I’ve thrown you out for systematically lying about what you wrote. You wrote agnostic and then subsequently a word similar to it with the rough meaning of combative. That was really childish in itself but lying about it was worse.
5 hours ago
You are clearly a paranoid who cannot face up to being himself. Debate and discussion are about opening up and seeing the world as others do, then moving understanding forward.
If you close things down and even bar people then no wonder you stay where you are and the site empties of participants.
I never lie and if there’s a point you don’t understand, I am always happy to rephrase and clarify. I thought I did this yesterday, repeatedly.
How ironic that the only other person to ever block me is a totally delusional paranoid fundamentalist Christian.
4 hours ago
I would say that the boot is on the other foot. You wrote that I’m an agnostic and then later you wrote that I’m agonistic or something. You continually lied about ever writing agnostic and yet that is what I was questuioning you on. I completely ignored the word play on agonistic and that is what threw you. You seemed to believe I couldn’t tell it was a different word. That was utter stupidity on your part and yet you continued to publish your false beliefs to the detriment of the group.
There is very little that’s paranoid about me but I can recognise other people’s attempts at manipulation. It doesn’t matter if you intended to write agonistic and wrote agnostic the first time. It was the word “agnostic” I was responding to and questioning you about and if you aren’t even aware what you wrote then you can hardly blame me for your deficiencies. You are a deliberate trouble maker who decided to get his new year kicks. I’ve seen it all before and am perfectly aware of what you are and what you attempted to do. The group is better off without you.
I also threw out Elizabeth, for your information, because she refused to read the thread to check my account that you had actually written “agnostic” but, instead, she became abusive.
Incidentally, I checked why people were leaving and it turned out that it was due to the apparent domination of the group by one or two people.
2 hours ago
1 – As I twice stated yesterday I felt that, whereas Elizabeth and Geir were very direct in stating their atheistic stance, your postings came over as fence sitting, uncommitted or, possibly, being Devil’s advocate. Fair enough, but I wanted to clarify your actual feelings. Which I think I achieved.
The use of agonistic – someone who sticks to his stance, is argumentative for the sake of it seemed and, frankly, still seems an appropriate descriptor for your earlier and subsequent actions.
As I say, I never lie and I always backread before I post. Otherwise I might as well just stand on a clifftop and yell into the wind.
Incidentally, I stuck with this group because I appreciate getting to know people and developing ideas WITH them over a period of time. Analogous to friendship. You should try it.
You shouldn’t manipulate and attack people and then claim they are paranoic. You’ve done it before. That is probably why i was intolerant this time. It was behaviour more appropriate in a child. Claiming I couldn’t see that you were using two different words was just obfuscation.
If you genuinely don’t believe you used agnostic the first time then it would have been a lot better if you hadn’t tried to make me look a fool when obviously you were.
But in my opinion you were trying to look clever at my expense. It was Elizabeth that got you thrown out,. She wouldn’t read the thread to see that you hadd actually used agnostic and she was publicly supporting you. Then in an email she called me a liar. I just decided to throw you both out because you both seemed more interested in causing trouble than anything else.
Ignoring interesting points, insulting and slandering are all faults in your actions.
I dont know how many times I have to say I KNOW I USED AGNOSTIC WHEN SAYING YOU SAT ON THE FENCE. That was the whole point. Geir and Liz were direct – you were not. Later, after I questioned you, you clarified your position. I was, and still am, happy to know that.
But you carry on and on in an AGONISTIC manner.
If you were not so pig headed, you could even see some humour in the situation.
It was one of those “why is he doing this” situations. I suspected you were drunk. I don’t want to be involved in that sort of confrontation, because I’m closely associated with the group and it’s bad for the group’s image. You may have noticed that I’ve been keeping clear for several months now, so members don’t feel dominated by the admin.
I’m no longer prepared to be involved in personal confrontations in that group which are deliberately started by other people. If people try it, they will be removed.
Making a separate post complaining that I was being abusive to you wasn’t, in my opinion, a goopd idea, seeing as how you deliberately engineered the situation to provoke me.
That was really the final straw.
about an hour ago
It was a separate post yes because I was very aware that the original thread was way left behind, and I felt we trespassed. Plus I really thought that your method exemplified one I have met many times, elsewhere on the internet, and so was worth discussion in its own right. I did not suggest it was abusive, I just suggested it was another debating method. I presume you censored it.
Oddly enough, I think you’ll find, if you ask, that the world is not all about you, Roger. It is a shared resource.
It was, as you no doubt noticed, anonymous.
I wiped out all reference to ourt acrimonious discussion. I decided that you were “off on one” again. I still think your debating method was highly confrontational and abusive.
You’re still being abusive. And you wonder why I object.
Nothing like destroying all the evidence. Now, let me see, who does that sort of thing……….