already in love=)

[Abrupt]

Once again you prove your blindness and it is absolutely laughable.  If you are trying to win some biggest idiot award you can quite already since it has never let your mantle.  Your repeated fallacious argument will not distract me from the point and if you had possessed even remedial intellect and comprehension you would have learned that your attempts to change the subject on me will never work.  I cannot decide if you are as stupid as you appear here or your are trying to troll your way out of another of your lies, but it is one of those two.  Please continue your insanity all you want to, but be aware that I have proof in what I say and you do not.  If you don't believe me then quit remaining ignorant and simply reread the exchange you idiot (again I stress this as it is so obvious that you haven't done this).

If you're done talking to yourself in your mirror now, will you either confirm or deny that you've claimed to be xtian, (or continue your irrational diversions)? 

Why should I respond to this question considering you never responded to my request for you to prove the initial claim you made?  You have been running scared since I challenged you on that point and trying to obfuscate and deflect back upon me some unchallenged assertion of yours.  I am not quite as ignorant as you are, though, and thus am not distracted at all.

Whether I am a Christian or not has no bearing on this as that is not in contestation except in your imagination (and I am not even talking about your intentionally derogatory usage of the word 'xtian' -- which is something I have never claimed to be but may or may not have denied being.  My position on Christianity is rather clear and even someone as ignorant and forgetful and mentally handicapped as you should have no problems knowing what it is -- I say should but you often prove yourself well below the bar even with things that are readily apparent. 

So are you ever going to prove your initial claim that I challenged or are you going to continue running around in your schoolgirl uniform, calling me 'daddy' and begging for a spanking?

[falcon9]

Why should I respond to this question considering you never responded to my request for you to prove the initial claim you made? 

Which fabricated claim are you attributing to me to divert from the point this time?

Whether I am a Christian or not has no bearing on this as that is not in contestation except ...

Right; it has no bearing except for having a direct bearing on your holding irrational superstitious religious beliefs.
 

My position on Christianity is rather clear and even someone as ignorant and forgetful and mentally handicapped ...

Being xtian doesn't necessarily require your degree of ignorance or being otherwise mentally handicapped however, it seems to be prevalently-common among many of the followers of that superstition.

[AXELUnholy]

Hooray for religious debate. Thankfully, it's in the proper forum. 

[Abrupt]

Why should I respond to this question considering you never responded to my request for you to prove the initial claim you made? 

Which fabricated claim are you attributing to me to divert from the point this time?

Once again I have repeatedly informed you that you were the one fabricating and not me.  You should have early on went back and checked the discussion and refreshed your memory.  You could have done it on any of 5 or 6 of your last posts as I made it clear that you were obviously missing something and you still are.  You must be aware of your inability to stay focused or keep up with dialogue.  I have certainly made this clear to you on many of your other tirades and I am sure others have also revealed this to you.  If you showed any hint of civility I would have actually quoted your own words back to you once again (considering I already did this once with an additional quote of specificity).  You don't, though, and so I have simply let you dig your own hole.  Even now you haven't looked back and it isn't like there are a lot of pages to look over, and such behavior of yours is simply irrational.

Whether I am a Christian or not has no bearing on this as that is not in contestation except ...

Right; it has no bearing except for having a direct bearing on your holding irrational superstitious religious beliefs.

Your typical ad hominem reply.  Your reliance upon the use of fallacies to argue only reveals your weakness and limited ability to debate rationally.  That you think such usage drives home your point only reveals how remedial you are.  You claim to have experience in debate and yet you cannot see how often you sabotage your own credibility with the frequent use of such obvious irrational devices.

My position on Christianity is rather clear and even someone as ignorant and forgetful and mentally handicapped ...

Being xtian doesn't necessarily require your degree of ignorance or being otherwise mentally handicapped however, it seems to be prevalently-common among many of the followers of that superstition.

And yet whatever inscience you wish to attribute to me, I still manage to handle your asininity rather easily.

