On May 27, 9:22 am, Wayne Delia <w...@deliafamily.net> wrote:

You've made a big mess of your attempt to respond. It looks like you had
some trouble cutting and pasting from Google Groups into a standard
newsreader client. As you can see, the first paragraph is mine, and the
second paragraph is yours. I'll try to help you sort out your confusion.

If you're going to continue to post liars and crap about me then I
will make sure you will have to work for it.

You're intentionally making yourself look like an idiot who is
incompetent with basic computer operations just to put me at a minor
inconvenience? That's a very strange strategy. If you don't want people
calling you the village idiot, don't wear a sign indicating that you're
the village idiot.

[snip several paragraphs for which you had no response]

No point in trying
to explain it to you. You could only focus on the name itself.

Again, do you still think you - David Sears - are a fictional character,
and that you are a member of the Triforce panel? Or is that question
still too embarrassing for you to address? After all, we're still
waiting for the dramatic "Unveiling" you promised us years ago, which
you pussied out on.

The Triforce experiment was the brainchild of three college buddies.

For which people laughed at you, long and hard, and those are fond
memories even to this day.

You have absolutely no way to prove otherwise.

Actually, that's my position: you aren't a member of the "Triforce".
David Sears isn't a fictional psychological experiment. If you think you
are, then it's your responsibility, your burden of proof, to demonstrate
otherwise.

Aliases were put into play
along with test posts to gauge reactions.

The reaction was that David Sears had a very public online psychological
breakdown. The aliases are commonly known as "sock puppet" accounts. You
ran with "emsguy", "alvinstraight38", and "maven" - all of which were
determined to be used by you.

The fact that you
immediately glossed over
everything with a made up theory was enough to demonstrate the
dishonesty
of atheists.

And yet it turned out that you admitted in your post here that the
theory was correct: there was no "Triforce", no fictional David Sears,
no panel of psychological experts - just a couple of loser friends who
were trying to play a poorly-planned joke which backfired in your face.

[snip more material to which you had no response]

You clearly can not as your typical methods are to hurl insults, cuss,
or
claim that the person is a loser or mentally ill.

Frankly, anyone who thinks he is a member of a fictional panel of judges
from an old, mediocre video game is, in fact, a loser and mentally ill.

Hence your theory which you present as fact which makes you a liar.

But you just VERIFIED my theory: you admitted "The Triforce experiment
was the brainchild of three college buddies." My theory is that there is
no "Triforce", no fictional David Sears, and no panel of psychological
experts - just a couple of loser friends who were trying to play a
poorly-planned joke which backfired in your face.

You NEVER back up your claims with evidence.

Actually, I make it a habit always to back up my claims with evidence.
But in this case, it's just my opinion of your character based on
nothing more than what you posted. It was, and still is, my opinion that
you got fairly well humiliated on one or more topics of discussion
(probably including the famous IQ test fiasco in which you crashed and
burned), and you retreated into the only area in which you felt superior
- video games. You retreated to the extent that you claimed you no
longer existed as David Sears, but rather as a fictional character based
on an older video game. Either you were lying, or you genuinely went off
the deep end. The evidence is contained in your own posts to Usenet, and
you sorely whine when that evidence is used against you.

[snip more points you conceded]

At least be consistent in your lies.

You haven't demonstrated that anything I've written is a lie. If, in
fact, it is a lie that your nutsack or ding-dong or whatever your pet
name for it was damaged, then you're the one who told the lie on sci.med
many years ago. You can't blame me for the lies you told, if in fact it
is a lie.

I demonstrated it clearly. Please show me the post where I refer
specifically to having penile problems. A scrotum is not a nickname.
It is a specific part of the human anatomy.

That much is clear. I will admit to participating in a contest which
chose and recognized the best nickname given to you, describing your
injury, while you failed to admit to your own hypocrisy. (Either Liz
Huth or John Hattan won with "Grape Nuts".) All that could have been
avoided if you didn't insist on sticking to your position that

Your obsessiveness
over male anatomy makes me wonder if this is a manifestation
of suppressed homosexual desire.

How often do you wonder about matters of suppressed homosexual desire?
We're just speculating that you might have caused your scrotal damage by
beating off too vigorously or too often - those would be symptoms of a
person living the kind of life which you portray yourself on Usenet as
living.

You're the one that made a big deal out of a minor
medical problem.

But you're the one who brought your penile problems to Usenet, and you
phrased it on sci.med in a way that made you seem strongly concerned
about this "minor medical problem."

A post in a non-religious newsgroup inquring about an unknown
medical condition.

Unknown? If it was unknown, how did you narrow it down to your family
jewels so quickly? Seems to me that the purple discoloration on your
nuts would be an effective indicator of exactly what area the problem
affected. But it shouldn't matter if the condition was known or unknown,
since Jesus is supposed to be omniscient. He'd know what the condition
would be, and He would be able to cure it, but He didn't. The question
of interest is why He passed you by, very soon before you were bragging
on alt.atheism about having all sorts of advantages over unbelievers due
to Jesus's medical miracles.

