For Mr. Average, Sweetie, and Gurdur [Archive]

King Louie

06-29-2005, 03:50 AM

This was the first email on this matter that I wrote to Mr. Average. I wrote it to him two days ago, and he hasn't responded yet.

You can respond here if you like, Mr. Average.

Anyway, this email was designed to give a skeletal sketch of what's most important to me, and as I hinted towards the end of it, I will give life examples to elaborate on what it all means to me.

That's the meat of what I have to say here -- the life experience, coupled with the theology I've embraced.

Here you go:

Mr Average,

You're a good writer man. And from the onset, it seems like you and me have a lot in common. That's a really nice thing, to me.

Let me give you my theology in a nutshell -- I'll just dive right into it and go straight to its core, and we can work ourselves outwards from there. And, as I go along with all this, you can relate your own personal beliefs to me too, and we'll investigate all the areas where we might agree and disagree.

About ten years ago, maybe it was, on a mountaintop in Wyoming, I had a personal epiphone that the world was a created place.

That's just a decision I made -- I took a long hard look at reality, and I decided that there was a purpose to it, and that all this stuff was most likely created by something. Because to me, it seemed to take more faith to believe that inanimate matter created itself, than it took to believe some higher being created it all -- and with this creation, an overall purpose as well.

Now I've admitted this fact on a couple of forum boards, and in life, and I thought it might work against me whenever I first admitted it, that after deciding this reality was created by a higher power, that the theology I rested on was the theology that had always surrounded me in my life -- in my hometown, in my family: the theology of the Christian God.

People have often asked me why it was the Christian God -- why not Zeus? Or, why not Allah? (See Sweetie's question to me in the other thread.) It's overly obvious that since I chose the Christian God, and not any of the others theologies, that my choice was ultimately based on environment and upbringing -- ultimatley, on indoctrination. And this was a tough pill for me to swallow, to tell you the honest truth.

But what happened was, as I aspired to defend the doctrine in light of it, those who debated me stripped from me all those stories that I had grown up with, in this bible. They pointed out the harshness of the laws commanding that fathers stone their sons to death, if their sons were drunkards. And they pointed out the age of the earth and evolution, and dinosaurs, and all of the apparent contradictions in this bible that I had no way of explaining away.

Pretty much, they stripped me of all the Old Testament, and lots of other portions, because I simply couldn't explain the nature of God preceding the ultimate arrival of Christ. And I was unwilling to be apologetic in any of it, because I simply didn't want to lie; if I couldn't explain it, then I said, "I don't know man," and "That's hardcore -- I admit," and it seemed to work heavily against me.

I still can't explain lots of it, to be totally honest with you.

So eventually, I found myself fleeing to the gospels, thinking that they would be a safe haven in all the barrage. Because I mean, who could actually hate Jesus? He was a rebel to a faulty administration, and people often seem to like rebels who oppose faulty administrations. He did kind and merciful things for prostitues and the dejected, and did grand things for the sake of compassion and common sense -- how could they actually hate Jesus?

But they didn't let me get away so easily.

So, they started hitting me with this: "It's the same God, King Louie: if Jesus is God in person, then Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. So, therefore, it was Jesus who wanted fathers to stone their sons for drinking." And they did have a point. And what's more, it could've even been me who'd be getting stoned at the town gates, if I had lived back in those days, because I really like vodka and beer and whiskey, y'knowwudimsayin?

So they stripped me of the Old Testament, and they began to chip away at Jesus Christ, and you could tell during those days just by looking at the weariness in my eyes how much it was breaking me down.

So I ran further down into the Gospels -- down, down, down -- burrowing down from the onslaught of attacks, searching desperately for the truth I believed would ultimately underly them, but a truth I had not yet seen or experienced with my own person or eyes or soul.

And then? This life changing incident occured: I found something. I found about three somethings. I found three things that seemed to solidifiy this perspectives for me, and that ultimately, seem to have protected me in all of this, and that has made friends of my enemies, and enemies of my friends: I landed on these three basic tenets of what I believed Christ generally preached; and to me, they seemed to be the three things that ultimately defined His whole life and mission. And to this day, no matter how hard they may try, they can not seem to trump them, these three things -- those that proclaim to see an overall evil in all of it, and nothing of worth, or goodness.

I'll give you a shot in this conversation yourself, to trump one of them -- one I have in mind, that I think is most important in terms of behavior, coupled with a desire to follow this way. And to this day, I continue to maintain that if someone can provide me with any grander human teachings on any slip of paper, that I will deconvert from this theology, and aspire to follow theirs. That's how confident I am in these notions, because after much study on the matter, I've found that no person has been able to do it. And I've asked hundreds to this point, if you can actually believe it.

It's made me very unpopular, as of late.

The first thing I landed on -- the thing that seemed to sum it all up for me -- was this: "Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself." It seems a very simple thing to do; but loving God with all your might is a very difficult thing, because God is obviously not visible, and so it takes faith, which is very difficult in such a hard world. So that's tough, and I'm not going to tell you I've mastered it, because I haven't.

The second one of these seems much easier to accomplish, because neighbors are right there in front of you; but even still, it's very hard to love some of the neighbors, and it's hard for them to love you back.

I've learned these things in the past couple of years or so -- I've learned them both to my pleasure, and to my pain. But hopefully, to everyone's overall good. Time will tell.

But I believe that whenever I've accomplished it -- whenever I've loved my neighbor -- that God has interjected beauty into my life. And there's a whole essay I will give you on my investigations of "loving your neighbor," and in the next email, if you'd like to see it, I'll provide you with what my investigation has revealed, to this point. It's a sad and hard story -- but also drenched with beauty, whether God had a hand in it or not, or whether inanimate matter just bumped about in a serendipitous way.

Secondly, I found refuge in this passage: "If someone should slap you on the cheek, then I say to you, turn to him your other one." This is the one that no one can seem to refute the beauty of -- and the profundity of -- along with an even more hardcore teaching that will follow in a paragraph or two. A very important one, I think.

Mine and Fisher's best friend in the world is an atheist, and we are dear friends. We have the best conversations about God and existence -- I love them all. Now, this one thing you've got to know is, is that he hates the Christian theology. It's been a bad thing for him in his life, and he often says that if God really does exist, and if he should ever meet God in the after life, then he's going to call God an asshole when he sees Him.

About 4 months ago or so, though, we were talking about religion and such, and he said to me, "You know what, Kang? The most beautiful -- and the most profound -- notion in this whole entire world is "turn the other cheek." There's none that tops it. And it's the only thing that gives me pause about the Christian Theology -- there's nothing in the world quite like it. If only the people who preached it practiced it, I don't think I'd hate Christianity so much."

That said a lot to me. The biggest skeptic I'd ever met gave the biggest portion of credence to a very important part of the bible, to me -- more than anyone I'd ever met. I knew I was clinging to good things whenever he said it, one way or another.

The third notion is this one: "If someone should steal your cloak, then give him your tunic, too." To me, this is "turn the other cheek" on crack rock. Because who does this sort of thing?

We can talk extensively about this one, in emails to come.

I will say that many people have tried to liken these last two concepts to "Treat others as you'd like to be treated," -- to liken them to the Golden Rule. But if you think about it for a moment or two, you'll find that they are totally different concepts, for one leaves room for attack and revenge, while the other one never. Beautiful.

And when I take a step back and look at the life of Jesus Christ, it seems to me that Jesus lived all of these three to a T. It seemed to make Jesus who Jesus was.

Now, does this mean that I have answers for the Old Testament, and things like that? Not at all. Because I mean, I can sit around and speculate about all sorts of things, and try to offer positive accounts on behalf of a God that I believe to be an ultimately positive being. Because I do believe that.

But I can't, because I don't know enough about things, and I just don't have all those answers.

However, what I do rest upon is that the book seems to be arranged in such a way that Christ's message of mercy -- and Christ's emphasis of these things I've been telling you about -- it seems to close the chapter on the whole of the book, and leaves a lingering message, not of "stoning your children by the town gates," but the last and final message seems to be, to me, "Turn the other cheek at all costs. Love your neighbor as yourself. Use mercy, and be fair." Things like this.

The last frontier that I have to deal with is revelations: people will say, "No, the lingering message is that Jesus is coming back to lay waste to the world." That might be. That might happen -- I don't know the future. But since it hasn't happened yet, I will focus on the lingering instructions from the kindest speaker that has ever graced mankind's ears -- who gave philsophies and instructions of kindness and peace that have yet to be outdone. I will aspire to follow those, and continue to believe Him to be utterly merciful, as He was when He was alive. For if he can plea forgiveness on the cross for those that put Him there, I do not think His concept of mercy will change, when He returns.

But I might be wrong -- they might be right -- who knows. I'm taking the best I can take and believe, and I'm trying to follow it. I think it would be a good mode of living for me, and for anyone else I might one day meet.

I could write a book on this, man. But better than all that would be me telling you some stories of the past year and a half or so, as I've tried to implement some of those teachings into my life. I've written you this email to give you the crux of what I believe about God and the bible -- but the most interesting story is about what happened when I actually tried to follow these things. Lots of it was very hardcore, and very heartbreaking -- but very beatiful, and very encouraging.

And ultimately, hopeful: for as it concerns tonight, in the Jungles of South Alabama, I'm still alive and kicking.

Thank you again for writing me.

From the Jungles of Emails Sent,

Kang Louie

Sweetie

06-29-2005, 05:17 PM

But what happened was, as I aspired to defend the doctrine in light of it, those who debated me stripped from me all those stories that I had grown up with, in this bible. They pointed out the harshness of the laws commanding that fathers stone their sons to death, if their sons were drunkards. And they pointed out the age of the earth and evolution, and dinosaurs, and all of the apparent contradictions in this bible that I had no way of explaining away.

Read the Church Fathers. They were very good at that, explaining the OT. Even today every Mass has an OT reading, a NT one and a Gospel and usually a connection between them.

And when I take a step back and look at the life of Jesus Christ, it seems to me that Jesus lived all of these three to a T. It seemed to make Jesus who Jesus was.

You just see the case in totally different terms than I do, not that I don't see what you see but when it comes down to theology I need something more substantial. Like you say "it seems Christ lived this way or that way". How do you know how Christ acted? You appeal to the Christian Bible perhaps, how do you know that Christ was not actually the Christ of the Gnostics or Manichaens using their "Bible" as reference?

Granted, you feel like you've fell upon inherent truths in this world and you know what, I'm not saying you're wrong because I've been deep into Catholic mysticism and I've experienced the paradox of this world from that end, but that in itself doesn't really prove theology, do you know what I mean?

However, what I do rest upon is that the book seems to be arranged in such a way that Christ's message of mercy

:eek: Which book? The Protestant Bible or the Catholic Bible or Martin Luther's Bible? You do know that all three are different, correct?

If you are making a muffin, you can ruin the batter by adding too much of something or too little of something right? Truths can be corrupted by addition or subtraction, correct?

Besides, the Catholic Church and Catholic Bishops "arranged" this book.

"Turn the other cheek at all costs. Love your neighbor as yourself. Use mercy, and be fair." Things like this.

It's a half-truth though, if it's not in context. Jesus told the people to turn the other cheek, however, he told his Apostles to turn people away if they do not conform to the truth, correct? Something like that anyways, just a thought.

The last frontier that I have to deal with is revelations: people will say, "No, the lingering message is that Jesus is coming back to lay waste to the world." That might be. That might happen -- I don't know the future. But since it hasn't happened yet, I will focus on the lingering instructions from the kindest speaker that has ever graced mankind's ears -- who gave philsophies and instructions of kindness and peace that have yet to be outdone. I will aspire to follow those, and continue to believe Him to be utterly merciful, as He was when He was alive. For if he can plea forgiveness on the cross for those that put Him there, I do not think His concept of mercy will change, when He returns.

Bah, the book of Revelation and prophecy is the last thing on the list to worry about when it comes to Christian theology.

Sweetie

06-29-2005, 05:32 PM

Now, back to my question.

In the early 400's the Church cannonized the Bible as Catholics know it today, 73 books, 27 in the NT, 46 in the OT.

The 46 books of the OT were the 46 books that Christ would have read from in his Scriptures. Two hundred years prior Christ, in an effort to reach those outside of Judaism but mostly those within Judaism who had been distanced by geology mostly, the Jews translated their OT into Greek. Seven scholars were put in seven different rooms and were not allowed to speak to each other under they were done. When finished, all seven copies were exactly the same and therefore it was declared a good translation. That is what we call the Septuagint, the Bible of the Apostles, the Bible of Jesus.

In 100 A.D., the Jews at a Council of Jamnia revisited the issue of the books in their OT cannon. After a process, they ended up removing seven books from their cannon, these we call the deuterocannonicals because I think, they did not have original copies in Hebrew and God would not speak to them not in Hebrew.

It was too late though, the Christians already had the other cannon, the Septuagint. Some have suggested that the Jews of Jamnia did what they did to consider themselves seperate from the Christians, I don't know if that's true.

Anyhoo, so of course, when it comes to the NT, many different books floating around, some by Apostles, some by others, some by those claiming to be Apostles. There were how many books to choose from? Hundreds I think. So the Church, after the early three hundreds when it then became legal to be Christians, the Church came up from the underground and started to get official. They had councils, they made decisions. One of those decisions were which books were official or not, so the Church at the Council of Nicea I think, cannonized the 27 books we have today.

Fast forward to the 1500's and Martin Luther who declared that the 7 deuterocannonicals (sp?) did not belong to the "true" cannon of Scripture and therefore removed them.

However, he didn't stop there. He also removed James, 2 Peter, and a few others I don't recall off the top of my head.

Oddly enough, the book of James says that "one is not saved by faith alone" although Luther preached that one was saved by faith alone. 2 Peter says thus: "Know this first of all, that there is no prohpecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation," although Luther spouted a Gospel of Sola Scriptura, Bible alone.

His followers of course, later put these books back in. 2 Maccabees was one of the deuterocannonicals that he removed, which justifies prayers for the dead as a holy and wholesome thing which Luther rejected as well.

So, the Protestants of today with their 66 books and the Catholic with our 73 books. Some Jews with 39 books, etc.

Which Bible are you going to teach me about the truth from?

*all from memory, I could have some facts wrong

Sweetie

06-29-2005, 07:24 PM

Too, another thing that I would ask after reading your post is why are you a Christian and not a Buddhist? Buddhists share a similar ethic with Christians.

What you speak of is primarily about ethics and what you are essentially saying is that you have found a true ethic though you may not be able to justify it except by experience.

True ethic does not equal true religion nor does because you have discovered a true or a "good" ethic means that Christianity is true as opposed to Buddhism.

Seriously, a really awesome priest came to visit our parish a month or so ago and he said that the ethics that Christians and Buddhists share and a few other religions, the "truths" of this world, that's true religion.

I think he's wrong, that's not true relgion, that's true ethics though there are in the end way too many disparities for them to be considered the same but the basic idea of it and what you are speaking of is similar.

King Louie

06-29-2005, 07:51 PM

Fair enough, Sweetie. And before I go any further here, since you seem to be so highly educated on these matters of varying texts -- and of missing texts, and of texts recognized by some, and not by others -- I have an idea for us.

Come back to me and tell me if the portions of the story I talked about in my earlier post -- specifically, those that concern the commandments of Christ that include "turn the other cheek," "Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself," and "If someone steals your cloak, give to him your tunic, too," -- those passages and stories that I referred to earlier -- what I'd like for you to do is to tell me whether or not any of these texts you spoke of omitted those passages concerning those particular commandments and teachings of Christ. Did any text omit them? Did any say anything wholly contrary to them, even -- like did any of them say, "Jesus said: if someone steals your cloak, then beat him down like a dog and steal his, because he will deserve it?"

In these matters I spoke of above, did any of these texts omit any of these things concerning these teachings of Jesus, or are they all there, in all these texts, these commandments and teachings of Christ?

While I wait for you to return, I'll tell you which texts I am able to use in relating my story to you, and my experiences in these matters as I feel concerns them:

American Standard Version
Amplified Bible
Bible in Basic English
Children's Bible
Contemporary English Version
Darby Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic)
God's Word
King James Version
King James Version (Additional)
Message Bible
Net Bible
New American Bible (Catholic)
New American Standard Version
New English Translation
New International Version
New King James Version
New Living Translation
New Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
World English Bible (Hebrew Names Version)
Wycliffe New Testament

...and hopefully, the things I want to speak about will be included in the texts you bring to the table -- that is, if your texts talk about the story, life, and teachings of Jesus.

But I think that so far, if I'm not mistaken, each of these texts listed above include the passages I'm talking about -- so far. But if they don't, then all you need to do is point them out to me, and I will concede it to you.

One more thing: I'm not here to tell you The truth. Not that I know of: maybe I am, and maybe I'm not -- I'm just a human, and I don't have all the answers. What I am willing to tell you is my truth, and it is certainly open for scrutiny, and if I can be convinced that my truth is wrong, then I will concede it here and now, in this thread, by those who can upend it.

In these matters, Sweetie, to the depths of my heart, I try very hard to be humble in my approach. If not, then I'd have more enemies than I already do. My family can not stomach my interpretation of these things, and they are truly good people -- many friends both atheist and theist reject them whole-scale as well.

If I endeavored to slap it on them, always, as if I was carrier of the whole, universal truth, and that everything I say on these matters is so concrete and irrefutable that if they disagreed with me on any point, they'd be universally wrong -- then I wouldn't have a voice at all. Nor would I have anyone who'd want to be around me. I would be miserable, and arrogant, to advertise myself in such a way.

Come back to me, let me know about those texts, and if we're still on the same page after all that, I'll start diving in to some personal experience in these matters.

From the Jungles of Parameters,

Kang Louie

Gurdur

06-29-2005, 09:34 PM

Okeydokey, thanks, King Louie, and I hope today is a good day for you.
I'm going in my next post in here to outline my own personal atheology, and also outline why I think it can be compatible with your and Fisher's theology. Of course, I would be very interested in any points where you think my atheology and your theology actually clash. Or IOW I don't think you need to deconvert, and you don't need to try converting me; I think our POV's intersect at the most vital point at the end, and I would be very interested to see if you and/or Fisher disagree.
But first I am going to have dinner, and then I will come back and do an opus.

BTW, I'm not too worried about misspellings of my username.

JoeP

06-29-2005, 09:45 PM

That's a relief, Girder, and King: I love your posts.

TheBeast

06-29-2005, 11:32 PM

BTW, I'm not too worried about misspellings of my username.

Can I call you Gaz?

Gurdur

06-29-2005, 11:48 PM

No, you can't. I have been known to turn extremely violent without warning.

* looks through card index for address of visatee *

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 12:14 AM

Ewwwww. :D

You guys are so sweet I got a toothache. :sadcheer:

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 12:19 AM

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 12:22 AM

Fair enough, Sweetie. And before I go any further here, since you seem to be so highly educated on these matters of varying texts -- and of missing texts, and of texts recognized by some, and not by others -- I have an idea for us.

Oh, no, I'm really not educated. I don't know anything but what I've read and put together and I'm really terrified of depending on or spreading misinformation so I do try to be thorough but if someone else knows what they are talking about then I usually leave it to them. :yup:

Come back to me and tell me if the portions of the story I talked about in my earlier post -- specifically, those that concern the commandments of Christ that include "turn the other cheek," "Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself," and "If someone steals your cloak, give to him your tunic, too," -- those passages and stories that I referred to earlier -- what I'd like for you to do is to tell me whether or not any of these texts you spoke of omitted those passages concerning those particular commandments and teachings of Christ. Did any text omit them?

No, I don't think so.

Did any say anything wholly contrary to them, even -- like did any of them say, "Jesus said: if someone steals your cloak, then beat him down like a dog and steal his, because he will deserve it?"

Not of that ilk but Christianity is rather paradoxical.

However, I would like to get down to what you are getting at here. Are you trying to do a "if they included these texts then I know the cannon is good enough coz I already know these things are true," or something? I've already undercut that idea to a certain extent.

In these matters I spoke of above, did any of these texts omit any of these things concerning these teachings of Jesus, or are they all there, in all these texts, these commandments and teachings of Christ?

You do realize that it's irrelevant, right? You are perhaps trying to build up a fallacy if I can recall correctly is called "Special Pleading" but I'm not sure of all the technical names.

While I wait for you to return, I'll tell you which texts I am able to use in relating my story to you, and my experiences in these matters as I feel concerns them:

American Standard Version
Amplified Bible
Bible in Basic English
Children's Bible
Contemporary English Version
Darby Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic)
God's Word
King James Version
King James Version (Additional)
Message Bible
Net Bible
New American Bible (Catholic)
New American Standard Version
New English Translation
New International Version
New King James Version
New Living Translation
New Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
World English Bible (Hebrew Names Version)
Wycliffe New Testament

...and hopefully, the things I want to speak about will be included in the texts you bring to the table -- that is, if your texts talk about the story, life, and teachings of Jesus.

Posting that list served no purpose, you do know this, correct?

But I think that so far, if I'm not mistaken, each of these texts listed above include the passages I'm talking about -- so far.

Which is irrelevant, what guarantees that the texts that you pick as "good" texts are authoritative and are good representations of Christ and truth?

If I endeavored to slap it on them, always, as if I was carrier of the whole, universal truth, and that everything I say on these matters is so concrete and irrefutable that if they disagreed with me on any point, they'd be universally wrong -- then I wouldn't have a voice at all. Nor would I have anyone who'd want to be around me. I would be miserable, and arrogant, to advertise myself in such a way.

Whatsat?

Come back to me, let me know about those texts, and if we're still on the same page after all that, I'll start diving in to some personal experience in these matters.

I prefer we operate from reason and logic not from emotions and experience necessarily because experience is subjective of course, if you'd maybe like to try it my way?

Peace,
Rebecca

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 12:24 AM

[...]"turn the other cheek," "Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself," and "If someone steals your cloak, give to him your tunic, too," [...]
See this is why I casually contrasted your "hippy-like Christianity" with albert cipriani's rigid authoritarian theology, King Louie. It wasn't meant to be derisive or dismissive at all, it's just that your theology seems to be more centered around the concepts of "peace, love and understanding" than some cold, dogmatic doctrine and rule set. Anyway I just wanted to make sure it was clear that I respect and appreciate your perspective.

Spirit and truth.
Scripture and Tradition.
Love and Law.

These things do not contradict each other nor do they justify each other. For instance, if you love then you are telling the truth or if you are ridgid you are lying, there is no necessary correlation between the two.

Sometimes true love is based on true truths and that is perhaps the only way in which it is then true even though outside of that it is well intentioned.

Just some thoughts.

Peace,
Rebecca

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 12:36 AM

These things do not contradict each other nor do they justify each other. For instance, if you love then you are telling the truth or if you are ridgid you are lying, there is no necessary correlation between the two.
I know. I was just explaining how I had previously characterized his theology and contrasted it with albert cipriani's, not judging the truth value of either.

King Louie

06-30-2005, 01:01 AM

Gurdur

06-30-2005, 01:50 AM

Just go on as you are, King Louie, just tell the story as you want to tell it to Mr.Average --- that's fine. No rush, no worries.

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 01:57 AM

I don't know whether to keep on telling this story, or to follow the various tangents in defense of why I've come to believe what I do at every turn, and from where I learned it, and from why, or if I should go back to writing the story in email form to Mr. Average, who asked me for it in sincerity, a while back.