[falcon9]

Once again I have repeatedly informed you that you were the one fabricating and not me. 

You can repeatedly lie about that however, repetition won't confer accuracy on your lie.

You should have early on went back and checked the discussion ... Even now you haven't looked back ...

Your presumptions are, as usual, false.  You began your 'Elmer Fudd' pseudo-hunt by pointing out a math error I'd made and adding your own fabrication to it.  There were no claims made in that post, (other than ones inherent to the corrected mathematical results).  Since that point, you've been insisting upon some fabrication while dodging the salient point of the inherent irrationality of religious faith.  Even now, you bob and weave and yet, remain an irrational believer in religious superstitions.
 

Whether I am a Christian or not has no bearing on this as that is not in contestation except ...

Right; it has no bearing except for having a direct bearing on your holding irrational superstitious religious beliefs.

My position on Christianity is rather clear and even someone as ignorant and forgetful and mentally handicapped ...

Being xtian doesn't necessarily require your degree of ignorance or being otherwise mentally handicapped however, it seems to be prevalently-common among many of the followers of that superstition.

And yet whatever inscience you wish to attribute to me, I still manage to handle your asininity rather easily.

No, any mental deficiencies you possess don't require external attribution; especially such false hubris which deludes you into believing that you are 'handling' logic, (rather than any fabricated "asininity" which isn't yours).  That's your 'one-trick-pony', isn't it?  You seem to believe that fabricating a strawman position, attributing to another and then flailing at the false attribution is what "debate" consists of.  Unfortunately, your pattern of making such fabricated attributions a priori assumptions is invalidated by actual logical reasoning, (not that cheap pseudo-logic you keep trying to substitute).

[Abrupt]

Once again I have repeatedly informed you that you were the one fabricating and not me. 

You can repeatedly lie about that however, repetition won't confer accuracy on your lie.

You should have early on went back and checked the discussion ... Even now you haven't looked back ...

Your presumptions are, as usual, false.  You began your 'Elmer Fudd' pseudo-hunt by pointing out a math error I'd made and adding your own fabrication to it.  There were no claims made in that post, (other than ones inherent to the corrected mathematical results).  Since that point, you've been insisting upon some fabrication while dodging the salient point of the inherent irrationality of religious faith.  Even now, you bob and weave and yet, remain an irrational believer in religious superstitions.
 

Whether I am a Christian or not has no bearing on this as that is not in contestation except ...

Right; it has no bearing except for having a direct bearing on your holding irrational superstitious religious beliefs.

My position on Christianity is rather clear and even someone as ignorant and forgetful and mentally handicapped ...

Being xtian doesn't necessarily require your degree of ignorance or being otherwise mentally handicapped however, it seems to be prevalently-common among many of the followers of that superstition.

And yet whatever inscience you wish to attribute to me, I still manage to handle your asininity rather easily.

No, any mental deficiencies you possess don't require external attribution; especially such false hubris which deludes you into believing that you are 'handling' logic, (rather than any fabricated "asininity" which isn't yours).  That's your 'one-trick-pony', isn't it?  You seem to believe that fabricating a strawman position, attributing to another and then flailing at the false attribution is what "debate" consists of.  Unfortunately, your pattern of making such fabricated attributions a priori assumptions is invalidated by actual logical reasoning, (not that cheap pseudo-logic you keep trying to substitute).

Continue to duck, dodge, dip, dive, deny, and dance all you wish to, Clown Boy as it will avail you nothing.  You are pinned here and you will not weasel your way out of it no matter how you try to.  Either prove your claim or add it to your long list of unfounded assertions and fabrications and downright lies. 

[falcon9]

Rather than own your irrational religious faith, you'd prefer to ...

Continue to duck, dodge, dip, dive, deny, and dance ...

Ah, your usual pattern and nothing new.

Either prove your claim ...

