GA: Brian, having been a former atheist, I recall very well how proud I was of being rational, reasonable and “fair.”

Yes, you already told me this, at http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Correspondence/Gary_Amirault/2003-06-22.htm. You ignored my response then -- except apparently for the part where I invited you to "feel free to continue your unsubstantiated attacks on my character". 

GA: Looking back at myself honestly, I was anything but that.

If you want to look back at yourself honestly, you should re-read the transcript of our conversation to date at http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Correspondence/Gary_Amirault/.  This transcript will be associated with your name for as long as there is archiving and indexing of the Web and its successors.

GA: Can you acknowledge HONESTLY that my present opinion of my own state of mind as an atheist was NOT rational, reasonable and “fair?”

This doesn't parse.

GA: I was clearly biased even as I believe you are presently clearly biased and prejudiced to your own world view which I believe does not represent reality as it is.

You still have no answer to the questions about my alleged "bias" that I asked you in my last message 23 months ago: http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Correspondence/Gary_Amirault/2003-06-30.htm.

GA: Or must you twist me around to conform to your position? Your snippets are anything but fair.

I challenge you to quote me "twisting" anything or quoting you in an "unfair" way. I doubt you will, since you ignored a similar challenge the last time you made such a reckless accusation: http://holtz.org/Thoughts/Correspondence/Gary_Amirault/2003-06-21.htm

GA: I think an impartial jury would concur with me, that you deceive yourself and as such those you try to influence much more than you care to acknowledge. You are not rational nor reasonable nor fair.

Instead of an "impartial" jury, how about a jury consisting of visitors to tentmaker.org?  If you're so reasonable and fair, and I'm so unreasonable and unfair, I invite you to link to our conversation prominently from your front page, and shame me for the transgressions you claim I've made in this discussion. I would gleefully welcome public inspection of the reasonableness and fairness (or lack thereof) that we each have exhibited in this conversation. By contrast, you were almost apoplectic (http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/Gary_Amirault/2003-06-20.htm) when you realized that I was publishing my responses to you. Our respective behaviors speak volumes as to which of us is more rational and reasonable and fair.