I suppose the problem is, I don't understand why. Why does it matter how your beliefs originated if it's subjective, if why doesn't necessarily show why such a belief should be held?

For instance, you can explain why Plato came to think that the Earth was the center of the universe and Galileo did not, we can say well, it occured to this one when he was five that this or that, but that doesn't mean anything, does the sun in fact revolve around the Earth, what do we know now?

I have just enough energy and time in me to tell this story, it really feels like -- and just enough to get it out there the way I'd like to put it. So I think, in all this, that I'm going to err on the side of Mr. Average first, then telling my story in this thread second, and defending the credibility of my beliefs and experiences third. And maybe, defending the credibility of my beliefs and experiences never. I haven't decided that yet. I think that it really depends on everyone who's playing in this conversation, and the way it all flows, and things like that.

Ah, well I'm here to discuss the credibility of your beliefs as they are, what you use to justify them and whether or not those are viable justifications. That's why I'm here, I thought that's what we were getting into.

If that is not the case, if you are explaining to others how you came to believe what you do, then continue with the others, not a problem.

So that's where I'm at, here. Y'all let me know what you want out of this -- whether it's the truth or a bold-faced lie you think I'm telling -- because really, I was writing this for Mr. Average all along. I don't want to lose sight of that, because he's been really cool to me along the way.

Yeah see, I didn't realize you were writing for Mr. Average.

:wave:

Peace,
Rebecca

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 01:59 AM

Just go on as you are, King Louie, just tell the story as you want to tell it to Mr.Average --- that's fine. No rush, no worries.

You're not sugaring him up are you? :P

:wtf:

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 02:10 AM

I suppose the problem is, I don't understand why.
I think some people might see it as a way of "getting to know" someone. :P

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:12 AM

I must say this to you King Louie. You do realize how much you give up by telling the story, right? I think alot of your beliefs are true but they are badly justified. Some, like me, would be finding all the fallacies in your justifications and whether or not you ever feel like getting around to defending them extensively doesn't mean that they aren't already in their minds saying, "just another Christian who believes just because it feels good," as opposed to "because he has good reason to and that Christianity is possibly true."

I think you're a sitting duck:
I'm going in my next post in here to outline my own personal atheology, and also outline why I think it can be compatible with your and Fisher's theology.".
Just a thought.

Peace,
Rebecca

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:14 AM

I think some people might see it as a way of "getting to know" someone. :P

Oh, well it's just that I figured since he was done with albert he might want to pick up with me, I'm a little softer around the edges but not much, but continue in the same vein as his discussion with albert so I didn't understand why how he came to believe as he did would matter.

King Louie

06-30-2005, 02:18 AM

Thank you Gurder -- that was highly cool of you.

Sweetie,

Here's the truth: I'm on the verge of getting into some personal experiences of mine, in my recent life -- the truth of my life as I know it, and as I perceive it all with my own two failing eyes. I'm about to be posting personal thoughts and experiences concerning my life that will seek to describe my clinging to this one microscopic thread in this reality -- all those personal things that I embrace and find good in, for me, and to explain myself as to why I cling to them, and for what possible good.

I'm to the point now that I just don't really feel like having to back up my life, and my experiences, with some sort of absolute, objective truth that's being requested of me here -- I truth I don't possess at this time, and a truth that I've already admitted I don't have -- several posts ago.

Several years ago, for that matter.

Simply put, if I knew everything in the Universe for sure and for certain, then I doubt I'd be posting here on this forum board, y'knowwudimsayin? I'd probably be in Hawaii drawing a 14 million dollar check, drinking a drink out of a cocunut, and wearing a grass skirt.

I asked a while back if you were here because you were interested in hearing my take on it all, or if you were here to disagree by default. From post one, you've already "undercut" me, as you say, and you know, perhaps you already have. I'm already kind of confused myself, to tell you the truth.

But when I get it all together, and when I take a big step back, and when I look at my intentions in all this, and who has asked me for them, and how I intend to approach the remainder of this conversation, here -- I just don't feel like being "undercut" this time around, as I'm simply trying to explain some personal beliefs in my own life, and some personal meaning, and from where it was all derived, and how, and how everything else that comes with it tags along -- all the stuff that comes from living a life. My life. If I have to choose one arena over another, this time around, and one group of people is saying, "Go on -- tell us the rest," and another group of people is saying, "This is faulty -- this has been undercut," I'll choose the one that gives me the most elbow-room to do it. Because it's hard to corral hard truths, as it is, I think.

So I tell you what: if you have a different direction you'd like to take -- and a different intention you'd like to realize, in this discussion -- then we'll make a compromise, you and me, if you might be up for it.

If you'd like, I can take your name out of this thread title here, and I can continue to write this stuff for Mr. Average and Gurdur; but also, I can start another conversation -- intended solely for you -- on the topics of your choosing, in another thread. And once there, we can both get to the bottom of whatever you'd like to get to the bottom of.

I think that if we do that sort of thing, I can hold firm to my inspiration, here.

And for me, inspiration is almost everything; so that's why I'm making this point with you now.

Let me know what you'd like to do.

From the Jungles of Sincerity,

Kang Louie

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:25 AM

I asked a while back if you were here because you were interested in hearing my take on it all,

Oh, yes I'm interested in hearing your take and your beliefs about Christianity but I didn't realize that meant that I was required to ask no questions or ask for no justifications.

or if you were here to disagree by default. From post one, you've already "undercut" me, as you say, and you know, perhaps you already have. I'm already kind of confused myself, to tell you the truth.

'Tis confusing, even this.

For clarification, I am not out to tear you down, this is true, that's what I thought the question is. To discuss, yes, to tear down or to be selfish no. I have no gain in tearing you down and remember, even if I did it would be to your benefit because I have a soft place for you to fall. Others don't necessarily, just keep that in mind.

I just don't feel like doing this, this time around.

Alright.

So I tell you what: if you have a different direction -- and intention -- in this discussion, then we'll make a compromise, if you are up for it. If you want, I will take your name out of this thread title, I will continue to write this stuff for Mr. Average and Gurdur, and I will start a conversation with you on these things in another thread, and we can get to the bottom of what you'd like to get to the bottom of. I think if we do that, I can hold firm to my inspiration, here.

And with me, inspiration is almost everything, so that's why I'm making this point with you now.

Let me know what you want to do.

From the Jungles of Sincerity,

Kang Louie

It's up to you.

Peace,
Rebecca

King Louie

06-30-2005, 02:31 AM

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:35 AM

Then I choose Gurdur and Mr. Average, in a series of private messages.

Anybody else who wants to hear it, post your name here and tell me so, or send me a PM requesting it, and I will forward it along to everybody.

From the Jungles of Hard Choices,

Kang Louie

Why, why PM's? I don't understand you.

Your Christ spoke words such as thus:

"Be as cunning as serpents, but innocent as doves."

"Test all things, retain what is true."

Why in the dark?

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:38 AM

Seriously, tell your story here, I will read it and enjoy and laugh and cry with you over it ( in the sense of emotional highs and low, triumphs and falls). Truly, I did misunderstand your intentions with me and your expectations of me.

Why would Christ though, warn his people to be cunning? If we are to be serpents, what is the cunning we are up against? Arm yourself.

Beth

06-30-2005, 02:39 AM

Kang, I'm interested in whatyou say, but I do not wish to get involved in the discussion as in giving an opinion. I just find all of this interesting. Anyway, good luck, I find your outlook refreshing.:)

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 02:41 AM

I can't think of an appropriate, non-offensive exclamation right now, so just pretend I made one.

Then...

Sweetie, he opened his second post here with these words:

Anyway, this email was designed to give a skeletal sketch of what's most important to me, and as I hinted towards the end of it, I will give life examples to elaborate on what it all means to me.

That's the meat of what I have to say here -- the life experience, coupled with the theology I've embraced.
...and you attacked it like it was a philosophical treatise.

"Wrong!"

"Irrelevant!"

"Hearsay!"

"Proof! We need proof!"

You even pointed out, repeatedly, that his life story is mere anecdote.

DUH!

I think maybe that's why he has decided to take it to PM, but I can't be sure.

I'm not angry, incidentally, just can't seem to stop slapping my forehead. :doh:

King Louie

06-30-2005, 02:45 AM

Sweetie.

I get lots of scriptures quoted at me -- tons of them. It's strange. It's disheartenting, to tell you the truth, because I'm trying very hard to do the best I can, in this life.

In my entire time at DEA.com, Invisual.Net, Atheist.com, Internet Infidels.com, Christian Forums, and Freethought Forums -- I've never once quoted a bible scripture aimed to illustrate that the person I was talking to was in breach of it.

On the other side of that token, however, I've had hundreds of them quoted and aimed directly at me, with respect to my behavior, choices, and beliefs in this life -- by atheists, catholics, baptists, calvinists, universalists, polytheists, agnostics, humanists, and every other kind of "ist" I can imagine.

Beyond that, I've had about 5 scriptures pointed out to me just this week by real-world people -- by people who are very close to me in my life, and who share my same blood.

I get bible scripture quoted for me very often, in this life.

So if you want to call it posting in the "dark," then so be it. I'm going to go post this stuff in the dark. And if it doesn't shed a spark, then so be it.

From the Jungles of Seeking Flint,

Kang Louie

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:49 AM

I can't think of an appropriate, non-offensive exclamation right now, so just pretend I made one.

I'm always wrong, it can't be that I interpret things differently, can it?

I'm sorry we're done; if you change your mind,

He's right though, a continued discussion on that path is futile.

Are you asking me these questions because you'd really like to know, and because you'd really like to learn what I know -- or, are you asking me these questions, and only posed to prove me wrong in all this, and to scour it for ambiguities in order to refute what you already soundly may not believe?

If you're asking that if you bother to put forth an effort if it will mean something to me and if I care about you and whether or not I'm not just out to tear you down then rest assured, I'm not out to tear you down.

After years of discussing these subjects and perhaps you've been around the block a few times too, it's sometimes rather clear which direction we should be heading in if we do in fact want to accomplish anything.

My name was on the thread title. I had no intentions of being here just to here him speak, what's the point of participation in that? I will hear him speak, however there is no required physical named participation on my part necessary.

So there. I wish you'd try sometimes to see from my eyes damnit vm!

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:51 AM

ISo if you want to call it posting in the "dark," then so be it. I'm going to go post this stuff in the dark. And if it doesn't shed a spark, then so be it.

From the Jungles of Seeking Flint,

Kang Louie

Thank you, then I don't have to watch you get slaughtered because you lean towards "niceness" at the expense of reason and truth. Appeals to emotions are fallacies, people have died by the millions in wars based on appeals to emotions, for instance.

Beth

06-30-2005, 02:52 AM

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 02:54 AM

I had no intentions of being here just to here him speak, what's the point of participation in that?
I guess just to be nice and to get to know another person's views better. That can be refreshing sometimes.

My point was, why was my name on the thread title? I thought we were starting a discussion not that I was being included in his monologue with Mr. Average.

King Louie

06-30-2005, 02:54 AM

Thank you, then I don't have to watch you get slaughtered because you lean towards "niceness" at the expense of reason and truth.

Fair enough. You guys let me know, like I said earlier, and I'll send y'all a bunch of it tomorrow, if I can get it written.

From the Jungles,

Kang Louie

King Louie

06-30-2005, 03:00 AM

My point was, why was my name on the thread title? I thought we were starting a discussion not that I was being included in his monologue with Mr. Average.

Oh, I see. I'm really sorry about that -- I did drop the ball here. You were really the thing that made me post this thread, Sweetie, because at the end of the Cirpriani thread, you seemed to be asking me some questions about how I came to my beliefs. I think you asked me why I believed Christ was divine, and at any rate, I thought you were wanting to know my perspective on the thing. So, since you were the third person who had asked me such a question in three days, I decided that I'd write my stuff in one thread here, for all three.

Thing was, I forgot to link to this thread at the end of the other thread, directing you here, so's I could give you my answers to those questions as I perceived them, and I realized I had forgotten to link it. Yesterday was a very hard day for me -- one of the worst days I've had in my life.

But no sympathy emails from nice posters, though, you people: for today was one of the best. So it all washed out -- carry on.

Anyways, that's why your name was in this thread title. Sorry if it confused you.

See the rest of you guys in PM land, and thanks for reading it up to here.

From the Jungles of Freethought's ~Elsewhere,

Kang Louie

Beth

06-30-2005, 03:00 AM

I'm interested if you do not mind me just reading.

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 03:05 AM

I wish you'd try sometimes to see from my eyes damnit vm!
I do, Sweetie. In my opinion it's you who isn't trying to see this through King Louie's eyes. Can you quote one thing he said in this thread that indicated that he was looking for a hardcore theological debate here? Because I can quote about 500 things he said that indicate that he wasn't, and that he was just interested in sharing his own life experience and resultant philosophy.

Anyway, I'm obviously just adding noise to this thread too. Sorry, Kang.

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 03:07 AM

you[/i] who isn't trying to see this through King Louie's eyes. Can you quote one thing he said in this thread that indicated that he was looking for a hardcore theological debate here? Because I can quote about 500 things he said that indicate that he wasn't, and that he was just interested in sharing his own life experience and resultant philosophy.

Wasn't that what his thread with albert was about, to get somewhere in their differing beliefs? I was on the tail end of that.

Anyway, I'm obviously just adding noise to this thread too. Sorry, Kang.

Thread's dead man, remember? The OP left.

King Louie

06-30-2005, 03:08 AM

No sweat Viscous -- all threads are noisy. That's just the nature of this cacophonous life, and I'm making noise too, if you'll only observe.

And Beth, you got it. Thanks for your interest. You don't have to make a peep.

From the Jungles of Spinal Tap Decibels,

Kang Louie

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 03:10 AM

Here's a question.

What value to others is your life story and the expose of your belief system? You have been to Internet Infidels, correct?

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 03:13 AM

Wasn't that what his thread with albert was about, to get somewhere in their differing beliefs? I was on the tail end of that.
And given that, your assumption that he intended to continue that vigorous debate in this thread makes a lot of sense. Or would make a lot of sense, if you didn't read the OP. Maybe you should go back and read the OP now. This part in particular:

I can only, at this point, tell him -- and you two -- how I have come to the conclusions I have, and let it all rest. That's all I can do for now.

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 03:16 AM

I can only, at this point, tell him -- and you two -- how I have come to the conclusions I have, and let it all rest. That's all I can do for now.

That doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

He got me wrong and I got him wrong. Yes, I am out to question his beliefs but not, not with the intention of tearing him down and no I can not sit and listen to fallacy after fallacy and not say a darned world especially knowing that others are picking up on them as easily as I and then turning around and smiling at the dude and saying, ohhh honey, we're all ears and we just love you. They really have his best interest at heart.

Like I said, toothache, but I will back down and go off.

Peace,
Rebecca

viscousmemories

06-30-2005, 03:23 AM

King Louie

06-30-2005, 03:23 AM

What value to others is your life story and the expose of your belief system?

I've been hoping, Sweetie, that they are both one and the same -- and an expose on one, is an expose on it all.

But probably not -- who knows? One of my favorite quotes in the world is by Walt Whitman, who said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large -- I contain multitudes."

I feel like this every once in a while, very deeply. And if one were to search me hard enough, then I'm positive they would find it in me -- very quickly, I'm sure.

Yes, I've been to Internet Infidels before. And lots of them wanted to find it in me, it seemed like all the time. But others simply knew it was in me, and overlooked it to ascertain my truth.

That's the difference between people in this life, I think: some people look for only the Whitmans in other people, and some try to simply feel the poetry.

As of late, I feel like some poetry. For what it's worth.

From the Jungles of Multitudes,

Kang Louie

Gurdur

06-30-2005, 03:56 AM

Yes, I am out to question his beliefs but not, not with the intention of tearing him down and no I can not sit and listen to fallacy after fallacy and not say a darned world especially knowing that others are picking up on them as easily as I and then turning around and smiling at the dude and saying, ohhh honey, we're all ears and we just love you. They really have his best interest at heart.
I am going to answer this, at the risk of adding a negative note.

Sweetie, your major problem is that you lack courage; you will simply not confront your fears, you revel in your self-pity and now dramatisation of paranoia. You lack discernment because of your fears, and you get addicted to the poverty-stricken idea that one must be aggressive to mean anything.

I'm here to listen to and discuss with King Louie and Fisher, and I find them interesting and good people, even if I disagree with 30-60 % of what King Louie says. If you want to try and insinuate that I am only doing it to attack him later, then you have only shown your extremely bad discernment yet again.
I have 13, 229 posts on the Internet Infidels (SecWeb), under the same name (Gurdur); I am relatively famous there. Go and read all my posts and see if you think I am here to attack or undermine King Louie.

And finally, Sweetie, your lack of courage in taking up a very genuine offer (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81401#post81401) is your own problem; the fact that I have done good to you -- or at least tried to, only to meet with your refusal ---- and then you turn around and insinuate silly things about me, all this speaks of you not having any actual theology, but only a cloak for your resentments and self-pity. Grow up some day, just grow up.

Dingfod

06-30-2005, 04:04 AM

I have 13, 229 posts on the Internet Infidels (SecWeb), under the same name (Gurdur); I am relatively famous there.I believe the word is infamous. :wink:

Gurdur

06-30-2005, 04:17 AM

I have 13, 229 posts on the Internet Infidels (SecWeb), under the same name (Gurdur); I am relatively famous there.I believe the word is infamous. :wink:
Either way, either way.
Shunned, disfellowshipped, censored out, the awful name of Gurdur is still whispered in dark corners, a name used by All Approved Mothers to scare their children with, a name of....... OK, infamy, I give in, infamy.

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 04:47 AM

I am going to answer this, at the risk of adding a negative note.

Sweetie, your major problem is that you lack courage; you will simply not confront your fears, you revel in your self-pity and now dramatisation of paranoia. You lack discernment because of your fears, and you get addicted to the poverty-stricken idea that one must be aggressive to mean anything.

:eek:

You want to discuss this elsewhere Gurdur, you old dog you?

Sweetie

06-30-2005, 04:52 AM

I lack courage?

I'm afraid?

You have tried really hard to be nice to me but that's just too much?

How does a black man feel when someone is only nice to them because they think that one should be nice to blacks?

Yeah, that's what I think of some of y'alls "niceness." You could shove it, I don't require it. I don't care if people I don't respect are treating me "nice" or not.

Hehe, and you want me to think that my previous idea isn't true. The above is exactly why it is true, your niceness turns on a very slim dime because it's not genuine. But you're right, I was wrong about you, you aren't intelligent and non-biased enough to accomplish what I thought you could be about.

Anyhoo, but I'm sure you've got me all figured out.

You wish.

:wave:

D. Scarlatti

06-30-2005, 10:40 AM

Sweetie, an acronym of advice: dnftt.

Gurdur

06-30-2005, 12:28 PM

Having both Scarlatti and Sweetie whine together in symphony is definitely something very amusing indeed.

Oh well, Sweetie, you are your own worst enemy.

Scarlatti, yeah, I have no sympathy for your lying, poisonous, and cowardly ways; suck it up, Scarlatti, suck it up.

raspberrybullets

06-30-2005, 02:41 PM

Do you guys have to do this in a thread where somebody is trying very hard to share his experiences? It is not an easy thing to do to expose everything to be scrutinised by all. And it doesn't help when all this petty bickering is going on between some of you.

D. Scarlatti

06-30-2005, 02:50 PM

Just giving Sweetie some advice. Looks like it was good advice too.

Beth

06-30-2005, 02:52 PM

Razz, I think Kang already decided to take it to pm. But I get your point.

raspberrybullets

06-30-2005, 03:08 PM

Yes sorry Beth, I know he has and that essentially the original intent of this thread is over, but it just seems a shame to me that he had to take it to PM to get what he wanted out. I guess it doesn't really matter what goes on in this thread any more. And by the sounds of it Scarlatti, you deserve all that was said about you.

King Louie

06-30-2005, 03:30 PM

Don't fight y'all -- not in this thread. Just let it fade away. It's truly nothing to be sweated.

Scarlatti and Sweetie, I'm going to foward this continuation to everybody who's asked for it to this point, and I'll be happy to send it to you guys too, if you'd like to see it. I don't want to avert scrutiny in all this -- not at all. I guess I was just wanting an avenue to settle in and get it written. It's not something I would want to keep from you, though, so just let me know. And no hard feelings from me -- none at all. So don't let there be hard feelings amongst the rest of you either, in this thread, because there's a million other threads that one could harden one's feelings over. This one's simply not worth it, to me.

From the Jungles of Sincerity,

Kang Louie

D. Scarlatti

06-30-2005, 03:39 PM

No hard feelings Louie.

I was just suggesting,* for what it's worth, that Sweetie not engage the troll.

Carry on.

* Or "whining," as the troll would have it.

Mr Average

06-30-2005, 05:03 PM

Hmm, damn! Only just browsed this forum after a few days away and noticed this thread! Ah well, PM it is..... :)

In Peace, Mr Average

Pendaric

06-30-2005, 07:35 PM

Yo Louie, Fisher :wave: Hope it's going alright for you two.

I'd like a copy of the PM, if that's alright with you.

A lot of you guys obviously don't hang around IIDB that much, or you'd understand why Louie isn't looking for argument at this point. Believe me, he's had plenty of the errors in his logic being thrust in his face, and I can completely understand why he wants to avoid that this time around, at least for a while.

He got driven away from II by people acting like out and out jerks, and whilst I'm not suggesting anybody here is going down those lines I can see why he wants to try and lick his wounds in peace for a bit.

livius drusus

06-30-2005, 07:56 PM

You speak truth, baldbantam. I've lurked on many of Louie's threads at IIDB and he was inevitably treated like utter shit despite his openness and kindness.

Mr Average

07-01-2005, 08:49 AM

You speak truth, baldbantam. I've lurked on many of Louie's threads at IIDB and he was inevitably treated like utter shit despite his openness and kindness.

Very true. I watched a lot of his threads, and was amazed at the level of hostility he faced. I recognise that as Louie was a Theist on an Athiest website, he is automatically going to face a certain amount of disrespect....but! His kindness and openness is/was refreshing and inspiring IMO.

In Peace, Mr Average

Adora

07-01-2005, 11:55 AM

How does a black man feel when someone is only nice to them because they think that one should be nice to blacks?
Yes, but that's an visually identifiable racial group. It's hard to identify "Stupid Catholic Bints" just by looking at people, now isn't it?

I don't care if people I don't respect are treating me "nice" or not.
"I don't care so much I'm going to point it out and make a big stupid post about it!"

D. Scarlatti

07-01-2005, 01:37 PM

And by the sounds of it Scarlatti, you deserve all that was said about you.

And by the way. Who in the fuck are you?

raspberrybullets

07-01-2005, 01:42 PM

I should think that pretty clear. I'm raspberrybullets.

D. Scarlatti

07-01-2005, 02:40 PM

Well listen up raspberrybullets, because I'm only going to say this once.

Probably a year ago I made a post, one out of hundreds, at a purportedly private forum. It was ill-considered and rude, and it violated an implicit, if not explicit, extension of confidentiality on the part of another person. It was appalling behavior on my part, and I regret it very much. It was clearly an abuse by me of the supposedly private nature of the forum, and more importantly an abuse of the privacy of the other person.

None of this is any of your goddamn business, whoever you are.

