Conversation with Knight about losing faith

[ok doser]

It's hard to respond to that because it is not based on reality or facts.

i find mocking effective

 

[God's Truth]

Have you been banned by TH on it?

I think he had something to do with my current ban.
He did for sure though warn me not too long ago.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think he had something to do with my current ban.
He did for sure though warn me not too long ago.

A warning isn't the same as a ban and if you were warned there was likely reason for it. You've had plenty on here haven't you?

 

[God's Truth]

A warning isn't the same as a ban and if you were warned there was likely reason for it. You've had plenty on here haven't you?

It doesn't mean it was right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It doesn't mean it was right.

Doesn't mean it was wrong either.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's hard to respond to that because it is not based on reality or facts.

Well that's just not true, which is a peculiar thing to have to say to someone with truth in here username.

In any event, let's see about your latest complaint.

I'm a mod on another site who hasn't issued an infraction or ban.

Completely and objectively true. Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

I have given a couple of warnings though.

Also verifiably true. Fewer than five, more than one. Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

Pate, most recently, who decided to stomp around in a hello thread, was given a public warning by me.

Yep. He entered a "hello" thread and, after the second negative comment was given a public warning by me. No infraction, no ban.

It went like this: "That's enough, Pate. If you can't operate in the spirit of the hello thread leave it to those who can. Consider this a warning."

Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

He knew better.

Well, I'm giving him credit for that one.

And I sometimes defend people who are taking shots that seem needless or ungrounded. You gave this "hotshot" a pos rep for doing just that.

Also true.

Midchlorian had taken a shot at you saying that your comment was something he'd have expected from a five year old. I said he must know some interesting five year olds, vocabulary wise. You gave that one a "love/heart" response. See: post 66 of that thread, from Thursday.

Also, you gave me a "like" in response to my conversation with Hazard back on Dec. 9 (just went and looked it up). Post 109 Can This Young Man Enter Heaven.

You aren't the only one I've done that for, but that's enough support.

Didn't actually do the first and sanitariums were for people with chronic physical conditions, like TB.

I never said anyone had OCD. That's an actual disorder. Sod has impulse issues, but it's not about his inability to control his tongue. It's about him being a bad guy. Look up the definition of sanitarium. It is as proffered.

The point of that was to deal with someone like you, who would go off half cocked for personal reasons, though I thought it would have been glory.

Also true. It was meant for glory.

So the only thing you could dispute factually would be this last point.

I think he had something to do with my current ban.

I had nothing to do with your current ban, but it explains what's going on with you. You should have simply asked. I'd have had a conversation about the choice you made in how to respond to someone who was trying to adjust your approach WITHOUT infraction and ban.

He did for sure though warn me not too long ago.

That one I don't remember. When and where was that? I recall having a long, private conversation that was entirely civil. Too bad you couldn't trust that and simply ask me about it.

 

[God's Truth]

Doesn't mean it was wrong either.

Of course that is what it means.

 

[God's Truth]

Well that's just not true, which is a peculiar thing to have to say to someone with truth in here username.

Why, because you say so?

You have not ever found any lie from me.
I think your name fits you though.

 

[God's Truth]

Completely and objectively true. Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

Also verifiably true. Fewer than five, more than one. Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

Pate, most recently, who decided to stomp around in a hello thread, was given a public warning by me.
Yep. He entered a "hello" thread and, after the second negative comment was given a public warning by me. No infraction, no ban.

It went like this: "That's enough, Pate. If you can't operate in the spirit of the hello thread leave it to those who can. Consider this a warning."


Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

What you say is not based on reality or facts.
You have something against my screen name because it has ‘truth’ in it. Why don’t you back off? You have a problem with people picking names of God?

You want me to like you and your name because you are a heretic and so chose that name?

 

[God's Truth]

Yep. He entered a "hello" thread and, after the second negative comment was given a public warning by me. No infraction, no ban.
It went like this: "That's enough, Pate. If you can't operate in the spirit of the hello thread leave it to those who can. Consider this a warning."

Produce any contrary evidence or this goes against your assertion.

Who are you to warn someone that were obviously abused by another?
How about give a little understanding to someone who suffered falsely by the person you want to give a warm welcome? How about since you are such a righteous judge, where were you when he was getting wrongly banned in the first place?

 

[God's Truth]

And I sometimes defend people who are taking shots that seem needless or ungrounded. You gave this "hotshot" a pos rep for doing just that.
Also true.

Midchlorian had taken a shot at you saying that your comment was something he'd have expected from a five year old. I said he must know some interesting five year olds, vocabulary wise. You gave that one a "love/heart" response. See: post 66 of that thread, from Thursday.

You didn’t threaten to ban him.
By the way, you should have stood up for me.

