Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look at your attempts to dishonestly distort reality, all you have is slimey insinuations and feeble attempts to extract some kind of moral leverage based on plastic transparent loaded questions. Look at you, you are a sham, a charlatan, a mere trickster.

Do you defend my right to confront you over these issues in the way I have?

Originally posted by FMF
Why haven't you mounted the same kind of defence of Duchess64?

already answered this, why do you repeat ad nauseam the same drivel again and again and again , why are you sooooooooo tedious.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am defending his right to a defence.

So you are not defending him but you are, instead, defending the right to defend him? You didn't say this when you started this thread.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you defend my right to confront you over these issues in the way I have?

I rue the day when i am called upon to defend mediocrity!

Originally posted by FMF
So you are [b]not defending him but you are, instead, defending the right to defend him? You didn't say this when you started this thread.[/b]

cya.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
already answered this, why do you repeat ad nauseam the same drivel again and again and again , why are you sooooooooo tedious.

The repetition is caused by the fact that, as we try to dissect what you have done and said, it keeps coming back to the fact you have been completely hypocritical, an yet it is not something you are willing to acknowledge.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I didn't read her comments, so have no stance.

No, RC has conveniently had them deleted.

Certainly the thread in spirituality that got deleted did not contain anything that warranted
anyone getting banned, or the thread being deleted.

I for one have complained to the site admins about this incident, with no reply as yet.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, RC has conveniently had them deleted.

Certainly the thread in spirituality that got deleted did not contain anything that warranted
anyone getting banned, or the thread being deleted.

I for one have complained to the site admins about this incident, with no reply as yet.

From what I can recall you have had one or more people banned for lesser crimes and here you are defending someone for making serious allegations against another user on the basis of nothing more than some vile insinuations in a blatant attempt to vilify them? We wont call you a hypocrite for our imagination is better than that, lets start with an impuissant, atesticular, spineless gelding of a Wendy whining like a feckless Nancy. Howz that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...here you are defending someone for making serious allegations against another user on the basis of nothing more than some vile insinuations in a blatant attempt to vilify them?

Nothing that Duchess64 ~ or anyone else ~ said about you on the thread "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" was untrue. So why was the thread deleted?

Originally posted by FMF
The repetition is caused by the fact that, as we try to dissect what you have done and said, it keeps coming back to the fact you have been completely hypocritical, an yet it is not something you are willing to acknowledge.

I can see you clearly now. You are a kind of illusionist, a trickster, a conjurer, a smoke and mirrors type of guy that relies on slight of hand, a little insinuation here, a loaded question there in the hope that you can trick your audience. You have little understanding of what a fantasy defence is, even less understanding how it differs from what Duchess64 did and as a consequence seem intent in repeating the same hackneyed assertions again and again ad nauseum as if somehow you repeat them often enough they might become real. Your one dimensional, finger pointing, intellectually bereft, B-move barrister routine is tedious sir, tedious to the point of nausea, seriously its very very dull.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not defended Dasa's vilification of anyone nor his genocidal claims, infact what I have stated is that his claims regarding genocide are fantasy on the basis that they could not have been realistically carried out.

How can you possibly separate what you call Dasa's "fantasy" (the expression of which you claim you were defending) from what you call his "hate crime" (which you claim you were not defending)? Dasa's "fantasy" of genocide was an integral part of his hate speech [or "hate crime"]. You trying to separate one from the other, and defend one and not the other, is nothing more than you trying to hold a fig leaf over your behaviour on this thread.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have little understanding of what a fantasy defence is, even less understanding how it differs from what Duchess64 did.

Dasa's "fantasy" was the very substance of his hate speech which you have described as "hate crime". What Duchess64 and others said about you on the deleted "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" thread was completely true.

Originally posted by FMF
Nothing that Duchess64 ~ or anyone else ~ said about you on the thread "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" was untrue. So why was the thread deleted?

because you cannot make serious allegations on the basis of insinuation. Did you like it when people insinuated that you were a paedophile? No? why not? because its a serious allegation based on insinuation, not fact. Citing that other people think you are a paedophile is not evidence, it may be true bit its not evidence, stating that other people are suspicious of you might be true, but its not evidence, its a vilification of someone on the basis of NO evidence and if you do not understand that i don't think there is much hope for you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because you cannot make serious allegations on the basis of insinuation. Did you like it when people insinuated that you were a paedophile? No? why not? because its a serious allegation based on insinuation, not fact.

So why have you repeatedly insinuated that I am a pedophile?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a vilification of someone on the basis of NO evidence and if you do not understand that i don't think there is much hope for you.

Your morally unsound stances on rape are well documented and well known. Your claim that forcing women to have sex was not rape (in a marriage) was trotted out across 40 thread pages on two threads on two forums. Your defence of the cover up of the rape of children in your organization, and the downplay of its prevalence, along with the attempts to discredit victims and witnesses are all well documented and well known. To suggest there is "no evidence" is false. Everything said about you on the now deleted "Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" thread was entirely true