Gurdur's defamatory post above, with which you are apparently concurring on god only knows what grounds, even if it has something to do with my ancient activity in the forum he now administers, has absolutely no basis in reality, and Gurdur can go fuck himself. In fact Gurdur's vituperative drivel didn't even warrant a response had you, whoever you are, not chimed in with your own personal defamation.

The fact is, if I was such a poisonous, cowardly liar as the troll claims, I would have deliberately misrepresented my reasons for requesting access to his precious forum to investigate why this issue even presented itself in the first place. However since my request was the antithesis of a poisonous, cowardly lie, that access was categorically denied.

In the meantime you, whoever you are, are well advised to kindly mind your own fucking business.

raspberrybullets

07-01-2005, 03:55 PM

Well listen up raspberrybullets, because I'm only going to say this once.
Pity you didn't decide to say it zero times.

Probably a year ago I made a post, one out of hundreds, at a purportedly private forum. It was ill-considered and rude, and it violated an implicit, if not explicit, extension of confidentiality on the part of another person. It was appalling behavior on my part, and I regret it very much. It was clearly an abuse by me of the supposedly private nature of the forum, and more importantly an abuse of the privacy of the other person.
Actually Scarlatti, I was simply referring to your behaviour in this thread alone. That you came in here solely for the purpose of being an arsehole. You appear to be slightly paranoid over this issue.

None of this is any of your goddamn business, whoever you are.
You post on a public forum that anybody can read. That makes it my business if I damn well please.

Gurdur's defamatory post above, with which you are apparently concurring on god only knows what grounds, even if it has something to do with my ancient activity in the forum he now administers,
As I said, I was basing this only on what you have posted in this thread. Your actions speak for you here now in the present, I do not need to look at the past to see it.

In fact Gurdur's vituperative drivel didn't even warrant a response had you, whoever you are, not chimed in with your own personal defamation.
You may note I actually originally disagreed with Gurdur and pointed out I thought the bickering was unwarranted. It was only after you added your post that I felt he was justified in his comments.

The fact is, if I was such a poisonous, cowardly liar as the troll claims, I would have deliberately misrepresented my reasons for requesting access to his precious forum to investigate why this issue even presented itself in the first place. However since my request was the antithesis of a poisonous, cowardly lie, that access was categorically denied.
You know, you seem awfully bloody nervous about this, the way you keep going on about it when I never once brought it up and didn't even think about it until you decided to shove it in my face.

In the meantime you, whoever you are, are well advised to kindly mind your own fucking business.
Two points here. First, that was not kindly advised at all. Second, you are referring in all this to issues on HH, and as a moderator there, it bloody well is my fucking business.

Gurdur

07-01-2005, 03:57 PM

Well listen up raspberrybullets, because I'm only going to say this once.
Unlikely, Scarlatti, you seem to love whining.
Probably a year ago I made a post, one out of hundreds, at a purportedly private forum. It was ill-considered and rude, and it violated an implicit, if not explicit, extension of confidentiality on the part of another person. It was appalling behavior on my part,
So far, so good. Also typical of much of your behaviour. One more reason why you are unwelcome on the HH; you clearly have little regard for confidentiality.
and I regret it very much.
Actually, what you regret is more likely it coming to light. It seems to have taken you a hell of a long time to address it.
It was clearly an abuse by me of the supposedly private nature of the forum, and more importantly an abuse of the privacy of the other person.
Completely correct.
None of this is any of your goddamn business, whoever you are.
You're very wrong, little boy.
Gurdur's defamatory post above, with which you are apparently concurring on god only knows what grounds, even if it has something to do with my ancient activity in the forum he now administers, has absolutely no basis in reality, and Gurdur can go fuck himself. In fact Gurdur's vituperative drivel didn't even warrant a response had you, whoever you are, not chimed in with your own personal defamation.
You poor little troll, you don't like being exposed for what you are ?
The fact is, if I was such a poisonous, cowardly liar as the troll claims, I would have deliberately misrepresented my reasons for requesting access to his precious forum
No, you simply probably thought you could get away with it.
In the meantime you, whoever you are, are well advised to kindly mind your own fucking business.
Give it up, little boy.

D. Scarlatti

07-01-2005, 05:44 PM

As I said, I was basing this only on what you have posted in this thread.

Then you're even more of a presumptuous twit than I took you for previously.

You'll probably never approach troll nadir like the hardworking Gurdur, however.

Best of luck just the same.

Gurdur

07-01-2005, 05:47 PM

.... because I'm only going to say this once.
Unlikely, Scarlatti, you seem to love whining.As I said, I was basing this only on what you have posted in this thread.
Then you're even more of a presumptuous twit than I took you for previously.
You'll probably never approach troll nadir like the hardworking Gurdur, however.
Best of luck just the same.

Did I call it right or what ? :D

raspberrybullets

07-02-2005, 04:26 AM

Then you're even more of a presumptuous twit than I took you for previously.
Naw, I've just got good instincts.

Beth

07-02-2005, 12:21 PM

Then you're even more of a presumptuous twit than I took you for previously.I do believe you are quite wrong about this. Raspberry is a very level headed, intelligent lady.
You'll probably never approach troll nadir like the hardworking Gurdur, however.
Why do you call him this? I did not see him troll in this thread, or anywhere for that matter.

D. Scarlatti

07-02-2005, 12:34 PM

No, troll, you did not call it right. Typically, you called it wrong. To react with contempt and disgust at being referred to as a poisonous, cowardly liar is not whining, it's reacting with contempt and disgust. To wit, contempt and disgust at your contemptuous and disgusting trolling.

But of course that is a classic troll move: call someone a poisonous, cowardly liar with absolutely no basis or support and dismiss their reaction as whining. You're not fooling anyone with your mealy-mouthed prevaricating, troll.

Let me make a couple of things clear for you, troll, before you are ignored once and for all.

I never violated the confidentiality of your precious forum, someone else did. You know this; in fact you've acknowledged it, and to suggest otherwise is simply more trolling, which is what trolls do.

What I regret is what I said I regret. You're nothing but a troll to suggest otherwise. Or, to coin a phrase, a poisonous, cowardly liar.

I'm under no obligation to bring anything to light, or address anything, least of all to trolls like you. Nor am I under any obligation to bring to light anything, or address anything, within a timetable suitable to a troll like you.

You might recall why I was unable to address this particular thing in a timeframe suitable to a troll like you: it was because a troll like you denied me the ability to address it in a timeframe suitable to a troll like you. In fact I couldn't address it all, without a violation of your precious rules, yet I was able to, just not within the timetable constructed, in fact initiated, by a troll like you. Hopefully a troll like you can appreciate the irony of your own trolling, but I doubt it.

As for being unwelcome within the auspices of a contemptuous troll and his dimwitted Sancho Panza, I take that as a compliment. Adieu, troll.

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 12:57 PM

Scarlatti, give it up, little boy. You've only exposed yourself for what you are
-- you can't be trusted with personal confidentiality
-- as you've already admitted you abused a whole forum and its members by using it for your nasty game
-- now you yourself brought some of it to light through your own paranoia, your response is to abuse everyone else in empty words

What else do you want to expose ?

raspberrybullets

07-02-2005, 01:10 PM

I'd say he's exposed his lack of imagination and limited vocabularly by calling you a troll 15 times, not counting the derivatives, and only deviating from calling you a troll by stealing one of your phrases. :D

D. Scarlatti

07-02-2005, 01:52 PM

I do believe you are quite wrong about this. Raspberry is a very level headed, intelligent lady.

That may very well be. I don't know him/her from Adam/Eve, and vice versa, which is part of the point. But notice what I was replying to. My interaction with him/her here was engendered by his/her concurrence with Gurdur's defamation. I've never been called a poisonous, cowardly liar before, and although it may be argued I should have followed my own advice and not fed the troll, I suspect that being called a poisonous, cowardly liar, and then to have it seconded by some complete stranger is more than enough to elicit some sort of response in most people, myself included.

Why do you call him this? I did not see him troll in this thread, or anywhere for that matter.

Gurdur's been a troll since Jesus lost his sandals. This thread is replete with more evidence of that, as far as I'm concerned, and as I've explained above. If he wishes to base his defamation on one single solitary instance for which I've unreservedly apologized both privately and publicly, so be it. If it wasn't trolling before, it sure as hell is now.

But I'm not planning on feeding him anymore.

viscousmemories

07-02-2005, 02:08 PM

For the record, I don't think Gurdur or Scarlatti are trolls. At least not in the sense of stirring shit for its own sake. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's true. Besides, I really think that word has been misused to the point of irrelevancy all over the Internet.

Scarlatti, give it up, little boy. You've only exposed yourself for what you are
-- you can't be trusted with personal confidentiality
-- as you've already admitted you abused a whole forum and its members by using it for your nasty game
-- now you yourself brought some of it to light through your own paranoia, your response is to abuse everyone else in empty words

What else do you want to expose ?
I've been trying to stay out of this, but this is wrong. I haven't seen evidence of any of this, Gurdur. And I haven't seen any evidence of your accusation that Scarlatti has "poisonous, lying, cowardly ways" either. In fact I don't think I've ever seen him flame anyone before now. Of course I don't know everything that may or may not have gone on between you previously, in private or at HH. But this is what I've seen here:

1. Scarlatti said something about Sweetie at HH a year ago, which he regrets having said
2. At some point since, Scarlatti resigned his membership at HH
3. Sweetie heard about what he had said and brought it up in a public thread here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=80794#post80794)
4. Scarlatti requested re-admittance to HH to find out exactly what he had said (explained here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=80890#post80890))
5. You denied him admittance
6. You publicly announced (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81401#post81401) that both Sweetie and Scarlatti would have to agree to the release of the post content before you would do it.
7. Sweetie declined, so you said nobody will get the info

Is that an accurate chronology? Because I don't see anything in there that indicates that he can't be trusted with confidentiality, that he has abused a whole forum and its members for a nasty game (intentionally or otherwise), or that he brought any of this on himself except by talking shit about Sweetie at HH a year ago, which isn't going to earn him a medal of distinction. How many posters at HH (or anywhere, for that matter) haven't talked shit about other people at one point or another?

I'd say he's exposed his lack of imagination and limited vocabularly by calling you a troll 15 times, not counting the derivatives, and only deviating from calling you a troll by stealing one of your phrases. :D
I'm sorry, raspberry, but Scarlatti's vocabulary is far from limited. As I said above, I don't remember ever seeing him flame anyone, much less to the degree he has here. What exactly did he say in this thread (or anywhere here) that caused you to conclude that Gurdur's accusations that he is a poisonous, lying coward were on target? I really don't see the justification for such hostility toward him, personally.

Pendaric

07-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Friendly round here, isn't it? :yup: :popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-02-2005, 02:14 PM

Friendly round here, isn't it? :yup: :popcorn:
Far more friendly than IIDB, IMHO. The only difference is people don't have to bust out their thesaurus to insult each other 'round here. You can just say something about someone's mama if they piss you off instead of having to elaborate on the troll-like qualities in the gene pool of their most closely related maternal ancestors. :wink:

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 02:22 PM

I've been trying to stay out of this, but this is wrong. I haven't seen evidence of any of this, Gurdur.
I'm afraid you have, vm, even if you don't realise it, in the past. And in fact it brings up matters you've referred to in the past yourself. I will be in touch per PM withn you over this matter. It's a serious one, unfortunately, and Scarlatti's spin on it does not work.
I really don't see the justification for such hostility toward him, personally.
Really ? He's been trolling a fair bit these last few days, and no-one asked him to troll this thread as well. Care to address that ?
I gave him my personal opinion of him based on years of observation of his behaviour on SecWeb and elsewhere,but only after he trolled this thread as well --- look at the posts; he decided to bring up the other matter between him and Sweetie, and HH, as well here --- and I merely answered him.
As for wanting full justifications, you could start with demanding justifications from him as well for his behavior -- you seem to take his hostility or dnftt-post as somehow justified, which would be quite wrong; I will PM you what I can, but at some stage, unless you yourself wish to have your own HH membership reactivated, you're going to have to be satisfied with what I can say here in public, since I cannot break HH confidentiality mself just to satisfy you --- this is not a matter for a "public trial", and given Scarlatti's record, he's been treated fairly here.
And for the record, my personal opinion of him is grounded, and I really don't need to cite lots and lots and lots of posts to justify that ---- but I will PM you soon over this matter.

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 02:27 PM

Friendly round here, isn't it? :yup: :popcorn:
I've already apologised to King Louie per PM for the mess this is causing on his thread -- however, I would hardly say I'm the main one to blame here.

We've had Sweetie insinuate I only want to listen to King Louie for the purposes of doing him down, which is very false indeed;
we've had Scarlatti troll on this thread and go into a meltdown when he was answered;

and I rebutted Sweetie's insinunation, and Scarlatti's trolling and whatnot.
Regrettable that it had to be this way, but hey, there any justiffication for Sweetie's or Scarlatti's attacks ?

As for general friendliness, I would say King Louie has in general found a far better reception here than on SecWeb, yes ? Far more friendly here than on SecWeb for a theist like King Louie, yes ?

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 02:49 PM

I did not address this:
Because I don't see anything in there that indicates that he can't be trusted with confidentiality, that he has abused a whole forum and its members for a nasty game (intentionally or otherwise), or that he brought any of this on himself except by talking shit about Sweetie at HH a year ago,
Iwill let Scarlatti's words speak for themselves --- they are accurate as far as they go.
Probably a year ago I made a post, ........ at a purportedly private forum. It was ill-considered and rude, and it violated an implicit, if not explicit, extension of confidentiality on the part of another person. It was appalling behavior on my part, ......It was clearly an abuse by me of the supposedly private nature of the forum, and more importantly an abuse of the privacy of the other person.
I would say his assessment -- whch you implicity discount, vm -- is accurate; as far as it goes.

How many posters at HH (or anywhere, for that matter) haven't talked shit about other people at one point or another?.
There is shit and there is real shit, vm.

Farren

07-02-2005, 03:18 PM

Hey Tom,

how about splitting off this rather spectacular derail into another thread?

viscousmemories

07-02-2005, 03:26 PM

I'm gonna leave that up to King Louie, Farren, since it's his thread and he likes moderation about as much as I do. :)

I'm just finishing my breakfast but I'll brb.

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 03:31 PM

Hey Tom,
how about splitting off this rather spectacular derail into another thread?
I too would be grateful for that, since I feel bad about the mess it makes on King Louie's thread.

King Louie

07-02-2005, 03:35 PM

Well man, as much as I hate to see fighting in the world -- any fighting, you know -- I don't want you to tinker with it. Because I don't believe in thread derails, myself. For in life, all our voices are wholly interwoven into one massive, common thread -- all meandering through various tangents, and ups, downs, dead-ends, and possibly, maybe even break-throughs. I hope so.

There's no such thing as a "thread derail," in this life. There's only such a thing as a thread.

From the Jungles of Hashing It Out,

Kang Louie

viscousmemories

07-02-2005, 04:05 PM

I'm glad you said that, King Louie. I feel exactly the same way. I certainly don't mean to add any fuel to the fire on your thread here. In fact, the opposite is true. I would much rather there not be any fighting at all, regardless of who started it.

As for wanting full justifications, you could start with demanding justifications from him as well for his behavior -- you seem to take his hostility or dnftt-post as somehow justified, which would be quite wrong; [...]
I'm really not personally interested in inferring or implying any general conclusions about his character or behavior here, or demanding justification for the conclusions about him that you have drawn. I was only addressing what seemed to me to be unsupported allegations about his behavior in this case, in light of the publicly available evidence.

I would say his assessment -- whch you implicity discount, vm -- is accurate; as far as it goes.
I didn't intend to implicitly discount that assessment, I have no doubt that he was sincere in that. I just don't personally see his making a mistake, admitting it and expressing deep regret over it as evidence of a seriously flawed character or as proof that he has a general disrespect for people's confidentiality. To the contrary, I think it takes courage and integrity to do so. I've had my past indiscretions used as a basis for judgements on my character here very recently, and I think that's unfair.

But again, that's my assessment of this situation, not a judgement of Scarlatti's character in general. My opinion of Scarlatti's character or behavior in general is just that: My opinion. I don't think it would be appropriate or serve any real purpose for me to expound on it here. Not personally and certainly not 'officially'.

I actually probably shouldn't have said that I don't think either of you are trolls because it really wasn't my intention to make or express a judgement on that one way or the other. I just thought it was worth saying that I didn't think either of you was involved in this particular fight simply for the sake of fighting.

I don't know how much if anything I should say beyond that.

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 04:52 PM

I'm really not personally interested in inferring or implying any general conclusions about his character or behavior here, or demanding justification for the conclusions about him that you have drawn. I was only addressing what seemed to me to be unsupported allegations about his behavior in this case, in light of the publicly available evidence.
Hi vm,
the allegations are more than supported just on the last few days -- but they are not based on the last few days, but rather long observation.
a) Now take a look at the original "HH Rumours thread" and Scarlatti's posts there.
Had Scarlatti actually honestly wanted to tackle that issue, he should have done so in that thread. He did not do so at all.
So I am very unimpressed indeed with his declarations in this thread, almost 2 weeks afterwards.

b) After that thread happened, then came Farren's thread on my being banned from SecWeb. Scarlatti then trolled that thread; and I think if you want to question my allegations, then you had better look at those posts of his.

c) Then came this thread --- and Scarlatti's abuse and meltdown in it.
Also quite difficult to justify, yes ?

Those are, together with his public history (over 3 years), sufficient for my personal opinion of him which I gave him; he then dragged the Scarlatti/Sweetie business into it.

Now I am not impressed at all, in the slightest, with his claims to be genuinely apologising for his behaviour. He could have done it all before on the original HH Rumours thread, he chose not to.

Let's look at the chain of concrete actions here, shall we ?

1) Sweetie brings up an accusation about information about her inside the HH.

It then gets handled here on the HH Rumours thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3305), almost 2 weeks ago.

2) Scarlatti applies to have his HH account reactivated, but only for getting some information.

3) I reject that application, since his account was originally deactivated as normal for not posting, in his case over a year of not posting in the HH (over 300 accounts have been deactivated for not posting for long periods). His reasons for wanting his account reactivated are against the rules of the HH; he merely wants some info, he does not want to actually participate inside the HH.
That's against the whole spirit of the HH, and its rules (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1.html). There's a public FAQ explaining the HH and its rules now, linked there.

4) I, as the now HH admin, being HH admin since roughly March this year, am suddenly put into a very difficult situation indeed.
I check out all available info inside the HH, and after consultation with my mods, I come out with the public statement (paraphrased):
we at HH won't give out any info to Sweetie or Scarlatti, unless they both agree, because it would consititute the inappropriate revealing of personal details of both people.

And I will add: this history was news to me personally; I was not terribly active at that time that it all happened as an HH member, I didn't read that history before, and had I been admin then I would have immediately dealt with it then and there,

And here I am, in the position of defending things which I wouldn't have allowed myself, defending past history I find somewhat indefensible.
As the now-admin, and with the new rules of the HH, I would not have allowed and will not allow such a situation to have come into being myself.

5) plus I also have the problem of Sweetie claiming she has a spy inside HH (and she defended such spying on very dubious grounds indeed), so that's another headache.
Still, that one gets fairly easily settled; I am now reasonably confident no-one now spies for anything. Reasonably confident, and rather proactive on the issue.

6) Then Scarlatti, who hasn't given a shit about the HH for a year, comes along and wants to use us for his own sake --- rejected; just why should we oblige ? He gives no hint at all of wanting to reach any accomodation with Sweetie; he simply makes silly posts on the HH Rumours thread instead.

7) Sweetie rejects the offer, and that rather rudely.

8) We then have Scarlatti playing the giddy troll on Farren's my-banning thread

9) and then we have this thread, pretty much long after the original HH Rumours thread

10) We then have Sweetie insinuating first that I'm a Nasty Atheist Out To Do King Louie Down By Pretending To Love Him

which is so far away from the truth that it's rabidly ridiculous, and a million times more ironic because I've just recently being banned from SecWeb after a long career of determinedly tackling extremist atheism and bigotry.

11) I reply to that. Justifiably, no ?

12) and Scarlatti decides to burst into this thread with some abuse, then goes into a meltdown when he gets answered, and he ends up abusing others as well.

Oh, and he claims he's sorry as well, but only after and inbetween abusing several, and he claims other things as well, such as it's said to be only one post, etc. I can't do much, since I take my responsibilities as HH admin very strongly, and I will not break HH confidentiality just for the sake of uninvolved onlookers. Only were Sweetie and Scarlatti to both agree could I then address this whole situation thoroughly.
They both, oddly, obviously don't agree.
And he abusively claims it's not raspberrybullet's business --- Scarlatti has in fact made this all the business of every single active HH member and now public in a bad way as well, and trust me, I'm hardly grateful for that.

So I as now-admin have to do my best by HH and its present members; protect both Sweetie's and Scarlatti's confidentiality, though neither give a shit about the HH or its present members' feelings, and clean up a year-old mess I would not have allowed to happen in the first place had I been admin then.
I have no doubt that he was sincere in that. I just don't personally see his making a mistake, admitting it and expressing deep regret over it
I'm afraid I judge his actions and viewpoint very differently indeed. Very differently. And I have no patience or sympathy for him whatsoever. Or for Sweetie either, following her peculiar actions.

Now: last point:
vm, you raised the rhetorical question that everyone talks shit behind others' backs; but I assure you, as HH admin, there are now limits on just what shit can be said, revealed etc.

Beth

07-02-2005, 07:25 PM

*sigh* I apologize. I did not mean to stir things up. *bows head in shame*:sigh:

Pendaric

07-02-2005, 08:12 PM

As for general friendliness, I would say King Louie has in general found a far better reception here than on SecWeb, yes ? Far more friendly here than on SecWeb for a theist like King Louie, yes ?

It was a passing comment. Don't read too much in to it.

I don't think it's any more or less friendly on here than on Secweb to be honest. Louie's problems on there are with one poster in the main, and that took a while to develop. I can't see how you could say it couldn't happen again on here, specially on a site that doesn't moderate at all. Louie likes to actively debate his religion, and doing that on an atheist board is going to bring up contrary opinion.

There are theists on II who don't seem to attract flak just because of being theists. Depends on the forums they post in and the types of post they make.

viscousmemories

07-02-2005, 09:16 PM

I know you were addressing Gurdur, but since I had said essentially the same thing I hope that you and he won't mind if I respond.

I don't think it's any more or less friendly on here than on Secweb to be honest. Louie's problems on there are with one poster in the main, and that took a while to develop.
In my opinion King Louie was regularly mistreated at IIDB by too many people to name; half a dozen at least in the last thread he posted in. But then I count blatant condescension and barely concealed, nasty innuendo ostensibly directed at his belief system but obviously meant for him, not just the instances of outright namecalling.

I can't see how you could say it couldn't happen again on here, specially on a site that doesn't moderate at all. Louie likes to actively debate his religion, and doing that on an atheist board is going to bring up contrary opinion.
I might've misread Gurdur or you might be referring to another comment he made, but above he said it hadn't happened here to the extent that it has at IIDB, and I fully agree. Of course it could happen here. But then unlike IIDB, he isn't likely to be so grossly outnumbered and he'll be allowed to defend himself, if he chooses, without being censored. Whether that's ultimately a positive thing or not I don't know, but I think it is. But I also know that you're far from alone in your belief that moderation actually prevents people being mistreated. I just haven't seen any evidence of that.

