Christian inspiration

[Abrupt]

{sequential semi-contextual quoting done to emphasize a previous point}

Do you really want to play this game with me? 

I was merely 'playing' the same type of misquoting game which you've plied in various previous threads for the first time, (the only difference here being that I quoted your actual posted words from a single post you made - as opposed to your fabricating things I never posted and then falsely attributing some unreferenced interpretation to something I never stated).  See the difference?  I didn't think so.

Damn girl you are still crying about that?  It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three?  For likely twenty pages (if not more) we had to suffer through your tears about how you imagined yourself to be grievously wronged and never once did you provide any proof other than the degree in which your feelings were hurt.  I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.

Oh I see the difference and it reveals your delusions.  You think that by quoting someone and strategically removing some words to form new sentences and meanings that they are actually somehow the persons 'words' simply because you used the quote button instead of typing them out yourself?  That is one of the most irrational and illogical statements I have ever heard.  Why don't you just quote me and delete everything and type in whatever you want then and have a conversation with yourself.  You might actually manage to win a few points then instead of consistently falling short against me as you have been lately.  Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) instead of this petty and sad state you have sunken to.  If you only could have the pride in honesty and integrity that you do in vanity and ego you would do well.

This isn't the first time you have misquoted me and presented it as if it was genuine ...

That was no "misquote"; those are your words, excerpted from a single recent post, in this thread.  Before you harp on that "excerpted" bit, if you cannot remember your own post, scroll down through this thread and perhaps discover that it was you who initially used those words to falsely characterize an opponet's position.  Since you have done this several times before, (a contention which can be supported by the archived message IDs of posts in which you did so - unlike your contention, which lacks such uninterpreted objective evidence), a one-time return-to-sender of your "deliberate dishonesty" and attempt to "formulate a lie" was posted.  Unless you can produce exact quotes, in context, to
support your contention that I've done what there is evidence of you doing, that would constitute another lie on your part.  Got quotes?

To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote.  The use of leading/trailing/disjointed statements ellipses is usually considered acceptable (although some insist that you should use some form of in-quote citations in that case instead of leading or trailing ellipses), only when the meaning of what was said remains.  You entirely changed the meaning of what I said and this is unacceptable and it is legally actionable.  I have never done this to you and I say this without even a pause to consider as it isn't in my nature and I possess at least a measure of integrity.  I call you out on this, prove it or quit crying already and admit your dishonesty.

...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty. 

Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).

Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:

Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.

Now let us see one of these you have imagined, although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it.  Let us see your proof them, no more excuses, no more lies, no more tears, let us see this proof.  Failure to provide any will only prove the extent at which your delusional fantasies go to protect your pathetically fragile ego.

I am quite sure that deliberately misquoting someone is not something allowed on these forums, and it isn't something that I will tolerate again, so take heed.

It may well be, (although an FC moderator would have to determine that, if applicable).  As for taking "heed"; there's a sublime irony and a certain hypocrisy to your warning.  Ponder it or not, xtian.

Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it?  My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication.  For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily.  You should be thanking me for my generosity towards you instead of taking a combative attitude, but I suppose your conceit is once again your stumbling block.  Yes I will chose to not ponder what ever thing you have imagined behind your tears.

[Abrupt]

http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif

HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from

http://i49.tinypic.com/29eoc48.gif

HA! I'd wager most religious folk would have to say that's what atheism represents. Me? Looks like a power-up from

In a way, it could be however, most religious adherents would be more likely to make other erroneous assumptions about teh symbol.
*chuckle*

Damn, get a room already, you two.

[falcon9]

It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three?

The claim was not false, as the several pages worth of substantiation were provided, despite your specious denials of that archived evidence.

For likely twenty pages (if not more)...

I didn't bother to count pages, just as you never bothered to employ any "superior critical thinking skills" to the evidence presented in those pages, (as you go on to indicate below).
 

... never once did you provide any proof ...

That "proof" is archived as evidence which contradicts your assertion that the "proof" wasn't proof.  This is in contrast to your complete failure to provide any tangible evidence substantiating your various religious claims.  No such "proofs" appear in the archived records therefore, it is your religious claims which remain as unsupported opinions.

I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.