You're the one that keeps bringing it up
as if I should be ashamed to ever go to the doctor? Ridiculous.

You should be ashamed of being a hypocrite, not ashamed of going to the
doctor. The main reason for that is that a doctor will prescribe
treatment, medication, or surgery that generally works in significant
ways that prayer and faith do not work. You bragged about Jesus
providing medical miracles, when just a few weeks earlier, when you
needed a medical miracle of your own, you wouldn't even mention the name
of Jesus or miracle cures in your appeal on sci.med.

Why would Jesus need to heal me?

1) Because you're a Christian, and on alt.atheism you claimed an
advantage over unbelievers because Jesus provides "medical miracles,
every day, to Christians everywhere."

Being a Christian requires that Jesus must heal every illness?

Of course not. Jesus doesn't actually heal any Christians, since Jesus
is long dead. It was your claim that you had an advantage over
unbelievers because, in part, Jesus provides medical miracles. Just not
for you, when you needed one the most. You had to fall back on the story
of the miracle from Jesus relieving you of your temporary toothache pain
- which happens quite frequently to Christians and non-Christians alike,
so no big advantage there. When push came to shove (which could be what
you did to cause your bruised nutsack), you didn't go to Jesus for
healing, you went to off-duty doctors on sci.med. Hypocrite!

2) Because you've characterized your pecker peccadillo as a "minor
medical problem" above, which should be no trouble at all for Jesus to
correct. In fact, you've related the story of Jesus relieving your minor
toothache pain. Why would Jesus address one of your lesser needs while
ignoring your greater need?

Jesus can heal people of cancer immediately. There is no
physical effort in the task. Your logic is absurd.

You've avoided the question. If Jesus can heal people of cancer
immediately - presumably without any chemotherapy or radiation treatment
needed - why didn't Jesus heal your bruised balls? Read my question in
the last sentence, which I will repeat here: Why would Jesus address one
of your lesser needs while ignoring your greater need?

3) Because Jesus teaches in Mark 16:17-18 that Christians would
distinguish themselves as believers through signs which He said would
accompany them, specifically claiming believers could heal any illness.
Instead of getting one of your fellow Christians to (ugh) "lay hands" on
your afflicted area, or praying to Jesus, you went to sci.med looking
for free medical advice from off-duty doctors.

Of course, you fail to mention the rest of the story where I went to
the church before going to the doctor,
was prayed and anointed with oil, and immediately felt peace about the
problem.

But the problem didn't go away. That's the main question. Why not? (I
shudder to think about what kind of "peace" you felt after the priest
anointed your ***** and balls with oil.)

He did design our bodies to heal many problems on its own.
Pretty cool design work, huh?

Let's ask your opinion on that matter. Do you think Jesus used "pretty
cool design work" that resulted in your eye problems? Your knee
problems? Your panic and anxiety attacks? For Christ's sake (literally),
your latest affliction was "Irritable Bowel Syndrome!" How cool a design
is that? Just two months ago, you wrote the following post to
alt.support.ibs, to which no one responded. (It's very relevant, because
it gives your description of what you consider "pretty cool design work.")

All genetic related problems. The gene pool was ruined when man
commited sin.
God is not to blame.

But God designed these bodies which you characterized as "pretty cool
design work," even when it doesn't work at all. So, your body wasn't
designed to heal itself when Jesus didn't feel like healing you either.
How does that qualify as "pretty cool design work?"

==================================

(post to alt.support.ibs snipped)

=================================================

Now consider your own question to me as applied to your situation you
described in alt.support.ibs: "Pretty cool design work, huh?"

You had no answer to that point at all. I assume you retract your claim
of "Pretty cool design work, huh?" The answer, which you have discovered
yourself, is "Not at all."

I will give you credit for one thing. You showed me the dangers of
posting personal problems
on these forums which I stop doing. For that I thank you.

Sorry I couldn't stop you in time from posting that particular personal
problem to alt.support.ibs two months ago.

So you took time out of your precious short life to do research in
another effort to try and humililate me online. Why?

Basically, because the time it took to do the research via Google was
measured in less than two or three seconds, based on the following criteria:
1) Sears is posting again about his sorry lot in life.
2) Sears usually posts when something has happened recently, or is
currently happening, over which he is extremely frustrated.
3) Sears sometimes posts about these problems on other forums on Usenet.
4) Using Google, select all posts made by

What do you get

out of posting crap and lies about me? I deserve that answer at
least.

What I posted (and snipped above, for brevity) was your post to
alt.support.ibs in its entirety. If any of that is "crap and lies," the
fault lies with you, not with me.

[more la snipperacha]

Satan will berate me and constantly tempt
me into breaking laws about sex by telling me how great it is.

It's not only great, it's necessary for propagating the human species,
and if it's not so great, then why did God command to "be fruitful and
multiply?" In Genesis 9:1, "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying
to them, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

Looks like the Bible contradicted your claim, and you had nothing to say
in rebuttal at all.