There are theists on II who don't seem to attract flak just because of being theists. Depends on the forums they post in and the types of post they make.
Given the incredibly nice things Fisher and King Louie said about you here, I'm genuinely surprised that you would imply that King Louie brought how he was treated on himself. I have never once, anywhere, seen King Louie treat someone the way dozens of people have treated him at IIDB. The fact that he seems to have genuinely internalized the notion of turning the other cheek is no excuse for anyone to claim that he rarely gets struck.

Every outspoken theist at IIDB (and by outspoken I mean they admit to being a theist) is treated like shit by a particular group of well-known people, and as a moderator there I'm sure you know who they are. To suggest that it only happens to certain theists who discuss certain topics in certain fora seems either incredibly naive or disingenuous to me.* It happens more to certain theists in certain fora on certain topics, sure. And maybe even somewhat less today than a year ago. But I think without a doubt it happens to every theist in every forum there on every topic more, on average, than it happens to non-theists.

*Acknowledging of course that it could also just be a really drastically different perspective on things.

Gurdur

07-02-2005, 09:26 PM

I don't think it's any more or less friendly on here than on Secweb to be honest. Louie's problems on there are with one poster in the main, and that took a while to develop.
Really ?
Biff the unclean, Yahzi, BadBadBad, Vorkosigan etc. etc. etc.
You know just as well as I do the entrenched bigotry often shown in GRD and often in EOG.
I can't see how you could say it couldn't happen again on here,
Biff the unclean, Yahzi, BadBadBad, Vorkosigan etc. etc. etc.. They are not on this site. That already makes for a far better atmosphere.
Oddly, the people most attacking King Louie on this board were 2 Catholics; I guess irony always is a facet of life.
Louie likes to actively debate his religion,
Actually, it's more complex than that.
and doing that on an atheist board is going to bring up contrary opinion.
On SecWeb, it often brings up bigotry, endless ad hom shit with gangbanging, etc..
That's not "contrary opinion", that's bigotry and witchhunting.
I know GRD and EOG very well, and that for years.
There are theists on II who don't seem to attract flak just because of being theists. Depends on the forums they post in and the types of post they make.
No shit. As long as a theist sticks to only talking about baseball on SecWeb, that person will probably be OK. Not a terribly good advertisment.

And don't get the wrong idea; I'm a strong atheist myself. I just don't like seeing the same endless bigotry, gangbanging, bullying etc.

Pendaric

07-02-2005, 11:34 PM

In my opinion King Louie was regularly mistreated at IIDB by too many people to name; half a dozen at least in the last thread he posted in. But then I count blatant condescension and barely concealed, nasty innuendo ostensibly directed at his belief system but obviously meant for him, not just the instances of outright namecalling.

I said in the main. I think you'd find that if you asked Louie he would say the principal thorn in his side was BadBadBad, with perhaps Biff in the background. I'm not saying there isn't an anti-theist atmosphere there - it's an atheist site ffs, what do you expect? but the main history for Louie is with one poster, and if that wasn't there then I think Louie and Fisher would still be at II rather than here.

We perhaps have different opinions on what constitutes fair and unfair debate. I think it is perfectly legitimate to be critical of theistic thinking and to robustly challenge it. If you are a theist starting religious discussion posts on an atheist board you are going to find argument against your position, and you are likely to be outnumbered. That is par for the course. That, possibly, is some of what you see as anti-theist bias but I see as fair play given the arena and subject matter.

However, I think it is totally out of order to mount a personal vendetta against one poster and to slap him round the ears with an argument that is not relevant to the topic being discussed whenever he posts. That's what BadBadBad was doing, to the point of cyberstalking Louie.

Given the incredibly nice things Fisher and King Louie said about you here, I'm genuinely surprised that you would imply that King Louie brought how he was treated on himself. I have never once, anywhere, seen King Louie treat someone the way dozens of people have treated him at IIDB. The fact that he seems to have genuinely internalized the notion of turning the other cheek is no excuse for anyone to claim that he rarely gets struck.

Just like to make it clear that I am not for a second implying that Louie deserved the vitriol he got. I've already said that it was people behaving like jerks that chased Louie off, and I was public on some of those threads objecting to it. I like Louie and Fisher a lot, and when the spears were unfairly thrown I've made my feelings known.

But then unlike IIDB, he isn't likely to be so grossly outnumbered and he'll be allowed to defend himself, if he chooses, without being censored. Whether that's ultimately a positive thing or not I don't know, but I think it is. But I also know that you're far from alone in your belief that moderation actually prevents people being mistreated. I just haven't seen any evidence of that.

I've read just about everything that Louie's written on IIDB - what can I say, I'm a groupie :cool: . I can't recall ever seeing him being censored.

Of course moderation doesn't prevent people being mistreated, but it can perhaps take a couple of the sharp edges off. I don't expect you to agree given your commitment to a non-moderation philosophy.

Gurdur, I would reply to you personally but I think I've responded to the main points you were making in this post anyway.

Pendaric

07-02-2005, 11:47 PM

Just out of curiosity, and given that I'm getting a strong sense of a feeling of superiority to the way things are done at IIDB, how would you handle it if BadBadBad, Biff et al were to register here and to start harassing your regular theists?

There is a commitment here to minimal moderation. I can't see you'd be able to prevent it without breaking that commitment.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 01:59 AM

First, I apologize if I come across as a bit strident when discussing these issues. I've been in countless arguments about moderation and the anti-theist atmosphere at IIDB over the last couple of years, so I have fairly passionate opinions on the subject.
I said in the main. I think you'd find that if you asked Louie he would say the principal thorn in his side was BadBadBad, with perhaps Biff in the background. I'm not saying there isn't an anti-theist atmosphere there - it's an atheist site ffs, what do you expect? but the main history for Louie is with one poster, and if that wasn't there then I think Louie and Fisher would still be at II rather than here.
I suspect that if I asked King Louie he wouldn't accuse anyone at IIDB of being a thorn in his side, and I know it was the incident with BadBadBad that made him stop posting there. Given that I haven't read every post of his there and in fact haven't read much there at all in recent months, you may very well be right that he was not mistreated in the main. My opinion is that -- of the threads of his that I've read since he joined IIDB -- he seemed to be mischaracterized and otherwise mistreated far more often than the average atheist there.

We perhaps have different opinions on what constitutes fair and unfair debate. I think it is perfectly legitimate to be critical of theistic thinking and to robustly challenge it. If you are a theist starting religious discussion posts on an atheist board you are going to find argument against your position, and you are likely to be outnumbered. That is par for the course. That, possibly, is some of what you see as anti-theist bias but I see as fair play given the arena and subject matter.
No, I absolutely favor rigorous debate myself. But as they say, the Devil's in the details. I think the overuse of terms like "theistic thinking" at IIDB perpetuates the misconception that theists somehow "think differently" from non-theists. Not that they think about the same things and come to different conclusions, but that what they think about and how they process information is somehow defective. That to me is one tiny example of a very pervasive anti-theist discrimination there.

However, I think it is totally out of order to mount a personal vendetta against one poster and to slap him round the ears with an argument that is not relevant to the topic being discussed whenever he posts. That's what BadBadBad was doing, to the point of cyberstalking Louie.
I completely agree.

Just like to make it clear that I am not for a second implying that Louie deserved the vitriol he got. I've already said that it was people behaving like jerks that chased Louie off, and I was public on some of those threads objecting to it. I like Louie and Fisher a lot, and when the spears were unfairly thrown I've made my feelings known.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

I've read just about everything that Louie's written on IIDB - what can I say, I'm a groupie :cool: . I can't recall ever seeing him being censored.
I didn't mean to imply that he had, only that he would have if he'd told someone (no matter how well-deserved) to stuff it.

Of course moderation doesn't prevent people being mistreated, but it can perhaps take a couple of the sharp edges off. I don't expect you to agree given your commitment to a non-moderation philosophy.
I've been in various social situations on the 'net for over 10 years, and I can honestly say the most cruel, demeaning, abusive behavior I've seen has been at IIDB, and perpetrated by people who were cherished friends of the staff and immensely popular with other users. I'd much rather bear a slap in the face than someone poisoning my pets.

Just out of curiosity, and given that I'm getting a strong sense of a feeling of superiority to the way things are done at IIDB, how would you handle it if BadBadBad, Biff et al were to register here and to start harassing your regular theists?

There is a commitment here to minimal moderation. I can't see you'd be able to prevent it without breaking that commitment.
I do think that no moderation of content at all is better than capricious moderation, and that the moderation at IIDB is capricious. So I wouldn't say that we're superior in the sense of having all the answers, but I do think our approach is more fair and balanced.

The simple answer to the question of how do we prevent anti-theist discrimination and abusive behavior here is that we try to lead by example and encourage positive social mores. Unless we adopt a moderation strategy at some point that's all we can do at this juncture. Well, that and encourage people to ignore those people who are consistently offensive or abusive toward them.

This may not be an ideal solution, but then I don't believe it's really possible to have a public forum with open discussions of extremely controversial subjects and force people to be nice to each other. As I said it certainly doesn't appear to work at IIDB. Despite the rigid rules and moderation people are still frequently vicious to each other there.

Not to mention the whole chestnut davidm pointed out elsewhere: Namely that the rules as they exist today protect people who actively promote genocide and restrict people who react with any degree of passionate outrage to it. But that's a whole other ball of wax...

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 05:45 AM

Man, I actually think that post might've been the last tirade about IIDB I had in my system; I even bored myself with that one. I think I might finally be over talking about it. :D

D. Scarlatti

07-03-2005, 06:08 AM

Beth, there's no need for you to apologize. I don't mind taking complete responsibility here.

And vm, thanks for actually following and reading this thread, along with a couple of others.

I agree the expression "troll" has become nearly bereft of meaning. But at the risk of belaboring the obvious, Gurdur is a troll to me, and he has been a troll to me, for no good reason and for nearly as long as I can remember, which happens to be a number of years. And, this thread being both illustrative and exemplary, he still is.

I'd be happy to give further details, but I expect to do so would bore the living bejesus out of most observers. But the point is Gurdur has nothing on which to support his defamations, as is now laughably and demonstrably clear. I admit to being angry earlier, which is rare for me, but now that Gurdur's farce is exposed, I can laugh at its pathetic nature.

I must say I got a great kick out of post #91 above, which I assume was intended to lend some sort of troll-credence to certain trollish remarks concerning poison, cowardice, and lies, which Gurdur has now comically deigned to imbue with the vaunted legal status of "allegations."

Unlike the expression "troll," the expressions "poison," "cowardice," and "lies" are not words that have been similarly voided of substantive meaning (unless the utterer of these expressions is a troll, of course).

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at Gurdur's latest "allegations," this time of dishonesty, based on his own personal demands as to how I should or should not deal with – or in which thread for god's sake – something that, I reiterate, is essentially none of his fucking business to begin with, and when in fact it was he personally that impeded my being able to do so in the first place. Irony gold.

Also ironic, but more of a glaring indication of either Gurdur's complete lack of comprehension skills or, more importantly, a pitiful admission that he's got absolutely sweet fuck-all with which to support his "allegations" is his reference to a couple of posts I made in the "OMFG! Gurdur banned at IIDB by viscousmemories" thread. (See "Funny Thread Titles," supra.)

While I made it clear there I shed no tears (of grief, at least) over Gurdur's suspension, two of my posts in that thread were actually general defenses of a person finding herself in Gurdur's IIDB situation, both of which were spoken from personal, informed experience.

So what Gurdur is essentially saying there is, "Oh, you want to see proof why Scarlatti is a poisonous, cowardly liar? Have a look in this thread where he actually defended me."

"I think if you want to question my allegations, then you had better look at those posts of his," he says. Is it any wonder why I consider this ass a troll? Or at least a ridiculous purveyor of howling non sequiturs?

Anyway, if that's the best Gurdur can come up with, and since he is probably constitutionally incapable of delivering an explicit retraction to his utterly false and baseless "allegations" of poison, cowardice, and lies, I'll take the tottering pile of incoherence that is post #91 as, if not a retraction, then a reduction in charge to one of Gurdur's lack of patience and sympathy for me, to which I say, "Boo fucking hoo."

raspberrybullets

07-03-2005, 07:36 AM

You have got to be kidding me right? I even responded to your posts in the "Gurdur banned at iidb" thread; you were not defending him. All you managed to show was your spite.

Then to call Gurdur a troll in this thread, when until he responded to your posts he was nothing but courteous, is completely ludicrous. Then you wonder why I agree with him that you talk shit?

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 11:38 AM

Scarlatti lying and whining again ? Some things don't change.
Gurdur is a troll to me, and he has been a troll to me, for no good reason and for nearly as long as I can remember,
Again, a lie. Maybe vm should ask Scarlatti to back this one up. :yup:
I'd be happy to give further details,
Except Scarlatti can't. No details at all ?? Tsk !
Just a completely unsubstantiated assertion ? Oh, and a lie ? Tsk.
I say, "Boo fucking hoo."
Scarlatti whining and whining about the HH, simply because he was not allowed to use it for his own purposes ? In an affair where he caused it by betrayal of somelse's personal info ? Sour grapes much, Scarlatti ? And did not even take up the HH's offer ?
Scarlatti causing the whole mess he himself paranoidly brought into this thread by his previous betrayal of someone else's personal confidentiality;
Scarlatti's attempted spin on it all, while refusing the offer made by HH to both him and Sweetie;
Scarlatti's entire cowardice and attempted spin in this affair alone;
and he's saying "Boohoo" ???? And he thinks he can squeal out of it all simply by being abusive ?
heh, heh. Definitely amusing.

The Antichris

07-03-2005, 11:51 AM

You have got to be kidding me right? I even responded to your posts in the "Gurdur banned at iidb" thread; you were not defending him. All you managed to show was your spite.
Can you give an example?

As far as I can see, there's nothing that I'd characterise as "spite" posted by scarlatti on that thread.

Chris

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 11:56 AM

Can you give an example?
As far as I can see, there's nothing that I'd characterise as "spite" posted by scarlatti on that thread.
Chris
I'm fascinated by this partisanship, albeit unsurprised, AntiChris. :yup: How come you're not asking Scarlatti to justify his statements, violation of personal confidentiality and the like ? Or his refusal to clear up the nasty little mess he caused when it first came up in public (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3305), and his attempts to squeal out of it through abuse and spin ? Do explain. :yup:

raspberrybullets

07-03-2005, 12:39 PM

Can you give an example?

As far as I can see, there's nothing that I'd characterise as "spite" posted by scarlatti on that thread.

Chris
How about this exchange, taking into account their history:

So did anyone figure out why Gurdur was banninated yet?

Cos he was right.

I know that already, we're talking about Gurdur here after all.
So what more reason do you need?
To which there was no further answer, presumably because he had none to give as he was just being asinine. Maybe I'm wrong (though I highly doubt it) but it comes across to me as him being spiteful or bitter - take your pick - towards Gurdur.

The Antichris

07-03-2005, 01:00 PM

I'm fascinated by this partisanship,
Can you explain?

I really don't see how I've demonstrated any kind of bias simply by asking raspberrybullets to explain what seemed to me to be an unjustified comment.
albeit unsurprised, AntiChris. :yup:
This isn't the first time you've subtly attempted to smear me on a message board with unsubstantiated innuendo.

If you have an issue with me or anything I've done, at least have the courage to openly accuse me of whatever it is you think I'm guilty of.

To slyly insinuate some kind of character defect in those with whom one disagrees isn't the hallmark of fair and honest discussion.
How come you're not asking Scarlatti to justify his statements, violation of personal confidentiality and the like ? Or his refusal to clear up the nasty little mess he caused when it first came up in public, and his attempts to squeal out of it through abuse and spin ? Do explain.
Because these issues have no bearing whatsoever on my original question to raspberrybullets.

Chris

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 01:07 PM

This isn't the first time you've subtly attempted to smear me on a message board with unsubstantiated innuendo.
Back that up ! With substance ! Otherwise pot, kettle, more than black, eh, eh ? :yup:
If you have an issue with me or anything I've done, at least have the courage to openly accuse me of whatever it is you think I'm guilty of.
You make me laugh, AntiChris. Really. First off, you make an unsubstantiated assertion, then you want to blather about courage ?
To slyly insinuate some kind of character defect in those with whom one disagrees isn't the hallmark of fair and honest discussion.
Just asking you as to your apparent partisanship. Why the problem ?
And if you want to try pretending you're only here for "fair and honest discussion", then meet me inside the HH, where I have some comments to make to you ?
Because these issues have no bearing whatsoever on my original question to raspberrybullets.
Bollocks, AntiChris, bollocks.

The Antichris

07-03-2005, 01:08 PM

The Antichris

07-03-2005, 01:10 PM

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 01:12 PM

Are you immune to embarrassment?
Are you incapable of making substantiated arguments ?
What's your problem, AntiChris ? Lack of substance to back you up ?
But we can also discuss this inside the HH too. :yup:

raspberrybullets

07-03-2005, 01:57 PM

I have to say I see absolutely nothing here that could possibly be interpreted as spite. :shrug:

Chris
Everything is subjective. :shrug:

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 03:27 PM

My main interest in interjecting on the Scarlatti-Gurdur issue in this thread was to try to bring all the relevant info to light here, so people could make their own judgements about the situation. After Gurdurs last long post I felt that had been accomplished, and so I didn't intend to say anything else. But I need to clarify these opinions:

1. Scarlatti is a smartass. I have no idea how many of his sarcastic comments are intentionally abusive (if any), and neither does anyone else bar Sylvia Browne. Different people obviously read his comments differently. I suspect I sometimes read scorn when it isn't there. Read his posts (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3392&onlybyuserid=26) on the Gurdur ban thread and judge for yourself. In my opinion at least two of them can be interpreted as supportive and at least two of them can be interpreted as derisive. (Including the exchange raspberrybullets quoted).

2. Scarlatti hadn't said a word to raspberrybullets (and in fact didn't even seem to know who she is) before she posted "And by the sounds of it Scarlatti, you deserve all that was said about you." [Referring, I think, to Gurdurs comment about Scarlatti's "lying, poisonous and cowardly ways"]. That's why I asked her what he had said in this thread that made her conclude that, and I'd still like to know. Any insinuation that he attacked her first seems wholly unjustified to me.

3. As far as I can tell, Scarlatti hasn't once violated the HH confidentiality rule, and in fact hasn't violated anyone's privacy anywhere (that I'm aware of) with the exception of the incident a year ago at HH for which he has already admitted responsibility. And in fact since neither he or Sweetie is a member of HH, I don't see any reason that the HH administration need be involved at all.

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 03:58 PM

2. ......That's why I asked her what he had said in this thread that made her conclude that, and I'd still like to know. Any insinuation that he attacked her first seems wholly unjustified to me.
vm, I don't like it that you concentrate on raspberrybullets at all. Finally, you've addressed a very few of Scarlatti's comments, but you came in questoning raspberrybullets first --- without addressing what sparked it off.
Scarlatti's behaviour is odious ---- and what makes it so laughable is that he addresses his first post in this thread to Sweetie, advising her "dnftt" in a direct abusive and trolling attack on me -- and Sweetie is the person whom Scarlatti wholly inappropriately abused by posting personal info of hers in the first place. Hey, how duplicitous can one get ?
And vm, till you actually do address that, I think concentrating on raspberrybullets is unjustified; in fact, she's already answered your question in any case, drawing attention to Scalatti's behaviour across threads.

As for the rest, I am going to address that in a seperate post underneath.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 04:03 PM

vm, I don't like it that you concentrate on raspberrybullets at all. Finally, you've addressed a very few of Scarlatti's comments, but you came in questoning raspberrybullets first --- without addressing what sparked it off.
Scarlatti's behaviour is odious ---- and what makes it so laughable is that he addresses his first post in this thread to Sweetie, advising her "dnftt" in a direct abusive and trolling attack on me -- and Sweetie is the person whom Scarlatti wholly inappropriately abused by posting personal info of hers in the first place. Hey, how duplicitous can one get ?
And vm, till you actually do address that, I think concentrating on raspberrybullets is unjustified; in fact, she's already answered your question in any case, drawing attention to Scalatti's behaviour across threads.
This doesn't disprove that she made a very disparaging remark about Scarlatti before he ever said a word to her, which was my only point in that text. And she has clearly not answered my question at all. In fact she didn't even respond to me.

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 04:27 PM

Speaking as the HH admin:
and in fact hasn't violated anyone's privacy anywhere (that I'm aware of) with the exception of the incident a year ago at HH for for which he has already admitted responsibility
No, vm. This won't do.
Scarlatti has come out with one story and spin.
I offered both Scarlatti and Sweetie full disclosure if both agreed; neither agreed.
The full story is not out because of that -- because I am in the position of protecting their confidentiality, while knowing neither would return any favour.

Since, vm, you're not an active member of HH, and simply because Sweeite and Scarlatti refuse full exposure, you simply do miss out on the whole story.
That is not a basis you can make judgments on; all you can say is that you have not seen all evidence --- and that only because you are not in a position to do so. Simply taking on Scarlatti's own story as the truth won't do at all. It's only his own story.
3. As far as I can tell, Scarlatti hasn't once violated the HH confidentiality rule,....
Actually, the FF has a very similar rule ---- no inappropriate disclosure of others' personal information.
See What Are the Rules Of The HH? (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1-8.html)
Inside the Heathen Hangout, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as ...... inappropriate revealment of others' personal information, .......... In other words, you are free to say what you like, though violating HH forum rules and admittance criteria will mean the risk of banning.
IOW, already "inappropriate revealment of others' personal information" is mentioned, and that has been the case for a long while since I put that FAQ up.
More:
7) No revealing of personal info gained inside HH outside HH without express permission beforehand. No inappropriate revealing of others' personal information.
That's a direct contravention of HH rules right there. That rule has been up a fair while.
BTW, I just added the words to Rule (7), ...whomever they might be, so it now reads:
7) No revealing of personal info gained inside HH outside HH without express permission beforehand.
No inappropriate revealing of others' personal information, whomever they may be.

Now, if you want to point out that those were not the rules when Scarlatti's various actions were committed, I would agree --- and I point out again that as you yourself have said, vm, in the past there was a fair bit of poison floating around inside HH, and I as the now admin since March 2005 have been directly working to clean that up and to make sure such abuses do not happen again.

And in fact since neither he or Sweetie is a member of HH, I don't see any reason that the HH administration need be involved at all.
eh ? Come again ??
Sweetie alleged info about her inside the HH. That's the HH's business just for a start. Sweetie also alleged the info was inappropriate. Again, very much HH's business.
Now, I have litte time for Sweetie owing to her incessant and silly hostility, but as an ethical person, I hold Sweetie deserves a minimum of ethical behaviour towards her, so her allegations were addressed. Her then ducking out and refusing to tackle it any more was entirely her own problem after that.

Scarlatti has brought disrepute upon the HH over this; again, that's very much the business of the HH.

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 04:44 PM

Back to being just me:This doesn't disprove that she made a very disparaging remark about Scarlatti before he ever said a word to her, which was my only point in that text. And she has clearly not answered my question at all. In fact she didn't even respond to me.
*sigh*
raspberrybullets simply agreed with me, and pointed out to AntiChris the behaviour of Scarlatti across the threads, thus answering your own question, vm.