Oh, that was merely returning your previously-used tactic back to you; postage-due.  Since you're manifestly weak on the concept of sequence of events, the description of "liar" initially applies to you.  My reponse was an application of the "Golden Rule" under which you were treated as you treat others, (apparently you wanted what you posted to be misrepresented and are currently lamenting being hoisted by your own petard).

Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) ...

Unfortunately for your weak position, you are unable to 'force' a false imposition onto the facts under discussion.  To briefly reiterate them; your initial misrepresentations of several of my posts, (specifically those regarding religion), directly indicated a deliberate tactic of dishonesty within such discussion/debate.  When such tactics were refuted, you ignored those refutations and dropped out of those particular discussions.  When you resumed such tactics in other threads, I occasionally and subsequently modified them and returned to you under the auspices of applying the "Golden Rule", you whinged about it, (as you are now).  

To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote.  

I generally agree, which is why your initial use of 'reinterpreting' the meaning of what I actually posted was subsequently responded to in the manner you're objecting to now, (after first going to great lengths to articulate what was actually meant even while you tried to twist meanings - as with your attempts to characterize non-religious atheism as a religion).

... and it is legally actionable.

Although you are free to reject or accept the suggestion that you consult an attorney regarding what is actionable under "defamation, libel and slander" litigation precedents, you may find that previously engaging in such yourself tends to taint such hypothetical litigations.

...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.  

Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).

Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:

Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.

You've successfully managed to quote me quoting you and using your own words against you. Hazzah. Since your un-excerpted post was technically "a published defamation by written or printed words", (libel), would that be "actionable" too?

Now let us see one of these you have imagined ...

... although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it.

Is that intended to be yet another false accusation, (and defamation),  arising from desparation on your part? Since you've already 'pre-rejected' the evidence, why should I now bother to produce it?

Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it?  My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication.  For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily.    

Your inept attempt to threaten use of the FC moderators to silence someone who has not violated FC TOS or forum policies, (despite your assumptions concerning what is "legally actionable"), is a pathetically-tacit admission of loss of argument.  Such 'threats' are, however, against FC posting policies.  *whoops*

[falcon9]

Damn, get a room already, you two.

There it is again ... the plantive cry of the wounded loon, oft-heard from xtians when they've shot themselves in their own feet.

[jcribb16]

Damn, get a room already, you two.

There it is again ... the plantive cry of the wounded loon, oft-heard from xtians when they've shot themselves in their own feet.

Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again.  Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing.  You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all - you'd be lost with no one to scold and belittle (speaking of this towards Christians) and would get incredibly bored to tears.  You thoroughly enjoy doing just what you do - everyone can see that.   

[falcon9]

Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again. 

Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing. 

"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them?  Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -

Why don't you try it and see what occurs?  Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times.  It's still an operational option.

[jcribb16]

Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again. 

Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing. 

"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them?  Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -

Why don't you try it and see what occurs?  Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times.  It's still an operational option.

Now see, that's where there's a little problem here.  You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring.  I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently.  That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you.  When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly.  We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter.  Same in here - you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you.  No, they're going to swat right back at you.

 The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true.  I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button.  You aren't chasing me away, period.  You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable.  You are very wrong, falcon9. 

You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions.  You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same.  Standing up to your comments is certainly not whining, and I, for one, am not going to be pushed into a corner, made to look like a coward, and pushed to hit "ignore."  No way.  You aren't taking my fun out of posting in this forum.  I'm not trying to take yours either - but I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it.  Christians are not irrational and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it.  You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.

[Abrupt]

It has been how many months ago that you made that false claim, two, three?

The claim was not false, as the several pages worth of substantiation were provided, despite your specious denials of that archived evidence.

For likely twenty pages (if not more)...

I didn't bother to count pages, just as you never bothered to employ any "superior critical thinking skills" to the evidence presented in those pages, (as you go on to indicate below).
 

... never once did you provide any proof ...

That "proof" is archived as evidence which contradicts your assertion that the "proof" wasn't proof.  This is in contrast to your complete failure to provide any tangible evidence substantiating your various religious claims.  No such "proofs" appear in the archived records therefore, it is your religious claims which remain as unsupported opinions.

I forcibly call you a liar on this as it was you that contextualized my posts and misrepresented me then by inserting different quotes of mine following posts of yours to make it appear that statements I gave in answer to some questions were in reply to other statements or questions you had made.