Then after
the act is done, he slams you with a guilt trip.

Can't your God do something about that? Now, are you saying you did the
dirty deed and felt guilty about it afterwards, or are you imagining
you'd feel guilty if you actually did it, which you haven't? I have
never come across someone who so desperately needs to get laid than you.

I may have, or may not. God's laws on sex are meant to protect us.

If you had sex without getting married, you broke God's law. That's fine
with me, since you've screwed yourself up possibly irrevocably in your
attempt to live by what you thought were "God's laws" - which turned out
to be wrong, anyway. But, as was hammered home to you quite often in the
past, "God's laws" on sex within marriage is no foolproof protection, as
you were unaware that AIDS, HIV, etc. can be transmitted by vectors
other than sexual intercourse. Don't go back there. You got humiliated.

Sex with multiple partners is a dangerous activity. Of course, you
live in a glass bubble and refuse to accept this reality.

That reminds me of the time when I claimed to have had about two
thousand instances of sexual intercourse in my life with maybe twelve
women, and you interpreted that to mean I had sex with about two
thousand different women. My wife and I really got a big laugh out of
that; Mrs. Delia said "Not while we're married, I presume." Anyway, in
my experience, sex with multiple partners resulted in exactly zero cases
of sexually transmitted diseases. That's not to say that there's no risk
at all having multiple sexual partners. But your argument fell apart
when you were asked to demonstrate that a pair of committed, monogamous,
unmarried heterosexual couple having exclusive sexual relations were in
any way more likely to have a higher risk of STD transmission than an
otherwise similar married couple. You based your rebuttal on unfounded
assumptions that the unmarried couple was more likely to fool around,
and you shortly ran away from that argument.

You have no way of knowing my sexual status.

Whatever it is, it's gotten you all worked up into a tight ball of
frustration again.

I could be married
for all you know. My personal life is none of your business.

But later, you wrote the following: "I have pointed out that God has
given me a great musical talent, good friends, successful career, loving
parents, and a wonderful church family. Instead of being supportive of
positive attributes, you choose to insult me." If you were married, you
wife might feel slighted not only that she didn't get the #1 slot, but
also that you didn't even find it important enough to mention her. On
that basis, I'll conclude that no, you're not yet married. And assuming
you haven't broken any of "God's laws" on sexual relations, I'll
conclude that yes, you're still a virgin.

If you want
to judge the validity of Christianity through a person's actions, then
fine.

None of the supernatural claims of Christianity cannot be shown to be
valid, due to a complete and total lack of evidence. What I'm judging,
though, is your hypocrisy: claiming to believe one thing in alt.atheism,
and posting to sci.med in a way which indicates you don't actually
believe what you claimed to believe in alt.atheism.

But you do that in reality, not filtering through random posts in an
internet forum.

They're not random. They're specifically related. On alt.atheism, you
claimed an advantage over unbelievers because Jesus provided medical
miracles to believers. Over on sci.med, you asked for help with a
medical condition, with not a single mention of your belief that Jesus
can (but, for some reason, failed to) provide you with a medical
miracle. That's hypocrisy, and on that basis, you're a hypocrite.

[snip]

Hey, you're the one who returned to these discussions. Your idea of
"bury the hatchet" is for your debate opponents to agree with your
position unconditionally, and you whine when they don't. That would be
stupid, especially considering the stupidity of your positions. How
could that harassment you perceive be avoided? All you ever needed to do
was concede that a position you insisted was true turned out to be less
true than you thought it was. You tried that once, when you cited Old
Aunt Edith's Sunday School Newsletter for the statistic that less than
1% of Christian marriages end in divorce, when "Christian marriage" is
defined as a marriage between a Christian man and a Christian woman who
do not get divorced. You admitted you were wrong, and the matter was
dropped - until, of course, you tried to make the same argument that
Christian divorce is much lower than non-Christian divorce later on. You
tried that again in the epic and famous Delia-Sears IQ Test Battle, when
you admitted that your score of 124 on the test was less than my 166 on
the same test, and that you could not support your contention that you
had "vastly superior intellect." But you reneged on that too, when you
started up the sarcastic "I'm smarter than you" act later on.

No new material I see. Don't you ever get tired posting the same
crap over and over?

Don't you get tired of being defeated by the same old crap over and
over? No new material is necessary, because the old material applies
just as well to you today as it did years ago.

Don't you have better things to do with your life?

...asks the man who locks himself up in his apartment and plays video
games all weekend.

I certainly judge the intelligence of a man who choses to spend
a portion of his life trying to embarrass a stranger on a computer
forum.

You certainly don't judge the intelligence of a man based on an IQ test,
because you scored 42 points lower on the same IQ test after you claimed
to have "vastly superior intelligence" than that man. So, you need to
judge intelligence of that man by any means necessary in order to make
your hurt feelings better.

WMD