@divegeester saidAre you Duchess64?
“I have detailed files”
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Terminator 2)
20 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI'm not so sure that matters to him now. You spoke up for someone he has chosen to demonize. Strap in, man.
I have always been consistent in defending those I consider friends. I am surprised you haven't realized that.
@divegeester saidI see you.
I’m not thinking of anything to do with that incident, nor anything that specific.
For a notable period you were a defender of Grampy Bobby’s posting and Robbie Carrobie generally, both of whom were in the thick of it in here. As time passed your perception was, shall we say more completed, and your allegiance to each of them waned.
I think this is what FMF will be referring to and it is how I remember the broad strokes of your 1st 12 months or so here.
"You're either for us or against us."
Nice. Such integrity.
@divegeester saidThis is starting to smell of desperation.
It’s the 8 pages of doubling down which are of pertinence, stop pretending you don’t see that.
@suzianne saidNo. You are mistaken. When I say "I think BigDoggProblem has [petewxyz's] card marked" it is not argumentum ad populum. It simply means that I agree with what BigDoggProblem said and therefore do not feel the need to restate it.
Argumentum ad populum.
Argumentum ad populum is an informal fallacy argument that contends that a claim must be true because many or most people believe it. Agreeing with BigDoggProblem is not claiming that "many or most people believe" the same thing as he and I do.
@suzianne saidI will defend or support or agree with anything Ghost of a Duke says if I think he is right and if I think he is being consistent or principled ~ which is virtually everything he posts ~ but I don't and won't do it simply because of the sort of online "allegiance" that he was talking about.
If you do, why haven't you applied it to your own interaction with the Ghost in this thread?
20 Jul 20
@suzianne saidIf you perceive some lack of integrity on my part, address it specifically by all means. I have not claimed that petewxyz has no integrity. What I have done, though, is express the opinion that he was not exhibiting much integrity on the A False Sense of Security thread. It's your prerogative if you want to see that thread differently.
Any and all that you disagree with.
So... much... integrity...
@FMF @divegeester
Judging by the preponderance of thumbs down you two have received in this thread it should be obvious to you both that your statements, comments and assertions are unworthy to be considered spirituality forum debate material.
20 Jul 20
@secondson saidYou think the thumbs down I have received means I should contribute some sort of different "spirituality forum debate material" rather than my own?
@FMF
Judging by the preponderance of thumbs down you have received in this thread it should be obvious to you that your statements, comments and assertions are unworthy to be considered spirituality forum debate material.