Oh, that was merely returning your previously-used tactic back to you; postage-due.  Since you're manifestly weak on the concept of sequence of events, the description of "liar" initially applies to you.  My reponse was an application of the "Golden Rule" under which you were treated as you treat others, (apparently you wanted what you posted to be misrepresented and are currently lamenting being hoisted by your own petard).

Yes, that last line was to draw your ire and to attempt to kick you back into a real debate state (like you once displayed) ...

Unfortunately for your weak position, you are unable to 'force' a false imposition onto the facts under discussion.  To briefly reiterate them; your initial misrepresentations of several of my posts, (specifically those regarding religion), directly indicated a deliberate tactic of dishonesty within such discussion/debate.  When such tactics were refuted, you ignored those refutations and dropped out of those particular discussions.  When you resumed such tactics in other threads, I occasionally and subsequently modified them and returned to you under the auspices of applying the "Golden Rule", you whinged about it, (as you are now).  

To change the meaning of what someone said is exactly a misquote.  

I generally agree, which is why your initial use of 'reinterpreting' the meaning of what I actually posted was subsequently responded to in the manner you're objecting to now, (after first going to great lengths to articulate what was actually meant even while you tried to twist meanings - as with your attempts to characterize non-religious atheism as a religion).

... and it is legally actionable.

Although you are free to reject or accept the suggestion that you consult an attorney regarding what is actionable under "defamation, libel and slander" litigation precedents, you may find that previously engaging in such yourself tends to taint such hypothetical litigations.

...in fact I think it is the third or fourth time you have resorted to such forms of deliberate dishonesty.  

Prove your allegations with exact, contextual quotes and so will I, (you get to go first because you were the first to make such specious allegations).

Well it is rather easy for me to prove them since I have to go no further than this post to provide one, and so here it is:

Normally such obsessions are called addictions, are they not -- regardless they are certainly unhealthy and unproductive ...
... the scripture ... my beliefs ... Purely irrational, self delusional, and ridiculous.

You've successfully managed to quote me quoting you and using your own words against you. Hazzah. Since your un-excerpted post was technically "a published defamation by written or printed words", (libel), would that be "actionable" too?

Now let us see one of these you have imagined ...

... although knowing your standard for honesty you will simply write your own and attribute it to me and even use the quote button and replace text to make it appear as if I submitted it.

Is that intended to be yet another false accusation, (and defamation),  arising from desparation on your part? Since you've already 'pre-rejected' the evidence, why should I now bother to produce it?

Since it is legally actionable I am sure it is, and of course the FC moderator would have to decide that...are you seriously daft enough to imagine that I somehow think it is you that determines it?  My warning was to inform you that this was the last time I would allow you to get away with such a lie, and if it occurs again I would pursue having the moderators to intervene and remove your fabrication.  For as much as you are so obsessive about replying to every other post made here I am sure that is of great concern to you as it could cause you to lose such privileges, if only temporarily.    

Your inept attempt to threaten use of the FC moderators to silence someone who has not violated FC TOS or forum policies, (despite your assumptions concerning what is "legally actionable"), is a pathetically-tacit admission of loss of argument.  Such 'threats' are, however, against FC posting policies.  *whoops*

Let us see here.  You admit to the offense of misquoting and contextualizing.  You have no proof to back up your lies about me where you claim I did the same thing first.  You forfeit your challenge to me to show proof and where you stated you would reciprocate, and as such you are only left to admit you lied or imagined the entire thing in one of your delusions.  Once again you cause your own undoing and end up playing fool for yourself.  My has your skill of debate fallen to pathetic levels of late.  At this rate, within a week or two, you will be reduced to simply repeating what someone says back at them like a child.

What threat are you imagining here?  Since you put it this way you actually reveal your guilt to the offense you  have committed and your fear from the possible actions of the moderators.  You are aware that if you tell someone that if they "don't get out of your house" or some similar situation that you will "call the police" that such does not constitute a threat?

[Abrupt]

Nope, sorry, I see it as you thinking you have won again. 

Since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

Instead, you just look pitiful in trying to have that last word with speaking in the same circle of words you really enjoy doing. 

"Circle of words" is it; just because you apparently have some difficulty in understanding them?  Okay, 'since you've already repeatedly emphasized that you rely upon "faith", rather than an ability to reason, your erroneous conclusions are disregarded - not because you're xtian but, due to a reliance upon irrationality to arrive at such conclusions.