Scarlatti's behaviour is cowardly in many ways:
- he makes no attempt to genuinely tackle things, in fact he got on his high horse and ridiculously attempted telling raspberrybullets it was all none of her own business --- which in fact he had made it to be so --- and telling her to fuck off.
- Scarlatti has a long, long history of trolling-type posts, where he simply does his little-boy act of sniggering over others, sneering at others for ideals and real feelings, and simply being a grade-A arsehole, and one who very rarely contributes positive things.
That's all very cowardly indeed in my book. He didn't even have the guts to tackle the issue of his breaking of Sweetie's confidentiality n the original HH Rumours thread, he ducked out again with a stupid post.
- let alone the cowardice implied in his transgressions of Sweetie's privacy -- all of which has partly come to light.

Scarlatti lies often; his behaviour in the threads mentioned has already been cited; I particularly like his behaviour in the Farren banning thread, where
Scarlatti makes the following post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=84109#post84109)
Surely the IIDB administrators had the foresight to envision Gurdur trumpeting their alleged injustice all over the internets.
Jeez, I got banned from christianforums 17 times and I never started a thread about it.
So right here we have Scarlatti
- claiming I am "trumpeting their alleged injustice all over the internets", plus implying I started that thread -- when as you well know, I didn't even comment about this in any public way whatsoever till I answered Farren in Farren's thread, and also answered Fisher in another thread very briefly;

- then claiming he never started any thread about his repetitive bannings from CF; perhaps true as stated, but I know for certain :D he has made many posts about his repetitive bannings from CF, so he gives a wholly false impression here

- and then, very funnily enough, after TomJoe totally owns Scarlatti that Scarlatti's repetitive bannings may be the result of Scarlatti's own problems rather than CF's, Scarlatti alternately boasts and whines about these repetitive bannings of his.

Scarlatti has lied often enough, his actions so often constitute moral cowardice, and his posts and behaviour are often poisonous. I've cited just enough info to make that clear; I don't think I need to cite more.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 04:49 PM

Now, if you want to point out that those were not the rules when Scarlatti's various actions were committed, I would agree ---
Right, that's what I was saying. Scarlatti hasn't violated the HH confidentiality rules that were relevant when he was a member, and hasn't violated anyone's privacy at all (as far as I can tell) since the smack he talked about Sweetie at HH a year ago.

[...] and I point out again that as you yourself have said, vm, in the past there was a fair bit of poison floating around inside HH, and I as the now admin since March 2005 have been directly working to clean that up and to make sure such abuses do not happen again.
True, I have said that and I know you have implemented and are enforcing rules that prohibit it now. But as you said, Scarlatti hasn't even been there in a year and now his account has been permanently deactivated, so obviously he isn't bound by the new rules.

Scarlatti has brought disrepute upon the HH over this; again, that's very much the business of the HH.
By what he posted in there a year ago? That doesn't make sense to me. Sweetie brought this shit up here, not Scarlatti. All I've seen Scarlatti do here is try to minimize the damage her accusations did to his reputation. And honestly, what more can he do to that end than admit his behavior and apologize privately and publicly, as he has done?

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 05:01 PM

Right, that's what I was saying. Scarlatti hasn't violated the HH confidentiality rules that were relevant when he was a member, and hasn't violated anyone's privacy at all (as far as I can tell) since the smack he talked about Sweetie at HH a year ago.
Just how do you know that, vm ?

True, I have said that and I know you have implemented and are enforcing rules that prohibit it now. But as you said, Scarlatti hasn't even been there in a year and now his account has been permanently deactivated, so obviously he isn't bound by the new rules.
Who is claiming he is ? Non sequitur.
However, Scarlatti's posts within the HH are bound by HH rules, which is the important point here.

Scarlatti has brought disrepute upon the HH over this; again, that's very much the business of the HH.
By what he posted in there a year ago? That doesn't make sense to me. Sweetie brought this shit up here, not Scarlatti.
vm, the info about Sweetie -- inappropraite revealing of her own personal details --- is inside the HH. Sweetie made remarks about the whole HH on the basis of that.
Oh, and you have said yourself that there was a lot of poison inside the old HH.
That is a very basic point. I, both as a human and also as HH admin, owe Sweetie an ethical duty.

We've already established through Scarlatti's story of the events makes clear there is some inappropriate revealing of such personal info -- which IMHO the previous admin should not have allowed .

vm, a question to you: are you seriously trying to tell me that Sweetie does not have an ethical right to point out there was a nasty betrayal of her own confidences within the HH ?
Because, if you are, I totally disagree.

And more: Scarlatti stirred this shit up in this thread, and refused to deal with it on the HH Rumours thread. You simply cannot blame Sweetie only for this all.
ll I've seen Scarlatti do here is try to minimize the damage her accusations did to his reputation.
Fine, he's trying to cover his ass. I am so totally unimpressed.
And honestly, what more can he do to that end than admit his behavior and apologize privately and publicly, as he has done?
He could have done that on the original HH Rumours thread; he refused to do so.
He could have agreed to full disclosure, he refused to do so.
Instead, he's simply being as abusive as possible.
Has he in fact made any overt apology to Sweetie ? Not terribly precise.
Or any apology to the HH for so bringing it into disrepute ? No.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 05:02 PM

*sigh* raspberrybullets simply agreed with me, [...]
Right. She agreed (and hence in effect asserted) that Scarlatti has "lying, poisonous and cowardly ways". We all already know how you have come to that conclusion. I want to know how she came to that conclusion. Because frankly, I personally disagree that you have made your case, so her unargued agreement is even less persuasive. And her refusal to even answer me herself doesn't help convince me either.

So right here we have Scarlatti
- claiming I am "trumpeting their alleged injustice all over the internets",
Yes, that (from his first post on your ban thread) was no doubt a derisive comment. But I personally would call it snide and erroneous -- given that you didn't even start that thread -- not lying (since he could just as well have been mistaken), poisonous (because I don't quite think it rises to that level) or cowardly (since that's a character assessment I don't have enough information to determine).

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 05:09 PM

Because frankly, I personally disagree that you have made your case,
Then live with it. I will too.
You haven't answered my PM; you haven't addressed other points, and you seem to think you can judge Scarlatti's case on his words alone --- which simply will not do at all.
You know my opinion of Scarlatti, you also know from raspberrybullets' replies to AntiChris why she agreed.
The fact you disagree is simply that; everything is so subective after all.
Yes, that (from his first post on your ban thread) was no doubt a derisive comment. But I personally would call it snide and erroneous -- given that you didn't even start that thread -- not lying (since he could just as well have been mistaken), poisonous (because I don't quite think it rises to that level) or cowardly (since that's a character assessment I don't have enough information to determine).
" (since he could just as well have been mistaken), " ??
And I'm Mick Jagger. His statements were deliberately made.

As for the rest, again, obviously opinions differ. We shall simply have to live with it.
BTW, I have one post above yours here which answers your other comments.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 05:17 PM

Just how do you know that, vm ?
I don't, that's why I said "as far as I know".

Who is claiming he is ? Non sequitur.
However, Scarlatti's posts within the HH are bound by HH rules, which is the important point here.
I said Scarlatti hadn't violated the HH confidentiality rule. You seemed to disagree, and cited the new rules. I said he isn't bound by the new rules, and your reply is that his posts are? That doesn't make any sense to me. Are you arguing that his posts have violated the rules even though he hasn't?

vm, the info about Sweetie -- inappropraite revealing of her own personal details --- is inside the HH.
So then I am right that he hasn't revealed anything here at the FF?

vm, a question to you: are you seriously trying to tell me that Sweetie does not have an ethical right to point out there was a nasty betrayal of her own confidences within the HH ?
Because, if you are, I totally disagree.
I'm not making any judgements of Sweetie's actions at all. I was only pointing out that it is she who made this information public, not Scarlatti.

He could have done that on the original HH Rumours thread; he refused to do so.
He could have agreed to full disclosure, he refused to do so.
Instead, he's simply being as abusive as possible.
Has he in fact made any overt apology to Sweetie ? Not terribly precise.
Or any apology to the HH for so bringing it into disrepute ? No.
I don't feel like it's my right or responsibility to determine if, when or where Scarlatti needs to admit and apologize for his having talked shit about Sweetie in HH a year ago. As far as I'm concerned that's nobody else's business but Scarlatti's and Sweetie's.

viscousmemories

07-03-2005, 05:29 PM

And I'm Mick Jagger. His statements were deliberately made.
I meant his implication that you started the thread could've been (and probably was, imo) a mistake, not a deliberate lie.

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 05:29 PM

I don't, that's why I said "as far as I know".
Right. It's better not to then imply conclusions in the absence of information, yes ?

I said Scarlatti hadn't violated the HH confidentiality rule. You seemed to disagree, and cited the new rules. I said he isn't bound by the new rules, and your reply is that his posts are? That doesn't make any sense to me. Are you arguing that his posts have violated the rules even though he hasn't?
vm, all posts on a forum are bound by that forum's rules.
What is so hard to find sense in there ?
The fact that a rule may be changed and a previous post then contravenes the new rules is a fact of life, as you know well.
So then I am right that he hasn't revealed anything here at the FF?
eh ? Odd non sequitur --- but in fact you would be wrong.
Scarlatti has implicitly confirmed some of Sweetie's charges, which constitutes a revealment in itself; I can't imagine why you want to dwell on this, it all being so a non sequitur.
We were talking about the HH.
I'm not making any judgements of Sweetie's actions at all. I was only pointing out that it is she who made this information public, not Scarlatti.
I disagree with that --- you certainly made an implict judgment upon Sweetie, when you said, "Sweetie brought this shit up here, not Scarlatti."

To repeat: it was Scarlatti who decided to really bring this shit into this thread.

He could have done that on the original HH Rumours thread; he refused to do so.
He could have agreed to full disclosure, he refused to do so.
Instead, he's simply being as abusive as possible.
Has he in fact made any overt apology to Sweetie ? Not terribly precise.
Or any apology to the HH for so bringing it into disrepute ? No.I don't feel like it's my right or responsibility to determine if, when or where Scarlatti needs to admit and apologize for his having talked shit about Sweetie in HH a year ago. As far as I'm concerned that's nobody else's business but Scarlatti's and Sweetie's.
I, as HH admin, disagree totally.
Scarlatti made it the business of every HH member when he committed his actions originally.
Now he wants to cover his ass. Tough shit. Why the fuck did he do all this in the first place, why the fuck couldn't he be bothered to apologise to Sweetie for over a year, and why the fuck does he want to spin it now with his repetitive abuse rather than simply deal openhandedly with the issue ?

Not only is the public reputation of the HH the business of every HH member, as I have pointed out, Scarlatti has made it even more public with his posts in this thread.

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 05:32 PM

And I'm Mick Jagger. His statements were deliberately made.
I meant his implication that you started the thread could've been (and probably was, imo) a mistake, not a deliberate lie.
*shrug*
Given his history, I really doubt you can make a persuasive case for that.

D. Scarlatti

07-03-2005, 05:32 PM

Gurdur

07-03-2005, 05:36 PM

Because I didn't even recall the post in question until Sweetie alluded to it recently, dumbass, and I wasn't about to comment at all until I was apprised of the post in question, which you proactively prevented me from doing.
Scarlatti, you were offered full disclosure by the HH, contingent on Sweetie's agreement; you refused it by not taking the offer up.
So you wanted to get info you had no right to to cover your ass in advance ?
Tough shit.
So you say things then later won't stand by the things you say ?
Tough shit.

So you couldn't even be bothered apologising to Sweetie, let alone the HH, on the original HH Rumours thread ?
Unsurprising.
Jesus Christ are you thick.
Keep whining, little boy.

D. Scarlatti

07-04-2005, 12:15 AM

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 01:14 AM

What a load of utter bollocks. I'm going to submit myself to the jurisdiction of a troll that's attempting to set himself up as a public referee in a matter that was never any of his fucking business in the first place, still isn't, and never will be? I think not.
Scarlatti, you seem to rapidly be becoming a nutcase as well as everything else. Let me sum up things for you:

1) You commited your actions on the HH. Guess what, little boy ?

2) You applied recently for readmittance to the HH. Guess what, little boy ?

3) No-one wants you in their "jurisdiction". But you seem awfully afraid and averse to accepting full disclosure of HH info about your case. Why ?

4) Brilliantly, you try saving what's left, if anything, of your "reputation" by repeatedly drawing attention to your actions and indulging in empty abuse, bumping this thread up, while refusing full disclosure.
Clever your actions are not. :popcorn:

5) You stll have not even made a public apology precisely addressed to even Sweetie, you seem to have all the backbone and sense of honour of a very limpid though very angry jellyfish. Have you even made a private apology to Sweetie ?

6) Grow up, you silly little boy.
It was none of your business what you disclosed about Sweetie's private information, you were a poisonous little coward to do it that way, you broke someone else's confidentiality and trust in you to play stupid little games where you thought it would never come out, and now you want to try telling people just what is their business and what not.
Grow up, little boy, grow up.

7) Oh, and finally, you remind me yet again to make clear the proviso we expect members of the HH to behave like adults. You seem incapable of that, another strike against any reactivation.

I look forward to more whining from you. :popcorn:

raspberrybullets

07-04-2005, 03:09 AM

vm, after I made my first post in this thread stating I thought all the bickering was unnecessary,(and now I find myself completely embroiled in this but what can you do?) a post which was mainly aimed at Gurdur, Scarlatti made a derisive post aimed at Gurdur. (This is after already having made the drift post). Plus, having already seen his posts in other threads, I felt Gurdur's comments were more than likely completely justified. I read Gurdur's post to essentially mean "Scarlatti talks shit" and to show Sweetie (and others) what his character is like. And personally I think Scarlatti did a fine job of proving it with his next two posts - and successive posts after.

Since I had slightly rebuked Gurdur for his post, I felt it was necessary to then show that I was pretty certain he was right and I did agree with him. You'll note I said "by the sounds of it" in that post. I did not claim for sure that he was a lying, poisonous coward, though I do not hesitate in saying so now because subsequent posts show it to be true.

I have certainly never claimed Scarlatti attacked me first but while my observations on him were/are justifiable, he had no such basis from which to attack me. Scarlatti made offensive remarks about others that I felt were very untrue, I don't see why it is somehow now wrong for me to chime in and tell him so just because none of those remarks were meant for me. You are doing the very same thing in this thread vm.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 04:16 AM

Thanks for the reply, raspberrybullets.

I read Gurdur's post to essentially mean "Scarlatti talks shit" and to show Sweetie (and others) what his character is like. And personally I think Scarlatti did a fine job of proving it with his next two posts - and successive posts after.
So you were concurring with Gurdur's implied claim that Scarlatti talks shit about people, not actually with his accusation of "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways"? You see though how it might have appeared to be the opposite and why Scarlatti might've responded by asking who the fuck you are to say such a thing about him when he doesn't even know you?

I did not claim for sure that he was a lying, poisonous coward, though I do not hesitate in saying so now because subsequent posts show it to be true.
I understood that you were just speculating, I was just wondering which specific comments he had made that led you to that conclusion because I didn't see them. But I think it's more than likely we just have very different ideas about constitutes "poisonous, lying and cowardly" since I still disagree that Scarlatti has demonstrated anything that warrants that accusation. This isn't to say that he hasn't made comments that might be described as poisonous (ie. calling Gurdur a troll repeatedly) but that's a very different thing from broadly accusing him of "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways".

It seems far more likely to me that every barb that has passed between Gurdur and Scarlatti ever since Sweetie brought this issue up is the result of bad blood from Gurdur's refusal to allow Scarlatti back into HH to look into this situation. I don't really care about the rationale behind the decision not to let him back in, it's not relevant. The only point I'm making here is that Scarlatti had a well-known reason to be angry at Gurdur, so it seems unreasonable to me to infer anything about Scarlatti's character from his comments to Gurdur.

Scarlatti made offensive remarks about others that I felt were very untrue, I don't see why it is somehow now wrong for me to chime in and tell him so just because none of those remarks were meant for me. You are doing the very same thing in this thread vm.
I don't remember ever saying it was wrong of you to chime in, I just wondered what specifically he said that caused you to agree that he is poisonous, lying and cowardly. As I explained above I don't think there is any evidence for such a broad condemnation of Scarlatti. As far as I can tell all Scarlatti has done is talk shit behind someone's back in a private forum a year ago (which is nowhere near exceptional and for which he has already acknowledged error and apologized) and repeatedly insulted Gurdur here.

Under the circumstances I don't imagine very many will conclude that this demonstrates that Scarlatti is poisonous, lying and cowardly, especially given his having been a semi-active poster here for a year and HH for a year before that without ever having been accused of the same. I know I've certainly never thought that about him. But honestly as far as I'm concerned I've said everything I want to about this. I think there's way more than enough information in this thread for people to make up their own minds, which is all I wanted to begin with.

raspberrybullets

07-04-2005, 06:19 AM

Thanks for the reply, raspberrybullets.
No worries. I hadn't meant to intentionally ignore your post before but I got sidetracked with other things and had thought Gurdur's explanations along with my posts to others would have answered you.

So you were concurring with Gurdur's implied claim that Scarlatti talks shit about people, not actually with his accusation of "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways"?
Within this thread, and at that point, yes.

You see though how it might have appeared to be the opposite
I can see that, which is why I clarified it.

and why Scarlatti might've responded by asking who the fuck you are to say such a thing about him when he doesn't even know you?
Now that I don't see. What difference does it make who I am? He's posting on a public board and therefore can't expect not to be criticised if somebody disagrees with him. How would it have helped if he knew of me prior to this? Aside from that he may have gathered that I am a female.

I understood that you were just speculating, I was just wondering which specific comments he had made that led you to that conclusion because I didn't see them.
I hope this is more clear now. I was concuring with Gurdur's implied claim, as you put it, when I made that post about Scarlatti, a direct result of his post just prior to my one. My thoughts as to his being a lying, poisonous coward came into it later, after many more posts here and from other things not associated with this thread.

But I think it's more than likely we just have very different ideas about constitutes "poisonous, lying and cowardly" since I still disagree that Scarlatti has demonstrated anything that warrants that accusation.
Probably very true.

This isn't to say that he hasn't made comments that might be described as poisonous (ie. calling Gurdur a troll repeatedly) but that's a very different thing from broadly accusing him of "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways".
I don't think I broadly accused him of such. But to me he appears thus because I have only seen that sort of behaviour from him and nothing that I could constitute as constructive or honest without their being ulterior motive. But as I have said, everything is subjective - you see it your way and I see it mine.

It seems far more likely to me that every barb that has passed between Gurdur and Scarlatti ever since Sweetie brought this issue up is the result of bad blood from Gurdur's refusal to allow Scarlatti back into HH to look into this situation.
Which is why I believe Scarlatti says a lot of things out of spite.

I don't really care about the rationale behind the decision not to let him back in, it's not relevant. The only point I'm making here is that Scarlatti had a well-known reason to be angry at Gurdur, so it seems unreasonable to me to infer anything about Scarlatti's character from his comments to Gurdur.
Ah this I have to completely disagree with. The reason why he wasn't let back in is extremely relevant because it makes all the difference whether the reason was fair, reasonable and justifiable or not. He can disagree with the decision if he wishes, that's his perogative, but he certainly doesn't need to act in such spite towards Gurdur - that directly shows off his character.

I don't remember ever saying it was wrong of you to chime in, I just wondered what specifically he said that caused you to agree that he is poisonous, lying and cowardly
You said to one of Gurdur's posts where he defended me "This doesn't disprove that she made a very disparaging remark about Scarlatti before he ever said a word to her, which was my only point in that text."
I took that to mean you were objecting most strongly against my saying anything when nobody had said a word to me before in this thread. :shrug:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 07:31 AM

Now that I don't see. What difference does it make who I am? He's posting on a public board and therefore can't expect not to be criticised if somebody disagrees with him. How would it have helped if he knew of me prior to this? Aside from that he may have gathered that I am a female.
I don't know if it makes any difference. All I know is if someone I'd never interacted with before attacked my character (even only by agreeing with someone else) my first response would be "Who the fuck are you?" Especially if I didn't think I'd said anything to warrant the initial insult.

I don't really care about the rationale behind the decision not to let him back in, it's not relevant. The only point I'm making here is that Scarlatti had a well-known reason to be angry at Gurdur, so it seems unreasonable to me to infer anything about Scarlatti's character from his comments to Gurdur.
Ah this I have to completely disagree with. The reason why he wasn't let back in is extremely relevant because it makes all the difference whether the reason was fair, reasonable and justifiable or not. He can disagree with the decision if he wishes, that's his perogative, but he certainly doesn't need to act in such spite towards Gurdur - that directly shows off his character.
I disagree, partly. I think if it matters at all, it only matters whether Scarlatti felt it was fair, reasonable or justifiable. I don't think it really matters whether it was, and in fact we (the general we) could probably have a very long debate on that subject and still disagree. The fact is that I created that forum with an open-door (albeit non-theists only, natch) policy, and it was never my intention for any members to be barred access. I respect the fact that the forum is under new management, rules, ethics, etc. now, but honestly I would've been just as pissed off as Scarlatti if I found out my account had been deactivated for unuse and then I was barred readmittance on (imo) very spurious grounds. According to the terms he signed up under, that should never have happened.

But even leaving aside the fact that he had good reason to be pissed off that he was effectively banned from a forum where he had previously been an active contributor and had done nothing contrary to the rules of the place, I'm sure he was plenty pissed simply because Gurdur was refusing him the opportunity to find out and deal with what he had previously posted.

The fact is, Gurdur did clearly refuse to let Scarlatti have that information, and is now using it as "evidence" that Scarlatti is a poisonous, lying coward. And you, a moderator at HH if I understand correctly, are joining in with him. Should any other HH members who are also members here expect to have their past indiscretions used against them in this way here? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be the morally consistent thing to do?

I have over 3000 posts at HH, and despite my general preference for not talking shit about people behind their backs, I probably did it now and then. With my memory and given how long it's been, if someone here were to accuse me of having said something about them at HH I couldn't possibly remember what it was. So the first thing I would do is try to find out what I had said so I could figure out how to proceed. Was it something relatively innocuous like "I hate how so-n-so never uses punctuation" or something terrible like "So and so is a donkey loving horse beater"?

By not letting Scarlatti have access to his previous posts he was put in an incredibly awkward situation in the present. Yes, I understand that Gurdur's (and your, apparently) opinion is that he brought it on himself with his past behavior, but I'm talking about the here and now. However Scarlatti dealt with this (and I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time that I don't really think it's anyone's business how he did but Scarlatti's and Sweetie's), it was almost certainly made more difficult by not having access to his original post.

Regardless, he seems to have made the most of the situation and apologized as best he could privately and publicly, with no help from Gurdur. And now Gurdur has decided that his apologies weren't good enough, and he persists in making derisive insinuations about things that Scarlatti posted in private a year ago. For someone who talks a lot about wanting to keep what happens in HH inside HH, Gurdur seems to want to talk about what Scarlatti posted in there pretty badly. Of course without talking about what he actually said. Not very good evidence if you ask me.

