Originally posted by SuzianneWhy does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?
My conversations with others (including sonship) about my disagreement of this "eternal torment" issue was not all that long ago.
Originally posted by FMFAnd thus we see your reason for misdirecting. Yeah, I get that, believe me.
Sure. But if sonship has no need to "explain" what he said then I don't really see that there's been any point to anything you've been saying. Why have you been framing my quoting of sonship as "advice" to divegeester? You have been grasping the wrong end of the stick all along.
Originally posted by FMFLook, you can stop now.
Why does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?
It has NOTHING to do with it. But that's why you brought it up. To infer that *I* think it has something to do with it.
That's weak. Weak and cheap. Weak and cheap so that the weak-minded can take it in as truth and believe every single misdirected word of it. And THAT is "FMF-style forum combat".
Originally posted by FMFOk, cool, now for the "innocent act".
How is it "misdirecting"? What is it you think "misdirecting" means?
Misdirecting is what you do. And I'm far from the only one who sees it. But most don't post in this forum. That's maybe why you concentrate your efforts here.
Look, I said I was done, but I let you suck me back in. I should have stopped then.
Originally posted by SuzianneNot so. You brought it up on the previous page. You said: "Sonship and I have disagreed, most recently on this very issue of "eternal torment". Most of this was before you [divegeester] showed up in this forum. Yes, things happened here before you [divegeester] showed up." That was you bringing it up, not me.
It has NOTHING to do with it. But that's why you brought it up. To infer that *I* think it has something to do with it.
Originally posted by SuziannePerhaps divegeester is baffled by how you appear to be attacking the words sonship said when I quote them but not attacking the words sonship said when he said them. Perhaps.
That's abundantly clear, even though you spent two posts deriding my "relationship" with sonship.
Originally posted by FMFTO which, you said:
Not so. You brought it up on the previous page. You said: [b]"Sonship and I have disagreed, most recently on this very issue of "eternal torment". Most of this was before you [divegeester] showed up in this forum. Yes, things happened here before you [divegeester] showed up." That was you bringing it up, not me.[/b]
"Why does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?"
Anyone can see that these two statements have ZERO to do with each other. I have no idea why you brought up what you brought up. You can give it a rest now.