You wouldn't know what to do if no one responded to you at all -

Why don't you try it and see what occurs?  Both the FC moderator and I have recommended the use of the 'ignore button' many times.  It's still an operational option.

Now see, that's where there's a little problem here.  You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring.  I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently.  That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you.  When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly.  We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter.  Same in here - you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you.  No, they're going to swat right back at you.

 The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true.  I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button.  You aren't chasing me away, period.  You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable.  You are very wrong, falcon9. 

You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions.  You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same.  Standing up to your comments is certainly not whining, and I, for one, am not going to be pushed into a corner, made to look like a coward, and pushed to hit "ignore."  No way.  You aren't taking my fun out of posting in this forum.  I'm not trying to take yours either - but I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it.  Christians are not irrational and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it.  You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.

I think you are on to something here.  He doesn't like to be challenged back and resorts to all sorts of base tactics.  He wants to be ignored so that he can belabor his nonsense unchallenged.

[falcon9]

Now see, that's where there's a little problem here.  You seem to think you and the moderator are the co-monitors in here ...

No, the "little problem here" is that you apparently do not read posted replies.  It was stated that both the FC moderator and I, (a regular FC member like you, not a mod), have recommended the use of the 'ignore button'.  No claims to being an FC moderator were stated nor, implied.  Your own slanted misinterpretations do not constitute accurate statements of fact, (especially when the post itself remains visible and archived).

... and that you seem to have rights that others don't with regards to posting and/or ignoring. 

It's unclear where you're coming up with these random interpretations of what was actually posted.  It may be that you're taking 'inspiration' from the tactics of another xtian's on these forums, (or, pulled them from some nefarious nether region of dubious smell).

I remember a post from the moderator towards BOTH of US recently.  That surely means BOTH and anyone else who test the rules, not just everyone else BUT you.

Being evenhanded, the moderator warned all parties involved so as not to be partisan in his arbitration of the dispute.  I deemed that fair and wise of the moderator, (especially since you were the one in specific violation and not I).

When a fly is buzzing around irritating someone, we don't just get up and leave the room, ignoring the fly.  We swat at it or slap it with a fly swatter.  Same in here -

Oh, that's a nice, xtian ad hominem; being compared to a "fly".  Back at ya; the constant inane buzzing of proselytizing can be annoying to those who don't share the same superstitious beliefs of the blind-faithers do however, I've consistantly stood up for the same 'rights' of free speech as you'd deny to those who don't agree with you, (by these appeals to "respect", "politeness" and some tacit 'free pass').

... you aren't going to chase people away just because you think they should hit "ignore" because they gripe about you.

Using the 'ignore button' provided by FC doesn't even inherently mean people are subject to being 'chased away'.  It means that they will have chosen to not see posts initiated by me, nothing more.  That doesn't mean that use of the 'ignore button' includes not ignoring by continuing to post about the one supposedly being "ignored", (such would constitute a failure to understand what "ignore" means).

No, they're going to swat right back at you.

You mean "buzz" if the metaphor is inverted to apply to xtians, (as a matter of persepctive).

The ignore button is there for everyone, this is true.  I'm tired of certain posters who think they are "in charge of" this forum ...

There's another false assumption on your part; no one suggested any such thing, (your misperceptions aside).

... and then constantly disrespect people, especially Christians, and then whine when people lash back out at them, and then the disrespectful ones start complaining that the others should use the "ignore" button. 

Your "whine" reminds me of a child who tearfully-complains to a parent that their sibling has committed some 'grevious offense' against them while omitting the pertinent part of the complaint where that child committed the initial offensive behaviour.  That is, many of you xtians were here proselytizing and bible-thumping long before my arrival on FC.  Several other members who preceded my arrival posted in opposition to such, (that much is archived).  Now, how is it possible for me to arrive on scene - with all of that already on-going - and "suddenly" become the one who committed the 'first offense'?  That was rhetorical; it isn't possible and is as much of an irrational contention as your mischaracterization of events now.

You aren't chasing me away, period. 

The suggestions for using the 'ignore function' aren't intended to chase anyone away since they remain able to post and read other posts, (just not the ones initiated by those set on "ignore").  Your premise is therefore flawed.