Also, you gave me a "like" in response to my conversation with Hazard back on Dec. 9 (just went and looked it up). Post 109 Can This Young Man Enter Heaven.

You aren't the only one I've done that for, but that's enough support.

What does all that have to do with you threatening people that shouldn’t be threatened?

 

[drbrumley]

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-asylum-and-a-sanitarium

That's the weirdest looking forum I have ever seen.

 

[God's Truth]

Didn't actually do the first and sanitariums were for people with chronic physical conditions, like TB.
I never said anyone had OCD. That's an actual disorder. Sod has impulse issues, but it's not about his inability to control his tongue. It's about him being a bad guy. Look up the definition of sanitarium. It is as proffered.

You shouldn’t use OCD as a snarky joke. As for sanitarium, I like what some people said about it.

“ I suppose the 2 names did overlap for a period of time, Asylum being the older of the 2 terms clung longer to state run or publicly funded hospitals. Sanitarium being the newer, more scientific and less stigmatized name (at the time) gained a brief connotation of referring to facilities that were newer, respite treatment focused and catering to the wealthy "eccentric" more so than the common "psychotic". (Hint, often there's no difference in those terms either... just in their pocketbook.)”


“They’re both somewhat outdated terms for a mental hospital. The difference is that an Asylum usually refers to a state run facility, while a Sanitarium is privately run. Although there is some overlap between the two terms.
As for all the people saying that it refers to a TB hospital. True, that may be where the term began. However there are (or were) many examples of Sanitariums that were dedicated mental health institutions.”

Regardless, I guess you get to make fun of people for their tragedy when it suits you.

 

[God's Truth]

That's the weirdest looking forum I have ever seen.

Have you gotten any better over the years?

I remember trying to open up about myself here and you ridiculed me.

 

[drbrumley]

Have you gotten any better over the years?

I remember trying to open up about myself here and you ridiculed me.

Um, I dont recall that....

Actually my post was just general conversation. I thought you were just linking it as it pertained to Town....I wasn't attacking anything seriously....sorry for offending you.

 

[God's Truth]

I had nothing to do with your current ban, but it explains what's going on with you. You should have simply asked. I'd have had a conversation about the choice you made in how to respond to someone who was trying to adjust your approach WITHOUT infraction and ban.

You let others with your beliefs get away with all sorts of abuse.
There is no reason ever why I should have been banned or even warned.
You should have spoken to those who constantly lied about me and harassed me.

That one I don't remember. When and where was that? I recall having a long, private conversation that was entirely civil. Too bad you couldn't trust that and simply ask me about it.

You thought you should school me on the word ‘retarded’.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course that is what it means.

Whatever. I think you have some issues going on and I'm not interested in compounding them. Take it easy.

 

[God's Truth]

Whatever. I think you have some issues going on and I'm not interested in compounding them. Take it easy.

You have issues.

 

[Town Heretic]

Who are you to warn someone that was obviously abused by another?

I'm a mod there. It's the job to remind people of the rules there. He wanted to drag old baggage from another site into the mix without any provocation. The poster in question hadn't said a word to or about him there.

How about give a little understanding to someone who suffered falsely by the person you want to give a warm welcome to?

How about Pate not stomping around to the point where two different mods have to warn him out of a thread that isn't where that conduct belongs?

where were you when he was getting wrongly banned in the first place?

I don't know that he was wrongly banned. But my concern is in how you and anyone else behaves in relation to the rules there.

Why, because you say so?

No, because you claimed that my post was, " not based on reality or facts."
When, in point of fact, it was factual and supportable, which is why I set out that response with particular.

Why don’t you back off?

I'm pretty sure you waded in. Maybe you shouldn't have. Maybe you're still assuming things that just aren't true, like you did when you told AB you thought I had something to do with your banning. I support it, because you were given a warning by another mod then told that mod you had no intention of abiding by it. That's asking for an infraction. You didn't leave them any real choice. But I wasn't there for it and played no role in it.

You want me to like you

I'm more interested in liking you. I try to find the part in anyone who isn't dedicated to ill will.

 

[Town Heretic]

You let others with your beliefs get away with all sorts of abuse.

That's just a wide ranging assumption based in who knows what. It's an easy sort of criticism because it requires no proffer of fact.

There is no reason ever why I should have been banned or even warned.

You're completely wrong on that point.

You should have spoken to those who constantly lied about me and harassed me.

Without particulars and particular knowledge I can't speak to your ongoing generalizations. I gave you a particular instance where I saw someone I though was being unfair and underscored it for them. I didn't find anything in the exchange infraction worthy.

You thought you should school me on the word ‘retarded’.

What post? I mean I don't have any recollection of issuing a warning on the point. I do recall that I tried to dissuade you from the use and gave you the same information NM gave me here a long time ago when I was making the same mistake.