Appeal to the Moderators: TOL is for Dialogue? Really?

[1PeaceMaker]

He did lie about it, till he was cornered and then finally admitted who he was with an "apology" for doing it.

He also used both names in the same thread discussion to pat himself on the back and pat his wife on he back and act like another person to further his own argument.

Mr dishonest sock, has no room to talk about anyone elses sock use.

Simply not true. There is an old thread where he started as one user and finished as another because it was so old. That's not being deceptive.

 

[Nihilo]

That never happened. Where on earth did you come up with that narrative?

You're right. That's a very serious charge to have no link for support. And I mean, it's just as serious to make that charge falsely, as it is for that charge to be true. That's what bearing false witness is.

 

[glorydaz]

So...originality is another limitation with you.

Seriously adorable.

Why in God's name would you brag about your originality when it's such an obvious attempt to appear brighter than you are? You think it's original to be a pompous fool? Really? :think:

 

[glorydaz]

You're right. That's a very serious charge to have no link for support. And I mean, it's just as serious to make that charge falsely, as it is for that charge to be true. That's what bearing false witness is.

Bearing false witness is what you've just done. Angel knows what she'd talking about and she has posted the links many times before. That some of those links may have been purged (as they may have been) doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why in God's name would you brag about your originality

:think: What's the over/under of her actually getting anything I write in the next...year.

You think it's original to be a pompous fool? Really? :think:

No. The whole point was to note how unoriginal you were being.

I'll wait while you still don't get what just happened. lain:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Sure he can.
Just because someone did the same thing doesn't mean you can't say it's wrong when another person does it.

I tell everyone to not smoke, even though I do it myself.

Thanks, Tam for that, but I should point out that he was honest about who he was with anyone who asked privately. He answered you, in fact, when you pmed him asking if he was elohiym.

And he never talked to himself or lied about who he was to anyone here. I also was transparent about being his wife the entire time.

He didn't do it to get around a ban, either.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Bearing false witness is what you've just done. Angel knows what she'd talking about and she has posted the links many times before. That some of those links may have been purged (as they may have been) doesn't mean it isn't true.

Another total lie. Wow.

 

[Nihilo]

Bearing false witness is what you've just done. Angel knows what she'd talking about and she has posted the links many times before. That some of those links may have been purged (as they may have been) doesn't mean it isn't true.

I did not bear false witness. I didn't accuse anybody of anything, just that there is no link as of the last time I checked. If there is a link now, then I retract. This is just the standard on the internet. You can't say anything on Wikipedia without a link, and the link can even be a dead one. There's no link, again, as of the last time I checked, so Wikipedia would retract what was said, but not necessarily if the link's dead.

 

[glorydaz]

Another total lie. Wow.

Angel I know....you I don't. She does not lie.


So keep your "righteous indignation" to a dull roar, lest you be accused of protesting too much.

 

[glorydaz]

I did not bear false witness. I didn't accuse anybody of anything, just that there is no link as of the last time I checked. If there is a link now, then I retract. This is just the standard on the internet. You can't say anything on Wikipedia without a link, and the link can even be a dead one. There's no link, again, as of the last time I checked, so Wikipedia would retract what was said, but not necessarily if the link's dead.

The difference here is TOL has openly deleted many threads to make more room, so if that thread was pruned, then the link won't be there. So far, every time Angel has pointed out where Elo and his wife have said something she claimed....they have denied it, and she has shown the link.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Angel I know....you I don't. She does not lie.


So keep your "righteous indignation" to a dull roar, lest you be accused of protesting too much.

I can be as bold as a lion because I know my cause is just and provable. You on the other hand.... not at all. So where is the non-existent evidence you are so sure exists?

Doesn't anyone remember the recent time she was so blatantly wrong about BOLCATS being our sock? It was provably a lie, just like this new lie. Which you are somehow now claiming is an old assertion... news to me. :AMR:

 

[Nihilo]

The difference here is TOL has openly deleted many threads to make more room, so if that thread was pruned, then the link won't be there. So far, every time Angel has pointed out where Elo and his wife have said something she claimed....they have denied it, and she has shown the link.

Then I guess I don't understand the game here. That doesn't make any sense to me. It seems passive aggressive.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The difference here is TOL has openly deleted many threads to make more room, so if that thread was pruned, then the link won't be there. So far, every time Angel has pointed out where Elo and his wife have said something she claimed....they have denied it, and she has shown the link.

Despite the pruning the internet is not the black hole you wish it was.

Not only are there personal witnesses to our honesty, there are other resources we can use to recover old information. For example, we have https://archive.org/

So, let's not pretend we don't have the truth at hand.

 

[Nihilo]

If you know ahead of time what's going to happen, why wouldn't you adjust your strategy accordingly? This is what I don't get about Open Theism versus the Classical view of exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

 

[annabenedetti]

I can see that this lie is never going to die. The actor is not the character he plays.

Hypocrites always fall for their own acting performance. They are actors upon the stage of life and they are their biggest fans. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

I can be as bold as a lion because I know my cause is just and provable. You on the other hand.... not at all. So where is the non-existent evidence you are so sure exists?

Doesn't anyone remember the recent time she was so blatantly wrong about BOLCATS being our sock? It was provably a lie, just like this new lie. Which you are somehow now claiming is an old assertion... news to me. :AMR:

Just because it was proved in your own mind, doesn't mean it was proved in fact. I read what she posted and I read what you posted. Your denials don't prove anything. It's actually an ongoing problem you and elo have. I've watched more than enough to know who is credible and brings proof and who is not credible but has lots of denials.

Personally, I'm sick of watching you accuse Climate Sanity of crap and then use each other as witnesses, while you proclaim your innocence without any evidence to back it up. Angel wouldn't feel the need to put up your words if you two would just admit when you're wrong. I don't see that ever happening, though.

 

[glorydaz]

....

The point Anna missed was that some people admit they were acting (like CS has done) and hypocrites ....who are actors that believe their own act (like Anna).

 

[glorydaz]

Then I guess I don't understand the game here. That doesn't make any sense to me. It seems passive aggressive.

Angel was pointing out how Elo is accusing CS of the very thing he was doing himself. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Nihilo]

Angel was pointing out how Elo is accusing CS of the very thing he was doing himself. That's it in a nutshell.

No, I get that; what I don't get is that, if Angel is going to get the fourth degree no matter what, then why not start where everybody's going to end up and post the link or paste the source/evidence? Doing it without evidence seems passive aggressive. :idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

No, I get that; what I don't get is that, if Angel is going to get the fourth degree no matter what, then why not start where everybody's going to end up and post the link or paste the source/evidence? Doing it without evidence seems passive aggressive. :idunno:

She's probably flat out sick and tired of showing the same stuff over and over again. Every time I've seen her post proof, and lots of proof, they deny it anyway and start with the same stupid accusations. I'm even getting sick of seeing the same posts and the same denials, so I'm sure she is sick of going through the trouble just to watch it being ignored. I went through this same thing with PJ. I would post the proof, and he would ignore it and whine about how mean I was being. They do the same and whine about how they're being false accused. The only ones being passive aggressive here are Elo and his wife.