You said to one of Gurdur's posts where he defended me "This doesn't disprove that she made a very disparaging remark about Scarlatti before he ever said a word to her, which was my only point in that text."
I took that to mean you were objecting most strongly against my saying anything when nobody had said a word to me before in this thread. :shrug:
No, that was me noting (not really objecting to, although I didn't agree with it) your chiming in with a disparaging remark toward Scarlatti when he hadn't said anything to you. I didn't have any objection to your chiming in for its own sake.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 11:14 AM

....It seems far more likely to me that every barb that has passed between Gurdur and Scarlatti ever since Sweetie brought this issue up is the result of bad blood from Gurdur's refusal to allow Scarlatti back into HH to look into this situation. I don't really care about the rationale behind the decision not to let him back in, it's not relevant. The only point I'm making here is that Scarlatti had a well-known reason to be angry at Gurdur, so it seems unreasonable to me to infer anything about Scarlatti's character from his comments to Gurdur.
..........
As I explained above I don't think there is any evidence for such a broad condemnation of Scarlatti. As far as I can tell all Scarlatti has done is talk shit behind someone's back in a private forum a year ago (which is nowhere near exceptional and for which he has already acknowledged error and apologized) and repeatedly insulted Gurdur here.

1) Scarlatti was refused admittance for good reasons --- it contravened the HH's rules and reasons for existence.
Do you have any actual beef with that on the principles involved ?

2) He was, however, offered full disclosure of the information he wanted, contingent upon Sweetie's agreement. That was a fair offer.

3) You appear to be saying that because he was not allowed back into the HH for a dubious purpose, Scarlatti is somehow justified in throwing tantrums.
Think again.

4) oh, and give up the relativism -- the nature of the information was confidential personal information of Sweetie's, and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to work out Scarlatti must have broken personal trust from Sweetie to post that
This case is rather exceptional indeed. Thankfully, there doesn't seem any more like it. And it won't ever be allowed to happen again in the HH.

So why all the excuses for Scarlatti's behaviour ? Why the attempted relativism ?
Under the circumstances I don't imagine very many will conclude that this demonstrates that Scarlatti is poisonous, lying and cowardly,
I really doubt that, you know, I really doubt that.
I think many can now see through him.
think there's way more than enough information in this thread for people to make up their own minds, which is all I wanted to begin with.
Really, vm ? You seem to jump to conclusions, while the actual information offered in the full disclosure is missing; and you haven't dealt with many points, have you ?

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 11:35 AM

But even leaving aside the fact that he had good reason to be pissed off that he was effectively banned from a forum where he had previously been an active contributor and had done nothing contrary to the rules of the place,
Totally wrong.
Scarlatti, in his readmittance application, specifically stated all he wanted was some information; he did not specify what or why.
That is contrary to the rules (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1-8.html).
He had "good reason to be pissed off" ? Oh puh-leeeeze.
When will you deal with the points, vm, rather than simply making excuses for his behaviour ?
I'm sure he was plenty pissed simply because Gurdur was refusing him the opportunity to find out and deal with what he had previously posted.
So Scarlatti wanted to cover his ass in advance, and since he was hardly upfront (he did not specify just what info he wanted and why), somehow you think his present tantrums are justified ?
So Scarlatti was refused readmittance because it contravened the rules, what does that justify for Scarlatti ?
The fact is, Gurdur did clearly refuse to let Scarlatti have that information, and is now using it as "evidence" that Scarlatti is a poisonous, lying coward.
Nasty spin there, vm.
The actual evidence so far lies in two factors:
-- were the HH to release publically the relevan posts of Scarlatti, they would also contain very personal information of Sweetie's.
Work that one out for yourself.
-- Scarlatti has already admitted to part of it all.

-- and I made a point of looking at Scarlatti's other, more public behaviour in backing up my initial allegations, not at this issue.
And you, a moderator at HH if I understand correctly, are joining in with him. Should any other HH members who are also members here expect to have their past indiscretions used against them in this way here? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be the morally consistent thing to do?
You mean like other members should expect Sweetie to spy on them then bring it out in the open on FF ? :eek:
Just what do you mean, vm ?

Beyond making the initial offer of full disclosure to both parties, I did not talk again about Scarlatt's behaviour in this issue till he totally unnecessarily raised the whole issue with his spin on it himself in this thread.

I assure you, at HH we're not going to let similar cases happen ever again, and cleaning up the past hopefully is almost done.
and I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time that I don't really think it's anyone's business how he did but Scarlatti's and Sweetie's),
Really ? Scarlatti posted it on a bulletin board; Sweetie posted it on another.
Guess what that means ?
Regardless, he seems to have made the most of the situation and apologized as best he could privately and publicly, with no help from Gurdur.
Again, nonsense. After discussion inside the HH between the mods and me, we offered Scaralatti full disclosure contingent upon Sweetie's agreement.
He refused.

His so-called apology was not precise, and he doesn't seem to have gone out of his way to make it clear to Sweetie that he's apologising to her.
But that's just my personal opinion, and entirely seperate from the official HH actions.
For someone who talks a lot about wanting to keep what happens in HH inside HH, Gurdur seems to want to talk about what Scarlatti posted in there pretty badly. Of course without talking about what he actually said. Not very good evidence if you ask me.
Trying to have it every which way, vm ?
Scarlatti opened the mess in this thread with his attack on my character, something which you rather conveniantly ignore.
And you want to use the fact that I responded to Scarlatti and you against me ?
And you also complain implicitly I don't reveal confidential information ?
Making excuses much ?

vm, I really have to say I thought more of you than this.
Whether you like it or not, we're building up the HH on the basis of principles and ethical conduct; it is no longer a place where Scarlatti can talk such exceptional shit nor have his whims fulfilled simply because he is Scarlatti. Too bad.

raspberrybullets

07-04-2005, 11:47 AM

No, that was me noting (not really objecting to, although I didn't agree with it) your chiming in with a disparaging remark toward Scarlatti when he hadn't said anything to you. I didn't have any objection to your chiming in for its own sake.
Have you never defended a friend even if the fight/argument they were involved in had nothing to do with you? 'Tis a matter of what one would do for his or her friends.

I disagree, partly. I think if it matters at all, it only matters whether Scarlatti felt it was fair, reasonable or justifiable. I don't think it really matters whether it was, and in fact we (the general we) could probably have a very long debate on that subject and still disagree. The fact is that I created that forum with an open-door (albeit non-theists only, natch) policy, and it was never my intention for any members to be barred access. I respect the fact that the forum is under new management, rules, ethics, etc. now, but honestly I would've been just as pissed off as Scarlatti if I found out my account had been deactivated for unuse and then I was barred readmittance on (imo) very spurious grounds. According to the terms he signed up under, that should never have happened.
As you’ve pointed out, the forum is under new management, what your intentions were, is completely irrelevant. And I don’t see the problem with Scarlatti having his account de-activated because he wasn’t using it – it happens all the time and I never complain about it when it happens to me. If I wanted to be there, I would be. Usually I’m just being done a favour by not having to deactivate an account myself.

As for not being re-admitted, that could certainly irritate me; but his reasons for wanting to be re-admitted were against HH policy and what HH strives to be. It was certainly not unreasonable for us not to re-admit him. It is irrelevant what rules he signed up under; HH is under new rules and new policies and bears little resemblance to the forum you created. It was not even ambiguous, Scarlatti was quite clear he had no intention of following the rules that were required of him, so why should he have been let back in?

But even leaving aside the fact that he had good reason to be pissed off that he was effectively banned from a forum where he had previously been an active contributor and had done nothing contrary to the rules of the place,
See that’s where you’re wrong. He did do things contrary to the rules of HH. Maybe not the rules that were in place when you were admin, but the rules that are in place now.

I'm sure he was plenty pissed simply because Gurdur was refusing him the opportunity to find out and deal with what he had previously posted.

Yeah I agree, and it all seems a very petty reason to then go trolling Gurdur simply because he didn’t get his way. Sounds a bit like a child throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get his candy. Poor baby. It would have been revealing personal info only available inside HH, outside the HH, and not only is that breaking HH rules, how could we HH members have trust in the privacy and security of the place if our own admin went about revealing personal posts in public to non members? Frankly, current HH members are of more concern to us than previous HH members. There is no alumni for the graduates. We do not hold any obligation to them except for one – and that is to keep the things they have revealed within HH, inside HH only and not let them be used outside HH.

The fact is, Gurdur did clearly refuse to let Scarlatti have that information, and is now using it as "evidence" that Scarlatti is a poisonous, lying coward.
No, he is using long observance of Scarlatti and his posts as evidence. The HH stuff is a minor side note in all this. Gurdur never brought it up, neither did I – it was Scarlatti himself. Neither of us were using that information to make our judgements of him. Gurdur only went into the whole issue because he was questioned about it.

Should any other HH members who are also members here expect to have their past indiscretions used against them in this way here? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be the morally consistent thing to do?
Who said anything about being morally consistent? HH is a private forum with a specific purpose to be a social hangout for non-theists. There are general rules but as problems/issues arise they are examined on an individual basis.

And no, current HH members should not expect to have their past indiscretions used against them any more than we are using a past indiscretion against Scarlatti. As I stated above, Gurdur (and I) have seen enough of Scarlatti’s behaviour previously to base our opinions on.

By not letting Scarlatti have access to his previous posts he was put in an incredibly awkward situation in the present. Yes, I understand that Gurdur's (and your, apparently) opinion is that he brought it on himself with his past behavior, but I'm talking about the here and now. However Scarlatti dealt with this (and I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time that I don't really think it's anyone's business how he did but Scarlatti's and Sweetie's), it was almost certainly made more difficult by not having access to his original post.
Certainly, I don’t blame Scarlatti for wanting to find out what he had posted, it was a perfectly reasonable request. What we had to take into consideration though was that the information he wanted revealed personal things about somebody else. Now I should think that you would find it quite acceptable that we would require the permission of both parties involved before we divulged the information. Neither of them agreed to the request, so what more were we supposed to do? Personally I don’t think we were even under any obligation to give Scarlatti anything he requested. Who cares what he said in some post on some forum ages ago? I certainly don’t. You are certainly right about one thing, this is all between Scarlatti and Sweetie and shouldn’t involve anyone else. But they were the ones who brought it to public attention and it was Scarlatti who directly involved HH by wanting us to reveal private info to him. As I have said, current HH members are more important than past ones. Our main obligation is to ensure current members know that the information they make and the posts they reveal will be safe and secure and remain private, if that means irritating Scarlatti because we then refuse to give him what he wants, so be it. At least HH members know we won’t be giving out information just because somebody wants it and just because we then get abused for it.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 03:09 PM

You appear to be saying that because he was not allowed back into the HH for a dubious purpose, Scarlatti is somehow justified in throwing tantrums.

<snip>

So why all the excuses for Scarlatti's behaviour ? Why the attempted relativism ?
I have not tried to justify or excuse Scarlatti's comments, I've only tried to understand and explain them. Accusing me of moral relativism (again) erroneously implies that I am trying to pass moral judgements here. I'm not, and I won't be bullied into doing so either. It's you (and raspberrybullets, apparently) who appear to be interested in judging and condemning Scarlatti here on moral grounds and using "evidence" that exists only in a private, exclusive forum, not me.

Really, vm ? You seem to jump to conclusions, while the actual information offered in the full disclosure is missing; and you haven't dealt with many points, have you ?
How unbelievably insulting. I've spent far more time thinking about and posting about this issue than anything else in the last 48 hours, and I've "dealt with" every point that was relevant to the topic. If you want to believe I'm "jumping to conclusions" that's your prerogative, but I am not the one citing private, inaccessible year old discussions to support my accusations. Everything I have addressed has been right here, in public, where everyone else can see for themselves.

When will you deal with the points, vm, rather than simply making excuses for his behaviour ?

<snip>

Nasty spin there, vm.

<snip>

Trying to have it every which way, vm ?

<snip>

vm, I really have to say I thought more of you than this.
And now you are attacking me. How many posts are we from your calling me "poisonous, lying and cowardly"? You've come pretty close in the past, surely it's on the tip of your tongue right now. And you really think there are a lot of people who come to the same conclusion from this thread? I doubt it.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 03:12 PM

Have you never defended a friend even if the fight/argument they were involved in had nothing to do with you? 'Tis a matter of what one would do for his or her friends.
Thank you for your honesty, raspberrybullets. I suspected that's exactly what this was about.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 05:31 PM

I have not tried to justify or excuse Scarlatti's comments,
You have done exactly that, vm. I have pointed out previously where and how.
You've also advocated strange things here. Like favouritism for Scarlatti, or thinking the HH should be run along the lines you advocate even though you want nothing to do with the place, etc.. You have repeatedly failed to deal with points mentioned.
erroneously implies that I am trying to pass moral judgements here. I'm not,
Oh puh-leeze, you've been making moral judgments the whole time; you keep trying to say what in your opinon "should" happen, what is not or is a proper description etc. etc. What do you think those judments of yours are ?
They are not factual judgments, just ...... moral ones. :yup:
How unbelievably insulting.
*shrug*
You made wild implicit accusations about me and HH, insinuating other people's confidential info was at risk (when you talked about "indiscretions"), you then blame me apparently for this mess, despite the fact that it was Scarlatti who brought it into this thread, and BTW he based his actions on his repeated accusation that I am supposed to be a troll; you give quite an appearance of partiality in this all.
Like, vm, do you feel like treating me as an equal ? Or do you think I'm here to be insulted with impunity by Scarlatti ? hmmmm ? Or you think somehow I shouldn't be responding to you and Scarlatti ? Will you answer that ?
And now you are attacking me. How many posts are we from your calling me "poisonous, lying and cowardly"? You've come pretty close in the past, surely it's on the tip of your tongue right now. And you really think there are a lot of people who come to the same conclusion from this thread? I doubt it.
I sincerely doubt you are convincing many at all. And attacking you ? Don't exaggerate so wildly. Pointing out inconsistancies in your position is not a attack on you, and there's no need for these wild exaggerations of yours. mmm'kay ?

Now let's clear up the latest misconceptions, shall we ?

The fact is that I created that forum with an open-door (albeit non-theists only, natch) policy, and it was never my intention for any members to be barred access. I respect the fact that the forum is under new management, rules, ethics, etc. now, but honestly I would've been just as pissed off as Scarlatti if I found out my account had been deactivated for unuse and then I was barred readmittance on (imo) very spurious grounds. According to the terms he signed up under, that should never have happened.
"very spurious grounds" ?? Just what evidence do you have for saying that ?
I'll take it it's not supposed to be a moral judgment, :yup: , but it is certainly not a factual judgment of yours.
Re-read the HH FAQ; (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1.html) it is extremely clear about the rules for reactivation. membership etc.

Now, on one hand you say you respect the fact that the forum is under new management, etc., then suddenly you turn around and don't respect that; you somehow think Scarlatti should be treated specially, not like anyone else. Too bad.
Scarlatti gets the same treatment as anyone. Too bad.

As for the HH; you stepped down as admin and you even left the place completely, neither of which have anything to do with me, and happened long before I became owner and admin.
You've also complained here on the FF that the HH was poison-filled (I paraphrase), and said you want nothing to do with the place.
So just why do you think your own ideas should be the rule there now ?
I would like an answer to that.

Now, your original policy was open to all nontheists.
I have changed that: advocation of bigotry in any form is a bar to admittance, as is obsessive preaching of anything, as is spamming, trolling and obsessive repeated personal baiting. Advocation of the grosser, worse illegalities is also a bar to admittance.
In general, any conduct that severely conflicts with our primarily social nature is a bar to admittance.

And that cuts out Scarlatti. He only wanted admittance for information, nothing else, and he had no intention of participating in the hH for the purpose for which it is intended.
Very good grounds for not allowing his admittance indeed, and his childish tantrums and abusiveness since then rather confirm that. :yup:

So: we don't allow neonazis, trolls, baiters, etc. any longer in the HH. Too bad. Things change. The rules of the HH are determined by me in consultation with the members and mods, and just as I respect your own rules here on the FF, even where I disagree with you, I expect you to respect the HH as an autonomous entity, an entirely seperate affair with nothing to do with you now.
And whether or not you think I should not be responding to you and Scarlatti (you apparently blame me for doing so), I wil in fact respond to you both.

D. Scarlatti

07-04-2005, 05:39 PM

Thank you again vm, for being clear and showing a proper reading and consideration for the issues raised here, in particular the main body of post #132.

For the record, I don't think Gurdur is a troll because he denied me re-admittance to the HH, nor was I ever angry about it. If those are his rules, fine. I've never questioned his right to maintain his forum rules, nor his comically self-righteous defense of them.

As I said already, Gurdur's trollish ways to me predate by far anything specifically addressed in this thread. And as is quite plain in this thread, Gurdur's continuous heaping of petty insults and unfounded character assassination here far outweighs my simple opinion of him that he's a troll (and in fact supports my opinion, truth be told).

What made me angry initially was a complete stranger's concurrence with Gurdur's accusation that I'm a poisonous, cowardly liar, a charge that she "does not hesitate in" making independently now, on god knows what grounds, since I've lied about fuck all in this thread, or anywhere else for that matter. In fact the original post at HH wasn't even a lie.

I inappropriately revealed an item of personal information, followed by a disgraceful, unfunny, and undeserved innuendo. I'm not downplaying or mitigating the circumstances by any means. It was downright wrong on my part, period. I made that quite clear several pages back, but nothing I say will satisfy the troll, not that I'm in the business of satisfying trolls in the first place. Nowhere have I excused, justified, or defended my actions, and nowhere have you, vm, despite Gurdur's claim to the contrary.

As for Gurdur's claim that I "did not specify just what info he wanted and why," this is patently untrue. I asked to see one thread in particular, started in a specified month, and I told him why I wanted to see it. I also asked whether it was possible to view the contents of that thread alone, without having my account re-activated. So Gurdur's claim is completely false. Obviously I couldn't be as specific as Gurdur demands, otherwise why would I be asking to see the fucking post in the first place? Duh.

It's typical of Gurdur's trollish ways to characterize as wanting to "cover my ass" a request to view the post in question. I'm fairly certain that anyone in a similar situation, including Gurdur, would want to see a post for which they had no recollection, that was made more than a year previously, before making any comment about it. There's nothing unremarkable in such a request, and Gurdur is just being the troll that he is by referring to my request in a demeaning way.

I find it pretty disgusting that Gurdur has a couple of times now openly suggested that I've not apologized to Sweetie. But, as I said, that's just the sort of thing that trolls do. I also find it disgraceful that Gurdur refers to my public statement of regret as nothing more than "spin," casting further aspersions on my character, and continues to insist that whatever action I was to take, or should take, must conform to his arbitrary dictates and timetables. Pure troll, that.

I'm completely satisfied that neither Gurdur nor raspberrybullets has anything upon which to base their scurrilous characterization of me as a poisonous, cowardly liar. If occasional sarcasm, smart-ass remarks, and inside jokes qualify as "poisonous, cowardly, lying ways," then half of the internets is populated by poisonous, cowardly liars, which, obviously, I don't believe to be true. There certainly are a few trolls, however.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 06:09 PM

but nothing I say will satisfy the troll,
Odd, that, Scarlatti. You seem to think your empty abuse should be satisfying. :eek:
More lunacy of yours.
As for Gurdur's claim that I "did not specify just what info he wanted and why," this is patently untrue. I asked to see one thread in particular, started in a specified month, and I told him why I wanted to see it.
Now this bit is very false indeed.
I can quote the relevant emails in full here if Scarlatti likes; the second email Scarlatti sent me specified he only wanted to see a particular thread in March 2004, but he did not specify why at all, or which thread beyond saying March 2004.
I immediately answered him that that contravened the rules of the HH, and so his application was rejected.
Thus, my rejection of his application was done without knowing anything of his reasons for wanting to see a thread in question.

Scarlatti specifed more in a follow-up email, but only after I had already written rejecting his application, but his application had already been rejected, and would not have been approved for those purposes even with further specification. Nor of course was Scarlatti ever entitled to information from inside the HH without being an active member.
Nonetheless, Scarlatti was later generously offered the information, contingent upon Sweetie's approval, since that information also contained highly personal information of Sweetie's, and so we at HH after conusltation between ourselves made a fair and generous offer.
Scarlatti rejected that offer abusively.
It may terribly disappoint Scarlatti that the HH does not exist to fulfill his idle whims, but hey, we're not going to lose any sleep over it. :yup:

Scarlatti also very peculiarly claimed in his follow-up email that he was intending to particpate in the HH for the actual reasons it exists, which was a very false claim of his in view of his statement just why he wanted reactivation, and also in view of the fact he had already been given the link to the HH FAQ (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1.html), and his reasons for wanting admittance clearly contravened the rules, and he also mentioned his belief that his membership of the HH predated mine by a considerable period, a very strange belief indeed, and also completely wrong, as well as completely irrelevant.
Weird. :popcorn:
But I can always reproduce the emails here.
I also asked whether it was possible to view the contents of that thread alone, without having my account re-activated.
Correct, though the actual thread was not specified beyond saying it was in March 2004, nor were the reasons more specified when I made the rejection.
Of course, such a request is completely against the rules of HH.
........... There certainly are a few trolls, however.
Heh, heh, Scarlatti always says goodbye and marches in high dudgeon out of the thread, then returns to add some more empty abuse.
Some things never change. :popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 06:27 PM

You've also advocated strange things here. Like [...] thinking the HH should be run along the lines you advocate [...]

<snip>

So just why do you think your own ideas should be the rule there now ?

<snip>

I expect you to respect the HH as an autonomous entity, an entirely seperate affair with nothing to do with you now.
Every one of these implicit accusations is a lie. As any careful reader here will easily surmise, I have not said one single thing that indicates that I think HH should now be run along the lines I advocate, that my own ideas should be the rule there now, or that I think it should have anything to do with me now at all.

My comments about my reasons for starting that forum and the rules and policies as they were when I administrated it were statements of fact, nothing more. First you attack me and now you're outright lying about what I have said? I can't begin to imagine how you think this is helping your case at all.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 06:54 PM

Every one of these implicit accusations is a lie. As any careful reader here will easily surmise, I have not said one single thing that indicates that I think HH should now be run along the lines I advocate, that my own ideas should be the rule there now, or that I think it should have anything to do with me now at all.

That is all very false, vm, and you should try being far more careful with these wild accusations of yours. I will quote you:
if I found out my account had been deactivated for unuse and then I was barred readmittance on (imo) very spurious grounds. According to the terms he signed up under, that should never have happened.
So here you immediately advocate something very different from what the HH is now. You disagree with present actions of the HH, you call them spurious, and want your own ideas ? Or just what ?
BTW, you've completely failed to answer a whole lot of questions and points.
And in fact since neither he or Sweetie is a member of HH, I don't see any reason that the HH administration need be involved at all.
Since Scarlatti wanted info and/or readmittance out of the HH, that's how we got involved in the first place. Capiçe, finally ?
My comments about my reasons for starting that forum and the rules and policies as they were when I administrated it were statements of fact, nothing more. First you attack me and now you're outright lying about what I have said? I can't begin to imagine how you think this is helping your case at all.
Puh-leeeze. vm, get a grip.
First of all, your opinions about whether this "helps my case" are totally irrelevant.
Scarlatti wanted info out of the HH, despite not being a member.
The fact that he was a former member is largely irrelevant.

Scarlatti also wanted readmittance to the HH, but for reasons which were against HH rules. Too bad, etc.

Despite all that, Scarlatti was offered full disclosure of the info contingent on Sweetie's approval, since it also contained private information of hers.

Your so-called "statements of fact" abbout what you intended the HH to be etc. are completely irrelevant, in view of the fact you long ago stepped down as admin, and left the place completely.

After admin/mods consultation, the HH has made its determination on the Sweetie/Scarlatti case. Deal with it.

