initiated it and made it your own.


	The point is you are a VIOLATOR of debate rules. Lay your proofs before me that I committed an error.

Read this post and all of my previous posts. The answers are there, but the cult has blinded you from seeing reason.


	ASSUMING (WITHOUT ACCEPTING) that I made a violation, you are guilty of Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy. This set is full of YOUR violations, and I am exposing them.

You are assuming that the action I took was wrong in the first place. If my action was justified based on your wrong action, then my action isn't wrong. Both actions must be wrong in order for this fallacy to have taken place.

Consider this: Killing an innocent person is morally wrong, but killing a quilty person who has done a major wrong deserving of such a punishment, or in defense, is justified, and is not morally wrong. If a man kills a woman after raping her, and then her husband kills that man, this is not a use of a two wrong make a right fallacy. This is because killing is not always wrong, like some incorrectly assume. The man killing the woman is a wrong. The husband killing his wife's murderer is not wrong. The fact that he took the law into his own hands might be wrong, but the concept of the rapist being killed is not wrong. Therefore, no fallacy is made. It's the same here. You broke the rules and acted rude, so I am returning the favor.


	One Piece - "You don't stand a chance against me!"

"You can't win!" - Rocky 4


	QUESTION: What did I say, a debater DID NOT USE SOME of his parts, OR a debater DID NOT USE ALL of his parts?

If you look closely at your post, you will clearly see that you said "all". Now why did you need to ask me? Lol. Anyways, seeing that you had no refutation for this, it looks like you admit I was correct. Thanks.

You do not accept that. Here are the PROOFS that the head maker of the website is Phillip Keenan of Illinois, USA. Enjoy.

Philip Keenan of IL, USA made a poem and can be found in his original website. He decided to expand his original website (it will morph into a bigger website in the future).

The head producer of the website is Philip Keenan.

producer
2 ..., maker, ...
- Collins Dictionary of the English Language & Collins Writer's Thesaurus of the English Language

Main Entry: producer
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: builder
Synonyms: ..., maker, ...
- Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

maker (n). - One who brings into existence by shaping matter or combining parts or ingredients; manufacturer or producer.
- eSpindle Learning (2004), CA, USA

Main Entry: maker
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: creator
Synonyms: ..., producer
- Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

Therefore, the head maker of the website is Philip Keenan.

Lol. First, I have a question for you. Why don't you use that same kind of detective work on your religion and apostle? You have no evidence that the Bible is true, that God exists, that Arsenio Ferriol is an apostle, or of anything else concerning your religion and salvation. These things are so important to you, that you feel that if you don't know the truth, you're going to go to a place where you will be tortured forever after you die. And yet, instead of looking for the truth about these things which you hold dear, you spend so much time in your office with a magnifying glass and Dick Tracy watch, looking for evidence, and putting together clues about who made a particular website? Something is seriously wrong with that. Salvation, Hell, the Apocalypse, God Almighty...you'll believe whatever your leader tells you about these things, and just accept it without question...but when it comes to finding out who made a website, well then you turn into Sherlock Holmes. Lol.

And by the way Mr. Columbo; there are a few more clues that you missed, some which are obvious that would help solidify your claim...obvious ones that if Phillip Keenan or anybody else was actually trying to remain annonymous, wouldn't have allowed to be so obvious. Lol. Let's see if you can find them. Ha ha.

Actually, we find it humorous that all of you seem to believe that we are all trying to be secretive as to who we are. Some of our members do not want to be identified because they know that your church is a hate organization full of insane individuals, and they are fearful of what actions you might take against them; But several of us don't care if you know who we are. In fact, some of us welcome it, just so you can know who's keeping your Apostle from stealing money from more victims. It's so funny that you're treating this as some big mystery when it was never meant to be. If you believe so strongly that this Mr. Keenan is the head producer of our project, then why don't you try to contact him directly?

Here is what you have to understand: No doubt that you have evidence to back up your claim here. This is the kind of evidence that you lack to back up your other claims about your church and your beliefs in the gods you believe in. Anyways, you call it proof, and it is not exactly proof. There is no question that Mr. Keenan wrote a poem about your disgusting cult, and there is no question that it was an inspiration to our project. All of this is obvious and really isn't the result of such grand detective work. If we were really going to hide something, we wouldn't make it so easy to find.

One thing that many of you cult members don't seem to understand is that this project is a team effort. Your cult has spawned many victims, and these victims are pissed. I've got former 4th Watch victims all the way from Korea contributing. You also have to understand that our project's treasure is the report itself, not just the actual website of that report; and that report had been in production for almost a year before it was released. The questions you have to answer are: Is Phillip Keenan the head producer of the entire project, or just the report or website?; and; If Phillip Keenan was the head producer of either of these things, is he the head producer now. Before you look for the answers, remember that your church is a cult, a cult which has victimized a lot of pissed off ex-members. Lots of ex-4th Watch cult members are supporting us and willing to help us.

In any case, my name is Joe Masters, also known as Atheist Jesus, the head producer of the PMCC 4th Watch Truth Project. Nice to meet you.

Now why don't you stop interviewing me about the serious issues, and start debating me about them. Thanks.