I didn't claim you were a self-professed xtian until after  you did.  The evidence is therefore your own initial claim.  If you have other fabricated claims that which wish to falsely attribute to me, (as is your penchant to do), spew them out of the depths of your irrationality. We can just ...

add it to ['my']* long list of unfounded assertions and fabrications and downright lies. 

*-corrected for grammar aand proper attribution of adjectives

[Abrupt]

Rather than own your irrational religious faith, you'd prefer to ...

Continue to duck, dodge, dip, dive, deny, and dance ...

Ah, your usual pattern and nothing new.

Either prove your claim ...

I didn't claim you were a self-professed xtian until after  you did.  The evidence is therefore your own initial claim.  If you have other fabricated claims that which wish to falsely attribute to me, (as is your penchant to do), spew them out of the depths of your irrationality. We can just ...

add it to ['my']* long list of unfounded assertions and fabrications and downright lies. 

*-corrected for grammar aand proper attribution of adjectives

You claimed I was a religious fundamentalist.  I have called on you repeatedly to prove that claim and you have spent the last few pages avoiding and obfuscating the issue in your typical trollish method.  I have never professed to be 'xtian' as that is an intentional derogatory remark by you as I am a Christian.  Once again your own words draw you to be the liar.

I have also once again reported you for using the quote function and modifying the results so that it appears as if I posted something other than I did.  I have reported this before on some of your previous times doing this but was told by a moderator that they thought it to be funny and so it was okay to them.  It is not to me, though, and I will not tolerate such abuse and dishonesty.  If this is not addressed this time then I will quote you saying the most vile and disgusting things imaginable and if such gets me banned then so be it.  I will not do this once but repeatedly and every single time you post and so they will have to deal with this issue and with me.

[falcon9]

You claimed I was a religious fundamentalist.

"One strand of xtian fundamentalism consists of a belief in;
* the inerrancy of the bible
* the literal nature of the biblical accounts, especially regarding xrist's miracles and the creation account in genesis
* the virgin birth of xrist
* the bodily resurrection and physical return of xrist
* the substitutionary atonement of xhrist on the cross"
 

I have called on you repeatedly to prove that claim ...

I suppose I could sift through the detritus of your posts and quote any instances where your own words reflected the above specious beliefs or, you could simply admit to which ones you do/don't hold as a 'xtian'.

I have never professed to be 'xtian' as that is an intentional derogatory remark by you as I am a Christian.  

The terms are synonymous since "xtian" is an abbreviation of "christian", (listed in the dictionary and therefore, interchangeable).  There's nothing inherently "derogatory" in the abbreviation.

I have also once again reported you for using the quote function and modifying the results so that it appears as if I posted something other than I did.  I have reported this before on some of your previous times doing this but was told by a moderator that they thought it to be funny and so it was okay to them.

The reason it was done was because your own words described you and not I.  This type of ironic humor is not against FC TOS or posting policies, (so one would expect you to begin doing it poorly at some future point).

"It is not to me, though, and I will not tolerate such abuse and dishonesty.  If this is not addressed this time then I will quote you saying the most vile and disgusting things imaginable and if such gets me banned then so be it.  I will not do this once but repeatedly and every single time you post and so they will have to deal with this issue and with me."

Your admission in advance to planning on not only attempting to coerce FC but, trolling with lies has been reported to the moderators.  Such would seem to violate FC TOS and to go beyond a simple warning but, that's up to FC Administrators.

[Administrator]

Abrupt, this subforum is labeled 'Enter at your own risk.'.  I don't have any opinion about the funny-ness of any modified quotes, but I don't consider it a bannable offense, particularly in the context of yet another horribly dreary religious/anti-religious "debate".

[Abrupt]

@ Administrator

Would this not qualify as a violation of rule ii. from the TOS:

"Users must provide valid and truthful information during all stages of membership at FusionCash. This clause applies to every form of interaction with a FusionCash representative, FusionCash's web properties, and FusionCash's affiliated advertisers and partners, including, but not limited to: personal information, location, support tickets, third-party signup information, and cashouts."