You say things and think it's non-negotiable or non-arguable because you imply Christians aren't capable.  You are very wrong, falcon9. 

While future events aren't necessarily predicated upon past performance, such capability is still swaiting, (however, not with baited or held breath).
 

You keep posting disrespectfully, and others will continue to stand up to your misconceptions.  You want to discuss rationally with others, as a discussion of ideas and rebuttals outside of your continuous "irrational" words you constantly use, then others will do the same. 

Before you dig an even deeper specious 'hole'; exactly which words that I've used, (in context), have been "irrational"?  Find a sample of such and quote it in context or be dishonest in making false accusations.

I will not sit back and watch you continually come down on Christians in particular without thinking no one will respond to you about it.

Any old response is one thing, (like resumed b-thumping or tangential "complaints"); xtians replying to the content and context instead is a rarer event.

Christians are not irrational ...

When it comes to their religious beliefs, they are, (at minimum), selectively-rational.  How's that?

... and they are certainly not afraid of you enough to hit any "ignore" button because you recommend it. 

Doubtless the FC moderator didn't recommend use of the 'ignore button'  out of 'fear' and neither have I. See, that's at least three times in a single post you've made baseless and unwarranted assumptions, (e.g., the premise they were based upon was invalid), and yet you wonder why a deficient ability to reason has been inferred.  Still, if you choose not to use the provided 'ignore button', then you implicitly accept that any invalid premises, assumptions, declarations, assertions, pronoucements, random opinions you choose to post aren't somehow "sacrocinct".

You don't deserve the satisfaction of being ignored - you deserve the chance to be responded to for your comments to many that are based in dislike of their belief in God.

Excellent.  Responses to what is actually posted, (rather than some irrationally-based misinterpretations), would be a refreshing change.

[falcon9]

He doesn't like to be challenged back and resorts to all sorts of base tactics. 

Conversely, the enormous number of archived posted exchanges of back-and-forth challenges invalidate such conclusions.  Even you same old fabrication tactic remains invalid, (specify the actual "base tactics" you're accusing me of - not the ones stemming from an irrational imagination).

He wants to be ignored so that he can belabor his nonsense unchallenged.

On the contrary, if too many members ignore my posts, I might have trouble making the 30 minimum per/month for that bonus.  Thanks to all of those who don't ignore them, my posting frequency went "platinum" last month.
 

[falcon9]

Let us see here.  You admit to the offense of misquoting and contextualizing.

No, I specified that such a response was in response to those same tactics of yours.

You have no proof to back up your lies about me where you claim I did the same thing first.

Since your previous reply indicated a strong likelihood of your disregarding such evidence, I reconsidered going through the trouble of locating it.  Though, since such evidence is archived, I suppose I could get around to it later.
 

My has your skill of debate fallen to pathetic levels of late.  

Coincidentally, I had been prepared to inquiry as to whether or not you'd recently experienced severe head trauma of late ... perhaps from a car accident, or self-inflicted by a heavy biblical tome?

What threat are you imagining here?

It only takes scrolling down thread, not any imagination, to see the remarks you posted concerning "actionable" legal threat and your attempts to bring the moderator in on a debate in your behalf.
 

You are aware that if you tell someone that if they "don't get out of your house" or some similar situation that you will "call the police" that such does not constitute a threat?

That's a false parallel since the FC forums are neither your, nor my private residences/domains.  These forums 'belong' to FC and as guests here, it would be inappropiate for you to 'threaten' to bring in the "police", (FC moderator), because this isn't your "house", (or mine).  I'm surprised such a simple concept escapes you and that this 'dumbing-down' was apparently required, (though doubtless it wasn't down far enough if you continue failing to grasp the concept).

[JediJohnnie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.


If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ,

A. try to get the all importaint "last word".

or

B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.

The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D.

He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.

[falcon9]

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.

Is that what you're suggesting, circle the wagons?  Give it shot if wished.

He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.

Your misguided projection?

If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ...

... to reply to which posts I choose to reply to.  This isn't "following" per se; it's responding to prior posts.  That happens in discussion forums, (whether or not that's a novel concept for you).

A. try to get the all importaint "last word" or ...

Or, raise an eyebrow at the 'tainted' typo for "important" ...

B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.