I can repeat all this as many times as you demand, till you finally deal with it.
mmm'kay ? :popcorn:

D. Scarlatti

07-04-2005, 07:39 PM

You seem to think …

Don't make me laugh. What I "seem to think" is hardly an issue. I've laid out here exactly what I think, in what I consider no uncertain terms. There is no need for more speculation, amateur psychoanalysis, and generally devious bullshit on your part, aside from, perhaps, unintentional comedy (although I note that vm doesn't find it particularly funny, and I don't blame him).

As I said, I have no quarrel with Gurdur's enforcement of his rules at the HH. Nor do I have an objection to the manner in which he interprets them, or chooses to enforce them retroactively against former members. All that is clearly his prerogative. That Gurdur effectively stymied my ability to address the issue is something I needed to overcome by other means.

Having said that (again), Gurdur's chronology of the e-mail exchange during which I asked why my account was de-activated, whether it could be re-activated, the date of the thread I wanted to read, why I wanted to read it, and whether I could read it without having my account re-activated is essentially correct.

But that's not the point. In post #134 above, Gurdur stated flatly that I "did not specify what or why." That isn't true, and that's what I was specifically addressing, notwithstanding Gurdur's baloney-slicing attempt to deflect the substance of my objection to his falsehood that I "did not specify what or why" I was interested in.

I did, and I did so to the best of my ability based on the information I had at the time. Gurdur is characterizing as my "readmittance application" one brief message out of several, over the course of which I attempted to clarify my request with all requisite honesty. Not poison, not cowardice, and not lies, I might add.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 07:50 PM

Don't make me laugh.
Whyever not ? :(
You certainly make me laugh a lot, why can't I return the favour ? :yup:
there is no need for more ...... generally devious bullshit on your part,
good heavens, little boy, you only want your own devious bullshit ? tsk tsk.
That Gurdur effectively stymied my ability to address the issue is something I needed to overcome by other means.
*yawn*
Scarlatti lies again.
Scarlatti was offered full disclosure, contingent on Sweetie's agreement.
Scarlatti refused it, and threw tantrums instead.
:popcorn:
But that's not the point. In post #134 above, Gurdur stated flatly that I "did not specify what or why." That isn't true, and that's what I was specifically addressing, notwithstanding Gurdur's baloney-slicing attempt to deflect the substance of my objection to his falsehood that I "did not specify what or why" I was interested in.
Little boy, get a grip.
I pointed out that my rejection of your application was done without my knowing your exact reasons for wanting information.
Got that yet ? :popcorn:
Gurdur is characterizing as my "readmittance application" one brief message out of several, over the course of which I attempted to clarify my request with all requisite honesty. Not poison, not cowardice, and not lies, I might add.
Naw, little boy, it's your other behaviour on which I so characterized you, and I made that very clear.
My goodness, I can repeat these things as often as you whningly demand them, mmmmm'kay ?
:popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 07:52 PM

That is all very false, vm, and you should try being far more careful with these wild accusations of yours. I will quote you:
]if I found out my account had been deactivated for unuse and then I was barred readmittance on (imo) very spurious grounds. According to the terms he signed up under, that should never have happened.
So here you immediately advocate something very different from what the HH is now. You disagree with present actions of the HH, you call them spurious, and want your own ideas ? Or just what ?
Right. I opined that the grounds on which Scarlatti was barred re-admittance were spurious. However, now that I've looked up the word spurious it occurs to me that I misspoke. I should have said ad hoc, since that more accurately reflects what I think. In either case, though, this is very clearly not evidence of my 'advocating' anything, much less how you should run HH.

BTW, you've completely failed to answer a whole lot of questions and points.
I've answered every point that I found relevant to my comments here. You, on the other hand, despite a whole lot of handwaving, haven't answered two very simple questions I put to you. I'll reiterate and rephrase for clarity:

1. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated the confidentiality rule of HH?
2. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated anyone's personal privacy here, with the exception of Sweetie in his HH post of a year ago?

And in fact since neither he or Sweetie is a member of HH, I don't see any reason that the HH administration need be involved at all.
Since Scarlatti wanted info and/or readmittance out of the HH, that's how we got involved in the first place. Capiçe, finally ?
Okay, fair enough. We disagree about whether and to what degree you as administrator of HH need to be involved in a personal conflict here between two people who are not HH members. Still, of course, that is just me stating my opinion. It is not an example of me advocating anything, much less how you should run HH.

Your so-called "statements of fact" abbout what you intended the HH to be etc. are completely irrelevant, in view of the fact you long ago stepped down as admin, and left the place completely.
Nonsense. The rules and policies that were in effect when Scarlatti was an active member there are entirely relevant. It's your supposition that my stating those facts somehow indicates that I have a latent yearning to be back in charge at HH that is completely unwarranted and irrelevant. I don't even know how many administrators there have been since I stepped down and resigned my membership there and I really don't care.

Yes, I've read your new FAQ and rules and from what little I've heard it bears almost no resemblence to the forum I created. Quote me where I have once suggested that I have a problem with that. Tell everyone how many times I have requested re-admittance to HH. Ask every member and staff there how often I have told them in public or private that I think you should run things differently. And when you find a single shred of evidence that I have been 'advocating' that you should run it differently, I'll retract my claim that you have completely manufactured this offense here.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 08:00 PM

Right. I opined that the grounds on which Scarlatti was barred re-admittance were spurious. However, now that I've looked up the word spurious it occurs to me that I misspoke. I should have said ad hoc, since that more accurately reflects what I think. In either case, though, this is very clearly not evidence of my 'advocating' anything, much less how you should run HH.
You gave every appearance of such advocation. The fact that you mispoke is not my fault. Perhaps you will be more careful with the accusations, ok ?

1. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated the confidentiality rule of HH?
2. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated anyone's personal privacy here, with the exception of Sweetie in his HH post of a year ago?
*sigh*
vm, why the non sequiturs ?
Neither of those questions as put have anything to do with this all, and you know it.
And BTW, Scarlatti's posts in question violate present rules, and more importantly, the info will only be released if it's released to both Sweetie and Scarlatti, with the agreement of both, as a fair deal / offer. It's been said why already. Go back and re-read.
Still, of course, that is just me stating my opinion. It is not an example of me advocating anything, much less how you should run HH.
A distinction without a difference, really.

Nonsense. The rules and policies that were in effect when Scarlatti was an active member there are entirely relevant.
Just how ? :popcorn:

Yes, I've read your new FAQ and rules and from what little I've heard it bears almost no resemblence to the forum I created.
Such is life. :popcorn:

Now, are you going to deal with the points here or not ?
Here, let me helpfully repeat: :yup:

First of all, your opinions about whether this "helps my case" are totally irrelevant.
Scarlatti wanted info out of the HH, despite not being a member.
The fact that he was a former member is largely irrelevant.

Scarlatti also wanted readmittance to the HH, but for reasons which were against HH rules. Too bad, etc.

Despite all that, Scarlatti was offered full disclosure of the info contingent on Sweetie's approval, since it also contained private information of hers.

Your so-called "statements of fact" about what you intended the HH to be etc. are completely irrelevant, in view of the fact you long ago stepped down as admin, and left the place completely.

After admin/mods consultation, the HH has made its determination on the Sweetie/Scarlatti case. Deal with it.

I can repeat all this as many times as you demand, till you finally deal with it.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 08:59 PM

Okay, to avoid being accused of skipping anything relevant I will respond to every word here as best I can.

You gave every appearance of such advocation. The fact that you mispoke is not my fault. Perhaps you will be more careful with the accusations, ok ?
Okay, I can see that there is a fine line between my implied criticism of your action in this case and advocating for you to take an alternative approach. I maintain that it wasn't my intent to suggest that you should do things differently, but I accept that you interpreted my comment as such and retract the accusation that you were deliberately mischaracterizing what I'd said. It seems that the mischaracterization was borne of a misunderstanding.

1. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated the confidentiality rule of HH?
2. Can you produce evidence that Scarlatti violated anyone's personal privacy here, with the exception of Sweetie in his HH post of a year ago?
*sigh*
vm, why the non sequiturs ?
Neither of those questions as put have anything to do with this all, and you know it.
And BTW, Scarlatti's posts in question violate present rules, and more importantly, the info will only be released if it's released to both Sweetie and Scarlatti, with the agreement of both, as a fair deal / offer. It's been said why already. Go back and re-read.
Those questions aren't non sequiturs at all, from where I'm sitting. The whole reason I got into this thread to begin with was because I thought the accusation that Scarlatti has "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways" was unsupported by the available evidence. Even so, I gathered that you and he haven't liked each other for a long time and accepted the fact that your judgement might be based on external information, so I opted not to get involved.

However, it was when raspberrybullets said "And by the sounds of it Scarlatti, you deserve all that was said about you." that my head turned. Because I thought "from the sounds of what?" But even still, I stayed out of it. And I wanted to stay out of it. But as the situation snowballed I decided to try to set some things straight, and that included posting a little chronology of events as I saw them, and asking both you and raspberrybullets to qualify your "poisonous, lying, cowardly ways" claim.

And after a series of posts between the three of us, it seemed to me that she (and you, to an extent) were basing the statement on evidence that isn't available to us non-HH members here. Hence my questions above, which were intended to get to the bottom of exactly what he had allegedly done here to warrant such a vicious characterization. And so far, in my opinion, that important question remains unanswered.

Still, of course, that is just me stating my opinion. It is not an example of me advocating anything, much less how you should run HH.
A distinction without a difference, really.
I think you're probaby right, as I explained above.

Nonsense. The rules and policies that were in effect when Scarlatti was an active member there are entirely relevant.
Just how ? :popcorn:
Because you have accused him of violating the HH rules that were created long after his membership expired, when in fact he hasn't violated any HH rule that I'm aware of. Again, this points to the relevance of my two questions above about what rules he might have violated.

Yes, I've read your new FAQ and rules and from what little I've heard it bears almost no resemblence to the forum I created.
Such is life. :popcorn:
I don't know why you seem to think it breaks my heart that the HH isn't the forum I created. As I've said before, my only regret is that I didn't shut that forum down and delete the database when I resigned. I don't know why you think I'm shedding any tears over not being able to administrate it now. The only regret I have now is that I am unable to keep the promises I made to people who entrusted me with the confidentiality and access to their posts there now. It would've been better all around if I had shut it down, imo.

Now, are you going to deal with the points here or not ?
Here, let me helpfully repeat: :yup:
Okay.

First of all, your opinions about whether this "helps my case" are totally irrelevant.
I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless you have no interest in winning your case.

Scarlatti wanted info out of the HH, despite not being a member.
True.

The fact that he was a former member is largely irrelevant.
I agree, especially in light of his having said that he doesn't care about not being allowed back in.

Scarlatti also wanted readmittance to the HH, but for reasons which were against HH rules. Too bad, etc.
That appears to be true.

Despite all that, Scarlatti was offered full disclosure of the info contingent on Sweetie's approval, since it also contained private information of hers.
That appears to be true as well.

Your so-called "statements of fact" about what you intended the HH to be etc. are completely irrelevant, in view of the fact you long ago stepped down as admin, and left the place completely.
I disagree, since my "so-called" statements of fact (and so-called because they were statements of fact, unless you can prove otherwise) were entirely relevant as I explained above.

After admin/mods consultation, the HH has made its determination on the Sweetie/Scarlatti case. Deal with it.
Should I assume that by "deal with it" you mean "accept the truth of my opinion"?

I can repeat all this as many times as you demand, till you finally deal with it.
I'm quite sure you can.

D. Scarlatti

07-04-2005, 09:03 PM

Can someone explain to me why Gurdur continues to yammer away about his "generous offer" long after I've already been apprised of the contents of the notorious post – despite the deliberative obstructions of none other than Gurdur – and long since privately and publicly expressed both sincere apologies and regret?

I was the one that made the unseemly comments in the first place, and I'll be the one that deals with them as I see fit. Whether my method conforms to the arbitrary dicta and timetable of some woefully unimaginative troll is a matter of profound indifference to me.

The distance between the utter lack of evidence as to my "poisonous, cowardly lying ways" provided by either Gurdur or raspberrybullets and the inescapable fact that Gurdur is little more than a gratuitous troll is increasing with every post in this thread.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 09:21 PM

Okay, I can see that there is a fine line between my implied criticism of your action in this case and advocating for you to take an alternative approach.
Finally. :)
Those questions aren't non sequiturs at all, from where I'm sitting.
You have not explained just how they are supposed to be in the slightest way relevant at all.
The whole reason I got into this thread to begin with was because I thought the accusation that Scarlatti has "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways" was unsupported by the available evidence.
Too bad. But I've said that already.
Everything is subjective, and I can easily live with people disagreeing with me.
it seemed to me that she (and you, to an extent) were basing the statement on evidence that isn't available to us non-HH members here.
Naaaaw, made that clear long way back that enough evidence exists in public.
Scarlatti's behaviour on this tread more than confirms my view. :yup:
to warrant such a vicious characterization. And so far, in my opinion, that important question remains unanswered.
Too bad. I dislike the fact that you let Scarlatti's viciousnesses --- which I remind you started off the derail in this thread --- slide by unless I directly challenge you about them. It makes me think you are simply being partial, and leads me BTW to discount your opinions. That might seem unfair to you, but you will simply have to deal with the fact you have appeared to show partiality.
And for the record: I stand by all what I say. In full.
I think you're probaby right, as I explained above
Good-oh. :yup:
Because you have accused him of violating the HH rules that were created long after his membership expired, when in fact he hasn't violated any HH rule that I'm aware of. Again, this points to the relevance of my two questions above about what rules he might have violated.
No, again you have things very very wrong, as well as imprecise.

1) The posts in question break certain rules, thus we will only release said info with both Sweetie's and Scarlatti's permission, and to the both.
Any other way would be grossly unfair.
Live with it.

2) Scarlatti's reasons for wanting the info or wanting readmittance also contravene HH rules. You know why already.

Thus your characterization is false through ambiguity.
As I've said before, my only regret is that I didn't shut that forum down and delete the database when I resigned. I don't know why you think I'm shedding any tears over not being able to administrate it now. The only regret I have now is that I am unable to keep the promises I made to people who entrusted me with the confidentiality and access to their posts there now. It would've been better all around if I had shut it down, imo.
*shrug*
The day you stepped down was the day you left off your promise to people. That is your own affair, not mine.
First of all, your opinions about whether this "helps my case" are totally irrelevant.
I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless you have no interest in winning your case.
What makes you think I have to "win my case" ? No, come on, really.
The mere fact you disagree with me is neither here nor there.
I can't see any case at all I have to "win". :yup:

I disagree, since my "so-called" statements of fact (and so-called because they were statements of fact, unless you can prove otherwise) were entirely relevant as I explained above.
You haven't explained it in the slightest.

I've already pointed out two areas to you:
a) official HH decisions over the Scarlatti / Sweetie affair --- we made the fairest and best offer we could.
Any objections ?

b) My personal opinion of Scarlatti. Based on the public info available.
Given his behaviour in this thread, I need no further justification at all. :yup:
Live with it.

Should I assume that by "deal with it" you mean "accept the truth of my opinion"?
*shrug*
Feel free to have a different opinion. Since the HH membership don't seem to have any beefs as a whole with me or my actiions here, and since I have made the ethics very clear here, I can quite easily live with others having different opinions. It really doesn't worry me at all, you know. The rhetoric we can both live without, eh, eh ?

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 09:32 PM

Scarlatti again for the light comic relief ! :yup:
Can someone explain to me why Gurdur continues to yammer away about his "generous offer" long after I've already been apprised of the contents of the notorious post
Tsk. But to be expected all along. Does the little boy think I don't take practical life into account ? So Scarlatti has his own spy ? It balances out Sweetie having hers. Karma. :yup:
despite the deliberative obstructions of none other than Gurdur
tsk, Scarlatti lies again. How unsurprising. Scarlatti was offered the info, contingent upon Sweetie's agreement.
Now that Scarlatti has been given the info by someone, would Scarlatti like it if we send it to Sweetie as well ?
Just asking. :yup:
and long since privately and publicly expressed both sincere apologies and regret?
Ah, a claim to sincerity ! :yup: Fascinating. Funny how it took well over a year to do.
I was the one that made the unseemly comments in the first place, and I'll be the one that deals with them as I see fit.
You poor little boy, Scarlatti, it's nowhere near as simple as that, is it ? :yup:
Here are we, buggering up Scarlatti's claims to exceptionalism. Tsk !
Whether my method conforms to the arbitrary dicta and timetable of some woefully unimaginative troll is a matter of profound indifference to me.
This brilliantly explains why Scarlatti needs to keep posting on this thread, expressing his indifference as often as he can.
Good one ! :yup:
The distance between the utter lack of evidence as to my "poisonous, cowardly lying ways" provided by either Gurdur or raspberrybullets and the inescapable fact that Gurdur is little more than a gratuitous troll is increasing with every post in this thread.
You have to be amused by Scarlatti's constant whining combined with claims of indifference. It's pretty good.
:popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 10:03 PM

Those questions aren't non sequiturs at all, from where I'm sitting.
You have not explained just how they are supposed to be in the slightest way relevant at all.
Let me try again, then. Look at this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=86491#post86491) of yours (bold mine in last sentence):

3. As far as I can tell, Scarlatti hasn't once violated the HH confidentiality rule,....
Actually, the FF has a very similar rule ---- no inappropriate disclosure of others' personal information.
See What Are the Rules Of The HH? (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1-8.html)
Inside the Heathen Hangout, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as ...... inappropriate revealment of others' personal information, .......... In other words, you are free to say what you like, though violating HH forum rules and admittance criteria will mean the risk of banning.
IOW, already "inappropriate revealment of others' personal information" is mentioned, and that has been the case for a long while since I put that FAQ up.
More:
7) No revealing of personal info gained inside HH outside HH without express permission beforehand. No inappropriate revealing of others' personal information.
That's a direct contravention of HH rules right there. That rule has been up a fair while.
Clearly you were accusing him of violating some rule at HH. If it wasn't the HH confidentiality rule you were referring to, then why did you quote me saying that he hadn't violated the HH confidentiality rule?

Most of the rest of your post is just reiterations and incongruous smilies, nothing really to respond to there.

Oh, but although I did say I won't be bullied into making moral judgements in this thread, I will compromise. One each for you and Scarlatti, to be fair. Here goes:

Scarlatti, I think your calling Gurdur a troll was spiteful and mean, and completely out of line.

Gurdur, I think your armchair psychoanalysis of Sweetie was presumptuous, condescending and completely out of line.

There. Hopefully there can be peace among men now that I've taken this important moral stance.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 10:11 PM

[Let me try again, thenClearly you were accusing him of violating some rule at HH. If it wasn't the HH confidentiality rule you were referring to, then why did you quote me saying that he hadn't violated the HH confidentiality rule?
*sigh* :popcorn:
vm, you get it wrong again, and I directly answered you in my last post. Deal with it. I will simply repeat:
Scarlatti's readmittance application was rejected for his reasons.
The posts he made meant we would as HH admin/mods only release the info if it was to both parties together.
The fact that you have conflated a lot of things is your own problem. The above is the important part, and the original rules or aims of the HH remain totally irrelevant.
And I will repeat that as often as necessary. :yup:
Most of the rest of your post is just reiterations and incongruous smilies, nothing really to respond to there.
Tsk. I thought the smilies were particularly good. :yup:
Your failure to deal with your partiality shown earlier is your own problem, not mine. It's a pity, I wopuld have hoped we could get on better, but hey, it's not my problem.
Oh, but although I did say I won't be bullied into making moral judgements in this thread, I will compromise. One each for you and Scarlatti, to be fair. Here goes:
Scarlatti, I think your calling Gurdur a troll was spiteful and mean, and completely out of line.
Gurdur, I think your armchair psychoanalysis of Sweetie was presumptuous, condescending and completely out of line.
There. Hopefully there can be peace among men now that I've taken this important moral stance.
Tsk, I detect slight flippancy in all that. vm, my criticisms of you here remain, and you've failed to tell me what case I need to win.
And who is bullying you into making moral judgments ? :eek:
What a strange thing to say.

Now shall we go to the next stage where I simply repeat the first half of this post ? :yup:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 10:16 PM

*sigh* :popcorn:
vm, you get it wrong again, and I directly answered you in my last post. Deal with it. I will simply repeat:

<snip irrelevant commentary>

None of which addresses the key point of my last post at all, of course, which is that you accused Scarlatti of having violated the rules of HH, have thus far failed to produce any evidence to support that accusation, and refer now to my reiteration of the request for evidence as a non sequitur. None of which gives me any reason at all to believe that you are being honest and straightforward here, which of course calls all of your other accusations and insinuations into question as well.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 10:21 PM

None of which addresses the key point of my last post at all, of course, which is that you accused Scarlatti of having violated the rules of HH, have thus far failed to produce any evidence to support that accusation, and refer now to my reiteration of the request for evidence as a non sequitur.
I knew I would simply have to repeat my last post. :yup:
vm, you get it wrong again, and I directly answered you in my last post. Deal with it. I will simply repeat:
Scarlatti's readmittance application was rejected for his reasons.
The posts he made meant we would as HH admin/mods only release the info if it was to both parties together.
The fact that you have conflated a lot of things is your own problem. The above is the important part, and the original rules or aims of the HH remain totally irrelevant.
And I will repeat that as often as necessary.
None of which gives me any reason at all to believe that you are being honest and straightforward here, which of course calls all of your other accusations and insinuations into question as well.
Now, as for the rest, vm, your partiality, conflations, confusions, etc., don't exactly convince me I need to worry about this at all.
What case am I supposed to be out to win again ? :popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 10:27 PM

I knew I would simply have to repeat my last post. :yup:
And somehow I knew I still wouldn't get a straight answer. Maybe we're both psychic!

vm, you get it wrong again, and I directly answered you in my last post. Deal with it. I will simply repeat:
Scarlatti's readmittance application was rejected for his reasons.
The posts he made meant we would as HH admin/mods only release the info if it was to both parties together.
The fact that you have conflated a lot of things is your own problem. The above is the important part, and the original rules or aims of the HH remain totally irrelevant.
And I will repeat that as often as necessary.
You can repeat that as many times as you want and it still won't be an answer. I know, I'll reiterate too! That should be productive.

You accused Scarlatti of having violated the rules of HH, have thus far failed to produce any evidence to support that accusation, and refer now to my reiteration of the request for evidence as a non sequitur. Please produce evidence that Scarlatti violated the confidentiality rule of HH or anyone's privacy therein (with the exception of Sweetie in his post of a year ago) or retract your accusation that he has violated the HH rules.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 10:34 PM

And somehow I knew I still wouldn't get a straight answer.
No, you're dead wrong again. You got a very straight answer, you're simply confused about the course of the discussion, and beyond my stressing the important points and telling you to go back and re-read the thread as it happened, I can't be bothered putting you straight.
Given your total failure to deal with so many things, I think I can be forgiven my ..... impatience. :yup:
You can repeat that as many times as you want
Quite right ! :yup:
and it still won't be an answer.
Quite wrong ! Simply because you don't like it and simply because it doesn't fit your preconceptions, doesn't make it a non-answer at all.
I know, I'll reiterate too!
Don't you feel rather silly ? It doesn't worry me, because I am very practical and also have quite a sense of humour and the absurd. :yup:
You ........
Wrong ! See last 2 posts, go back and re-read thread as it happened. :popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 10:40 PM

Wrong ! See last 2 posts, go back and re-read thread as it happened. :popcorn:
Nah, I don't think I'll waste any more time on this.