It is absolutely one hundred percent known that the person has used your forum/software and modified the results to display untruthful information and is presenting it as if it were my post.  This is not a religious/anti-religious debate, except that falcon9 has attempted to disqualify me as having validity to evaluate his limitations in mathematics because I expressed being religious in another thread.  He has attempted to label me a 'fundamentalist" and that is what is being debated.  That you suggest to allow greater leniency towards abuse considerations if the subject matter is of a religious nature troubles me.

Are you actually saying here that I can use the quote function and alter the quoted text to make it say anything I wish to?  You are aware of California law on this (I believe you operate under California and these laws although new and expansive in their "Internet Enforcement" laws and still somewhat vague yet partially defined in their "Online Defamation Law" and "Internet Impersonation Law")?  You are aware that there is a reason other forums stipulate that you cannot alter material outlined via use of provided forum "quote functions" except with appropriate use of ellipses that does not modify the meaning in context of the quoted material?

I don't have any problem with "enter at your own risk" and personally I love such freedom, but to falsely attribute a quote to me or to modify my quote to make it appear to say something else is intolerable.  One can call me every name in the book and that doesn't bother me at all but I am strict on honesty and I will not be falsely presented.  I request for you to reconsider your position on this as I am adamant on my stance and I will take every step possible to see this corrected and that I am not defamed.  I do not feel as if I am being unreasonable here and I am somewhat surprised at the ease of your dismissal of this matter considering the seriousness of such an act.

[falcon9]

"It is absolutely one hundred percent known that the person has used your forum/software and modified the results to display untruthful information and is presenting it as if it were my post."

False. No "results" were "modified"; the text posted by "Abrupt" was quoted, (with the noted exception of one grammatical change).  Since "untruthful" information was contained in the original post from "Abrupt", applying his own words to his own position was more truthful.

Are you actually saying here that I can use the quote function and alter the quoted text to make it say anything I wish to?  You are aware of California law on this (I believe you operate under California and these laws although new and expansive in their "Internet Enforcement" laws and still somewhat vague yet partially defined in their "Online Defamation Law" and "Internet Impersonation Law")?  You are aware that there is a reason other forums stipulate that you cannot alter material outlined via use of provided forum "quote functions" except with appropriate use of ellipses that does not modify the meaning in context of the quoted material?

I don't have any problem with "enter at your own risk" and personally I love such freedom, but to falsely attribute a quote to me or to modify my quote to make it appear to say something else is intolerable.  One can call me every name in the book and that doesn't bother me at all but I am strict on honesty and I will not be falsely presented.  I request for you to reconsider your position on this as I am adamant on my stance and I will take every step possible to see this corrected and that I am not defamed.  

FusionCash archives are brimming with unaltered quoted records of "Abrupt's" defamations and a recently posted intention to fabricate content.
 

"If this is not addressed this time then I will quote you saying the most vile and disgusting things imaginable and if such gets me banned then so be it.  I will not do this once but repeatedly and every single time you post and so they will have to deal with this issue and with me."

 

[Administrator]

Abrupt, I don't see how that section of the Terms of Service is relevant, nor do I agree with your analysis of California law.  Each post is clearly marked with the username of its author.  There is no impersonation going on, and since you are not using a real name (nor business name) I don't believe you'd be able to argue that any meaningful "damages" (in either sense of the word) have occurred.  Your participation here is voluntary and as a private business our only obligation is to run the forums within applicable law, and to my best knowledge, that's exactly what we're doing.  You are welcome to disagree (I assume you will) but I really don't see these more-or-less playful modifications as such an egregious violation.