If challenging some specious proselytizing is deemed as 'harassing', I'm going to have to deem the specious proselytizing as harassing too.  Seems fair, nyet?

The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.

Only as long as I, (or any otehr member of FC), complies with the TOS.  Content on these forums is not normally censored, (as a few xtians would have it), except for *bleep* words.

Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D.

Requesting censorship gets denied by the FC moderators - and this astounds the ones requesting such censorhip?  Once a thread becomes 'contentious', there's a chance the mods will move it to "Debate & Discuss" if they feel that's a more appropriate venue.

He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.

"Acts like?"  I've simply reiterated the FC moderator's advice to make use of the 'ignore button' they've provided.  Are you tacitly suggesting that the FC mods are "daring" people too?  The suggestion is sincere; it's no "bluff" however, such posts as this which engage in not-ignoring after repeated claims to have used the ignore button are extremely disingenuous.  Either the meaning of the word "ignore" elludes those who do that, (like the person I'm posting a reply to), or it is an intentional "trolling"/calling-out by name/'nym.  If the former; ignorance is it's own "punishment".  If the latter, the FC moderator has already issued more than one warning about "calling out".  Proceed at your own risk.

[jcribb16]

I've said it before and I'll say it again,the worst punishment falcon could have is if all his detractors put him on ignore.

Is that what you're suggesting, circle the wagons?  Give it shot if wished.

He's a diva that craves attention.Take that away from him and after two or three days of he and his cohorts patting each other on the back,he'd leave from sheer boredom.

Your misguided projection?

If you go into the D&D area you can expect to get your nose bent.I can except that.The problem then,is his following people around from thread to thread to ...

... to reply to which posts I choose to reply to.  This isn't "following" per se; it's responding to prior posts.  That happens in discussion forums, (whether or not that's a novel concept for you).

A. try to get the all importaint "last word" or ...

Or, raise an eyebrow at the 'tainted' typo for "important" ...

B. Harass some profession of religious beliefs.

If challenging some specious proselytizing is deemed as 'harassing', I'm going to have to deem the specious proselytizing as harassing too.  Seems fair, nyet?

The Admin has made it clear as crystal that this behavior will continue to be tolarated.

Only as long as I, (or any otehr member of FC), complies with the TOS.  Content on these forums is not normally censored, (as a few xtians would have it), except for *bleep* words.

Arguing with him to leave "off topic" subjects like Daily Bible Verse or Prayer requests alone,simply will cause the mods to move the thread to the D&D.

Requesting censorship gets denied by the FC moderators - and this astounds the ones requesting such censorhip?  Once a thread becomes 'contentious', there's a chance the mods will move it to "Debate & Discuss" if they feel that's a more appropriate venue.

He acts like he's daring people to ignore him,like he doesn't care.Call his bluff.Ignore him.It's his Kryptonite.

"Acts like?"  I've simply reiterated the FC moderator's advice to make use of the 'ignore button' they've provided.  Are you tacitly suggesting that the FC mods are "daring" people too?  The suggestion is sincere; it's no "bluff" however, such posts as this which engage in not-ignoring after repeated claims to have used the ignore button are extremely disingenuous.  Either the meaning of the word "ignore" elludes those who do that, (like the person I'm posting a reply to), or it is an intentional "trolling"/calling-out by name/'nym.  If the former; ignorance is it's own "punishment".  If the latter, the FC moderator has already issued more than one warning about "calling out".  Proceed at your own risk.

Wow!  You raise an eyebrow at his "tainted" typo, yet some of your words are misspelled or have typos.  I make it a practice not to pick on people for their spelling, punctuation, etc., because no one is perfect and makes mistakes, and some do not know the English language enough yet to spell correctly some of their words, but couldn't help myself this time.  You raise an eyebrow at his so I guess it's alright to raise eyebrows at yours.  Just sayin'...

You are really hung up on the "calling out" issue.  He said nothing about calling you out - he said to "call his bluff."  That is not "calling out," especially as in making a new thread to call you out.  Chill.  He's speaking of calling your bluff with wanting people to actually "ignore" you so you wouldn't have opportunity to bash anyone's belief in God.  You need to stop "looking" for an opportunity to try and trip someone up so they hopefully get in trouble with the moderator.  Also stop threatening the moderator on someone just because he or she challenges your comments.  It doesn't do anything for you.