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 10:50 PM

:yup: Ah well, I have nothing better to do, so I will have mercy on you, vm. Mercy, I tell you ! :yup: 3. As far as I can tell, Scarlatti hasn't once violated the HH confidentiality rule,....
Actually, the FF has a very similar rule ---- no inappropriate disclosure of others' personal information.
See What Are the Rules Of The HH? (http://www.heathenhangout.com/FAQ1-8.html)
Inside the Heathen Hangout, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as ...... inappropriate revealment of others' personal information, .......... In other words, you are free to say what you like, though violating HH forum rules and admittance criteria will mean the risk of banning.
IOW, already "inappropriate revealment of others' personal information" is mentioned, and that has been the case for a long while since I put that FAQ up.
More:
7) No revealing of personal info gained inside HH outside HH without express permission beforehand. No inappropriate revealing of others' personal information.
That's a direct contravention of HH rules right there. That rule has been up a fair while.
Clearly you were accusing him of violating some rule at HH. If it wasn't the HH confidentiality rule you were referring to, then why did you quote me saying that he hadn't violated the HH confidentiality rule.

Tsk, vm, what you misunderstand here is the nature of the problem.
You claim I accuse Scarlatti of violating rules. I pointed out to you waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before his posts in question were the ones violating the new rules, and his reasons for wanting readmittance was also in violation.

Now: Scarlatti's posts in question violate HH confidentiality rules in that they constitute wholly inappropriate revealing of another person's personal info.
I know I explained that previously some time waaaaaaaay back in this thread, hey ! I know ! :yup: Right in the post you actually quote !
How come you did not deal with it ? :eek:

Now, the important question is, what does that violation mean ?
It means we HH admin + mods won't release the info unless we release it to both Sweetie and Scarlatti wth their agreement.

Now of course I asked you if you had any objections to that, and of course you did not answer; you seem simply desperate to clutch at non sequitur straws.

How about I put it all in tiny little words again ? :yup:

1) Scarlatti's posts in question violate HH confidentiality rules in that they constitute wholly inappropriate revealing of another person's personal info.

2) Such an event as this will not be allowed to happen again, in that it would be immediately dealt with as soon as I or a mod get to see it.

3) It means we HH admin + mods won't release the info unless we release it to both Sweetie and Scarlatti wth their agreement.

There we go ! :yup:
And to think that all of that was already said several times in this thread !
Makes me think you're not paying attention or something. :(

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 10:55 PM

Nah, I don't think I'll waste any more time on this.
Fallacy of lack of stamina.
Fallacy of lack of smilies.

You're not winning your case ?

No, come on, now, you can't blame me for being flippant when you've so obviously not dealt with things said so often in this thread, as detailed in my post just above. I mean, really, you just have not really tried to deal with the actual bones of this all, and you concentrate on wild-goose chases and making silly accusations.
I think a little flippancy is in order in response. :popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 11:16 PM

Okay. Let's go back to the root of that exchange. In one line item of a post, I said (split into two parts):

i) As far as I can tell, Scarlatti hasn't once violated the HH confidentiality rule, and in fact hasn't violated anyone's privacy anywhere (that I'm aware of) with the exception of the incident a year ago at HH for which he has already admitted responsibility.

ii) And in fact since neither he or Sweetie is a member of HH, I don't see any reason that the HH administration need be involved at all.
I already know you disagree with ii) and why. Do you disagree with i)?

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 11:27 PM

Re-read this whole post, in which that was already answered, and it was also pointed out it had been answered already several times (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=86859#post86859).

Deal with it.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 11:31 PM

Now, the important question is, what does that violation mean ?
It means we HH admin + mods won't release the info unless we release it to both Sweetie and Scarlatti wth their agreement.

Now of course I asked you if you had any objections to that, and of course you did not answer; you seem simply desperate to clutch at non sequitur straws.

How about I put it all in tiny little words again ? :yup:

1) Scarlatti's posts in question violate HH confidentiality rules in that they constitute wholly inappropriate revealing of another person's personal info.

2) Such an event as this will not be allowed to happen again, in that it would be immediately dealt with as soon as I or a mod get to see it.

3) It means we HH admin + mods won't release the info unless we release it to both Sweetie and Scarlatti wth their agreement.

o, come on, now, you can't blame me for being flippant when you've so obviously not dealt with things said so often in this thread, as detailed in my post just above.
Since I have already acknowledged understanding of every one of those statements numerous times, I'm not sure what I have to do to earn recognition as having "dealt with them". What else do I have to do? And what relevance does any of that have to my question in the previous post?

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 11:35 PM

Since I have already acknowledged understanding of every one of those statements numerous times, I'm not sure what I have to do to earn recognition as having "dealt with them".
Just deal with it all ? It did after all directly answer your questions.
What else do I have to do? And what relevance does any of that have to my question in the previous post?
No, you're not even trying. Tsk. Back to smilies. :popcorn:
I'm really totally unimpressed by all this. What was this case you claimed I had to win again ? Do tell.

viscousmemories

07-04-2005, 11:41 PM

Gurdur

07-04-2005, 11:53 PM

Okay then, barring any further clarification from you I will deal with this by concluding that you agree in full that Scarlatti has not violated the confidentiality rule of HH or any individual's privacy therein (or anywhere else) with the exception of his post re: Sweetie, for which he has acknowledged responsibility and made amends on his own terms.
You can conclude what you like; it's really not my concern.
You are wrong in certain important details yet again, but they've already been said several times in this thread, and very obviously, you're not trying at all any more, you're simply clutching at straws, and displaying the odd partialities from before.
In other words, you have produced no evidence at all that Scarlatti should be judged as having "poisonous, lying and cowardly ways".
See ?
I've told you pretty much a lot why I concluded that, you dive for a pretext and ignore all I said.
Now tell me why I should think your opinion important. :yup:
I understand and appreciate that you (and raspberrybullets) hold that subjective opinion of Scarlatti, but in my opinion you have failed to demonstrate why anyone else should agree.
Too bad for you. I add your opinion is not everyone else's. And you've been very far from convincing.
Case closed!
heh, heh, you really think so ? Come on, really, now ? :?
It's just an excuse for you to leave the thread; fine, no skin off my nose.

D. Scarlatti

07-05-2005, 12:44 AM

I'm saying goodbye to this thread as well. At this point, I simply feel sorry for Gurdur, and I'm not even interested in watching him twist in the wind anymore. I'm also tired of his continual misrepresentation of my posts, and his inability to reply to deliberately cherry-picked portions of them with anything other than juvenile invective.

As I said earlier, this is what trolls do. They hurl unsubstantiated defamations and then attempt to characterize defenses to them, or requests for supporting examples, as "whining," and address their targets as "little boys" in hopes of raising the ire of their targets and having them take their eyes off the ball. Such tactics are unconvincing, to say the least.

For example, what I said was that I was indifferent to whether or not how I proceeded in dealing with a certain issue conformed with Gurdur's personal demands and timetable, not that I was indifferent to his unsubstantiated defamations.

I doubt many would be indifferent to being called a poisonous, cowardly liar, whether it was based on someone's fantasy world or not. Yet Gurdur transparently attempts to turn my explicitly stated indifference to a very specific demand of his into a general indifference to anything he posts here, including his defamations, in the hopes of making me look like a hypocrite for claiming general indifference while simultaneously "bumping the thread." He's not fooling me, and I trust he's not fooling anyone else.

But now I'm indifferent to all of Gurdur's nonsense and defamations as well, because they are so blatantly false, as are many of the other statements he's made in this thread. And this is not to mention his suggestions that I've not apologized for my regrettable post, and whether I'm being sincere in those apologies. Those are even more pathetic and baseless. Such aspersions are the last refuge of the troll.

More than 100 posts into this thread after calling me a poisonous, cowardly liar, and he's been completely incapable of providing anything anywhere near a basis for this "opinion," and I call it an "opinion" charitably. In fact, not only has he failed to support this "opinion," he's now actually been reduced to calling me a liar ("Scarlatti lies again," he says) simply for restating his own refusal to allow me access to the HH. That's borderline neurotic, and one of the reasons why my attitude is now one of pity.

raspberrybullets, evidently in support for her own personal accusation that I am a poisonous, cowardly liar, cited a couple of posts I made in the "Gurdur banned from IIDB" thread. I had asked whether anyone had found the reason why Gurdur was banned. raspberrybullets responded, "Because he was right." "I know that," I replied, "We're talking about Gurdur after all," meaning, admittedly quite facetiously, that Gurdur is never wrong.

Unfortunately, my comment was far from an example of a poisonous, cowardly lie, but rather a truth that's found undeniable resonance in this thread alone.

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 12:50 AM

I'm saying goodbye to this thread as well.
Ooooooo ! Scarlatti says goodbye for the third time ! Or is it the fifth ?
Oh, hang on, that's no surprise anyway. :popcorn:
But now I'm indifferent
And yes ! The repeated claim of indifference again !
With lots and lots and lots of other words ! :popcorn:
a truth.
Give it up, little boy.

raspberrybullets

07-05-2005, 01:20 AM

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 01:58 AM

vm,

First of all - I did not ever say or even imply as far as I can ascertain, that Scarlatti was a 'lying, poisonous coward' because of the posts on HH. I don't even remember what was in those posts and nothing I said about Scarlatti ever had anything to do with that. And I would kindly appreciate if you stopped accusing me of such. <snip>

Here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=85913#post85913), in your first post to Scarlatti, you claim that your agreement that he is a poisonous, lying coward is based entirely on the content of this thread:

Actually Scarlatti, I was simply referring to your behaviour in this thread alone.

<snip>

As I said, I was basing this only on what you have posted in this thread.

But then yesterday, in this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=86627#post86627), you said it was his comments in this thread... plus:

Plus, having already seen his posts in other threads, I felt Gurdur's comments were more than likely completely justified.

But here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=86655#post86655) you said:

My thoughts as to his being a lying, poisonous coward came into it later, after many more posts here and from other things not associated with this thread.
This may be where I misunderstood you. I took "things not associated with this thread" as a reference to posts in HH. I see now that you might just as well have been reiterating that you were basing your comments on other posts here.

<hr>

Secondly, I think you have confused the HH issue with the original opinions Gurdur and I made about Scarlatti. We never brought up the topic. As I and Gurdur have already mentioned numerous times. The HH issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Scarlatti being a 'lying, poisonous coward' except that because of it being constantly brought up here in this thread, it shown off some of these character traits.
You have got to be kidding me.
Scarlatti's behaviour is odious ---- and what makes it so laughable is that he addresses his first post in this thread to Sweetie, advising her "dnftt" in a direct abusive and trolling attack on me -- and Sweetie is the person whom Scarlatti wholly inappropriately abused by posting personal info of hers in the first place. Hey, how duplicitous can one get ?

Scarlatti's behaviour is cowardly in many ways: [...] - let alone the cowardice implied in his transgressions of Sweetie's privacy -- all of which has partly come to light.

vm, the info about Sweetie -- inappropraite revealing of her own personal details --- is inside the HH. Sweetie made remarks about the whole HH on the basis of that.
Oh, and you have said yourself that there was a lot of poison inside the old HH.
That is a very basic point. I, both as a human and also as HH admin, owe Sweetie an ethical duty.

We've already established through Scarlatti's story of the events makes clear there is some inappropriate revealing of such personal info -- which IMHO the previous admin should not have allowed .

Scarlatti made it the business of every HH member when he committed his actions originally.
Now he wants to cover his ass. Tough shit. Why the fuck did he do all this in the first place, why the fuck couldn't he be bothered to apologise to Sweetie for over a year, and why the fuck does he want to spin it now with his repetitive abuse rather than simply deal openhandedly with the issue ?
Do I have to go on? Gurdur has very clearly and repeatedly used Scarlatti's HH post as 'evidence' of his flawed character here.

<hr>

Thirdly, your complete dismissal of my previous post except to comment on my defending a friend, appears to me that you a) have nothing more to say because what I said is true and accurate and b) you try to undermine everything else I say by assuming I only say it because I am defending Gurdur.
There are more than two options. In fact I thought that most of your comments were covered by my responses to Gurdur or irrelevant to the main issue, which is why I didn't respond to the bulk of it. I maintain my insinuation that your initial unsolicited personal attack on Scarlatti was inspired by a desire to defend Gurdur and without any obvious justification beyond that.

Completely false. Gurdur can take care of himself, and as the HH issue has nothing to do with the Scarlatti issue originally started in this thread, the posts I make about that have nothing to do with me wishing to support Gurdur but because I believe what I say. I may also add that I would not have agreed with any statements made, simply because they were made by a friend unless, I agreed with them also. So don’t assume that just because I am defending somebody based on friendship, what I say is any less true to me. My ethics wouldn’t allow me to do say something I did not think was true simply to be in agreement with somebody else.
As I said above, that's not how it looks to me.

Finally, I'm incredibly disappointed in you vm at your dishonesty, I expected more out of you. It is particularly ironic after you thanking me for my honesty.
Well I wish I could say I'm shocked that you would accuse me of being a liar without any evidence, but under the circumstances I'm not at all. You seem to be quick to accuse people of lying without any evidence.

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 02:14 AM

Secondly, I think you have confused the HH issue with the original opinions Gurdur and I made about Scarlatti. We never brought up the topic. As I and Gurdur have already mentioned numerous times. The HH issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Scarlatti being a 'lying, poisonous coward' except that because of it being constantly brought up here in this thread, it shown off some of these character traits.
You have got to be kidding me.
Scarlatti's behaviour is odious .....
vm, that's very dishonest of you. raspberrybullets gave you her reasons, you cite my posts as if they were determining her own reasons ? Flat out dishonest of you.
There are more than two options. In fact I thought that most of your comments were covered by my responses to Gurdur or irrelevant to the main issue, which is why I didn't respond to the bulk of it.
Except you complained before about raspberrybullets not answering you, only as she said, you ignored most of what she said and mischaracterised it.
I maintain my insinuation that your initial unsolicited personal attack on Scarlatti was inspired by a desire to defend Gurdur and without any obvious justification beyond that.
Your partiality has been obvious from the beginning, your refusal to deal with raspberrybullets' last posts and harping on your assertion, and your dismal failure to deal with points, as well as constant mischaracterizations, mean your opinion on this is fairly worthless.

Well I wish I could say I'm shocked that you would accuse me of being a liar without any evidence, but under the circumstances I'm not at all. You seem to be quick to accuse people of lying without any evidence.
Actually, this makes me laugh. :yup:
Before you accused me of being a liar, simply because you used the word "spurious" and I took you at face value, and it turned out you had to check what you were saying in the dictionary. :P
You've been very quick to throw around accusations of lying, based on nothing more than your own confusion as to what you want to say, you've made it very obvious you simply will not deal with points and you want to clutch at pretext straws, and now you try attacking raspberrybullets ?
No. You really need to do better. Much better.
:popcorn:

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 02:30 AM

vm, that's very dishonest of you. raspberrybullets gave you her reasons, you cite my posts as if they were determing her reasons ? Flat out dishonest of you.
It's not at all dishonest of me, since she was very clearly speaking for both of you when she said (emphasis mine):
Secondly, I think you have confused the HH issue with the original opinions Gurdur and I made about Scarlatti. We never brought up the topic.
Will you retract your unfounded accusation of dishonesty now? I doubt it.

Your partiality has been obvious from the beginning, [...]
On the contrary, your attempt to smear my character through false allegations of dishonesty and partiality is what is obvious here. And every bit as transparent, I have to say, as your attempt to do the same to Scarlatti. You really aren't fooling anybody here, Gurdur. I don't know what kind of fools you take us for.

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 02:42 AM

It's not at all dishonest of me, since she was very clearly speaking for both of you when she said ...
Oh, it's very dishonest of you in two different ways, vm.
First off, you try claiming I was basing my judgment on the "post", when I made it clear to you I based it on a whole lot of public things, including Scarlatti's actions in this thread. How many times have I repeated that ? :yup:
then raspberrybullets gave you her reasons, and you mischaracterized them.

Your desperate seach for self-justification doesn' t work.
Will you retract your unfounded accusation of dishonesty now? I doubt it.
heh, please come off it. You've made so many nasty little insinuations in this thread, you've made so many ridiculous accusations,I've tackled you so may times on these and you refuse to answer, Scarlatti throws tanturms around like he fears they will got out of stock tomorrow, you ignore all that, and you want fair treatment ? hmmmm ? Miss the point here, do you ?

On the contrary, your attempt to smear my character through false allegations of dishonesty and partiality is what is obvious here. And every bit as transparent, I have to say, as your attempt to do the same to Scarlatti. You really aren't fooling anybody here, Gurdur. I don't know what kind of fools you take us for.
This is pure bluster, vm. :yup:
But if you really want to know: I take you for the kind of person who accuses me of lying when it's simply you don't know the meaning of the word "spurious" and then you have to retreat because of that. :P

I also take you for the kind of person who has been given every chance to discuss this properly, except you refuse to, and you clutch at pretexts instead.

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 02:54 AM

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 03:05 AM

And while we're just hanging around here, if either of you could produce some evidence of Scarlatti lying or retract that apparently unfounded allegation that'd be great. I'll wait right here.

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 03:07 AM

[...] you want fair treatment ? hmmmm ? Miss the point here, do you ?
That's a very interesting comment, Gurdur. You wouldn't happen to be admitting that you are being deliberately unfair and antagonistic toward me here would you?
No, I'ld simply say I am pointing out you are being so, towards me and rb.
You've identified yourself very closely with Scarlatti in your previous post, you've being giving every appearence of partiality throughout, you've acted as though somehow his abuse was all justified, and every time I actually try discussing the issues as they are with you, you try mischaracterizations, wild accusations and wild-goose chases.

You could have right from the beginning treated our concerns genuinely; you're niot even trying to. So basically you now get treated as though you're simply not interested in a genuine discussion --- which you don't appear to be at all.

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 03:10 AM

And while we're just hanging around here, if either of you could produce some evidence of Scarlatti lying or retract that apparently unfounded allegation that'd be great. I'll wait right here.
Go back and re-read the thread. :P
I do believe I commented directly on some of his statements here several times.

BTW, Scarlatti's made a point of repeatedly naming me a troll, also as his excuse for not taking up the HH offer to him and Sweetie; I do believe you actually disagreed twice with Scarlatti ?

So tell me: is Scarlatti simply deliberately lying, or is he suffering from delusions ?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to retract numerous statements yourself. Back to thread, I can't be bothered citing them again.

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 03:17 AM

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 03:24 AM

I'll take that as a "Why no, vm, I can't produce any evidence that Scarlatti has lied. But I can sure wave my hands a lot!"
Fine, fine, I'll take that as meaning you haven't read the thread, shall I ? :P

Truly, vm, this is just so ridiculous. You're really not trying to deal at all properly with anything here at all, Scarlatti managed to start this all off in this thread with really stupid, lying abuse (which you deliberately keep on refusing to deal with), you just close your eyes to that all and then you allege I'm being all unnecessarily antagonistic ?

hey, come on now, surely you can see that is simply plain silly. And sadly, totally unnecessary of you. You've been given every chance to discuss it --- here, in PM; you simply don't want to, and you want to make excuses. It doesn't work.

Tell me: is it simply you feel you must have the last post ? Or what ?

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 03:35 AM

Truly, vm, this is just so ridiculous. You're really not trying to deal at all properly with anything here at all, Scarlatti managed to start this all off in this thread with really stupid, lying abuse (which you deliberately keep on refusig to deal with), you just close your eyes to that all and then you allege I'm being all unnecessarily antagonistic ?
Scarlatti started this off by saying DNFTT to Sweetie, implying that you are a troll and she shouldn't feed you. And I've gotta be honest with you Gurdur, everything he has said in this thread leads me to believe that he wholeheartedly believes that. So no, that doesn't look to me like evidence of lying at all. Got anything else?

Gurdur

07-05-2005, 04:23 AM

Scarlatti started this off by saying DNFTT to Sweetie, implying that you are a troll and she shouldn't feed you. And I've gotta be honest with you Gurdur, everything he has said in this thread leads me to believe that he wholeheartedly believes that. So no, that doesn't look to me like evidence of lying at all. Got anything else?
Fine, fine, Scarlatti's suffering from willful delusions then. I've clearly specified other statements of his on this thread as lies, you refuse to deal with them, I'm not going to waste my own time citing them again. Just go back and re-read the thread. It doesn't matter, it and he are really not important in the slightest. Now, vm, since my head is about to explode from the pure boredom of all this crap, I'm going to deal with you in one final post, and since unlike some, I mean what I say, I won't be back to even read any replies to this. I will sum it up; you've been given all the evidence that can be given, I can't be bothered doing more since you so clearly can't be bothered dealing straight with this at all, and your opinion doesn't worry in me in the slighest. I find it incredibly both sad and silly of you to behave this way, but hey, it's not my problem, only the boredom is my problem and that ends now. Don't try using this post as "proof" of anything at all, you've being told repeatedly what I think, and I stand by what I say ---- something a few people should learn. Your total refusal to deal with the issues and your game-playing is your own problem, but I'm checking out of it.

viscousmemories

07-05-2005, 06:17 AM

Well, on the off chance that you change your mind and come back...

So no, that doesn't look to me like evidence of lying at all. Got anything else?
Fine, fine, Scarlatti's suffering from willful delusions then. I've clearly specified other statements of his on this thread as lies, you refuse to deal with them, I'm not going to waste my own time citing them again.
So you admit that the evidence you gave is insufficient to justify your allegation that Scarlatti is a liar, but then cite some "other statements of his on this thread" that you have "clearly specified" as lies (and by "clearly specified" I can only assume you mean "asserted"), and then you assert (without support) that I refuse to "deal with" them, and wrap it up with a lament about how you can't be bothered to repeat yourself. There isn't even a speck of substance to this bit; it's just smoke and mirrors.

Just go back and re-read the thread.
I've read and re-read the thread more times than I can count, Gurdur, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your allegation that Scarlatti has ever lied, much less here. Not even a shred.

It doesn't matter, it and he are really not important in the slightest.
I don't share that opinion.

Now, vm, since my head is about to explode from the pure boredom of all this crap, I'm going to deal with you in one final post, and since unlike some, I mean what I say, I won't be back to even read any replies to this.
We shall see.

I will sum it up; you've been given all the evidence that can be given, [...]
Yes, I rather suspect that's the case.

I can't be bothered doing more since you so clearly can't be bothered dealing straight with this at all, and your opinion doesn't worry in me in the slighest.
Another barely concealed accusation that I'm being disingenuous, consistent with all your other unwarranted and unsupported personal attacks and false allegations toward and about me on this thread.

I find it incredibly both sad and silly of you to behave this way, but hey, it's not my problem, only the boredom is my problem and that ends now.
I wish it were only sad and silly that you resort to personal attacks and defamation whenever someone challenges your interpretation of events. Unfortunately it's pretty fucking miserable.

Don't try using this post as "proof" of anything at all, you've being told repeatedly what I think, and I stand by what I say ---- something a few people should learn.
Oh, I've learned that you stand by what you say alright. Quite obviously even long after it has been shown to be completely unfounded. This post is proof of a lot of things, it doesn't need any prodding from me.

Your total refusal to deal with the issues and your game-playing is your own problem, but I'm checking out of it.
And you sign off with more completely unsupported and unwarranted character defamation. This post will go down in history.