[falcon9]

Abrupt, I don't see how that section of the Terms of Service is relevant, nor do I agree with your analysis of California law.  Each post is clearly marked with the username of its author.  There is no impersonation going on, and since you are not using a real name (nor business name) I don't believe you'd be able to argue that any meaningful "damages" (in either sense of the word) have occurred.  Your participation here is voluntary and as a private business our only obligation is to run the forums within applicable law, and to my best knowledge, that's exactly what we're doing.  You are welcome to disagree (I assume you will) but I really don't see these more-or-less playful modifications as such an egregious violation.

Just to clarify, (as Admin has addressed the complaint); this is not to be construed as tacit permission for "Abrupt" to pursue his stated intention of non-playful modifications?

"If this is not addressed this time then I will quote you saying the most vile and disgusting things imaginable and if such gets me banned then so be it.  I will not do this once but repeatedly and every single time you post and so they will have to deal with this issue and with me."

[Abrupt]

Abrupt, I don't see how that section of the Terms of Service is relevant, nor do I agree with your analysis of California law.  Each post is clearly marked with the username of its author.  There is no impersonation going on, and since you are not using a real name (nor business name) I don't believe you'd be able to argue that any meaningful "damages" (in either sense of the word) have occurred.  Your participation here is voluntary and as a private business our only obligation is to run the forums within applicable law, and to my best knowledge, that's exactly what we're doing.  You are welcome to disagree (I assume you will) but I really don't see these more-or-less playful modifications as such an egregious violation.

Thank you for the reply and you are correct to assume that I would disagree as I can be about as stubborn a person as possible.

You may be unclear about the issue I have with the post.  I wouldn't even care so much if someone made a quote and tried to attribute it to me, but the issue here is the person is using your forum features to have it appear to be a genuine quote from me.  For instance, even in this instance where an * is designated (unlike previous times where he has left out the asterisk) is it clear to readers that the resulting post is falsified?

...

add it to ['my']* long list of unfounded assertions and fabrications and downright lies. 

*-corrected for grammar aand proper attribution of adjectives
...

The quoted text highlighted that reads "Quote from: Abrupt on August 31, 2012, 11:56:22 pm" is a forgery and is in essence an impersonation of me.  Granted it is a handle and not actually tied directly to my person (I often forget that as I maintain my honor and integrity and conform to such standards regardless of the medium or anonymity inherent from such methods), but since one of the tenants of this site is honesty can you absolutely guarantee me that there will be no ramifications of my integrity ever being injured from someone reading that as it appears where it claims to be me admitting that I am a liar?  If I posted here claiming that I often lied when filling out surveys and entering in personal information would that not make me subject to be banned from FC?  Can you guarantee that other administrators would not read that and assuming it was actually me having had previously posted the quoted material and thus making me subject for suspicion or even removal?  What about my potential usage of the provided banner for garnering referrals with a reference to a moniker of a person that appears to be admitting to being a liar?

Regarding the legality of the issue, you have said yourself that you are not a lawyer, and neither am I (but I have filed many successful legal proceedings on my own and am not daunted by the language).  With the insanity of liberal legislation it would behoove you to protect yourself and your company against such culpable involvement that stems from the use of your forum features/software to commit forgeries/impersonations.  That you are aware it is a forgery and yet let it stand in such a state is an indefensible position you should never allow yourself to be in.  Many other forums allow the use of handles and quote highlighting features and they have strict stipulations about altering the quoted material (if you just use your own quotes without the highlight features and format they don't have such issue with it).  They consider such a violation to be a ban-able offense and there must be a reason for it.

I am ever an honest person and am not one to tolerate being impugned.  That he is using your forums quote and highlight features to do this is where I have issue.  If you still think such blatant use of your web features to perpetrate such a wrongful act is fine, then perhaps you can be so kind as to put me in contact with Mr. Derheim and we can find his viewpoints on the issue.  With all that being said, I do understand that the forums are something provided for us and that you even allocate benefits from our participation in them and so I don't want to sound unappreciative of such benevolence -- it is just that my honor and dignity is greater than any of that.