Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Clearly if I now jump to one skeptic demand there will be a half-dozen or two dozen others, as in the claim that I had:

'abandoned .. four other threads'

(another skeptic would probably have a larger number). A doofus bureacracy suspended me so I went in other directions than all the stuff going on here. Handle it.

And having returned to the IIDB 'moderated' forums I will now post on threads at my leisure. I have no interest in posting a lot and then again starting the 'moderator dossier' stuff. Waste of time.

Or trying to have a real discussion and having the 'moderators' offer the most inane skeptic rah-rah diversions (supposedly not wearing their moderator hats but very ready to bludgeon with the 'warning') rather than helping to bring forth real dialog and scholarship.

So if you are so desirous to discuss this, that and the other with me why not set up a fairer forum and invite me over and moderate out the silly stuff, the rants, the harumphing nonsense ? And you can invite excellent Christian posters. Like Riverwind who gets banned here. And we can discuss all sorts of good topics. And as I mentioned, in some cases we can seek the proper existing venue, just PM me and start the dialog.

The situation here changed radically with the skeptic 'moderator' building of a dossier which gave the excuse for the followup suspension. And then the

"oh, it wasn't me, it was them" stuff.

"Don't bother me the facts, we're from the IIDB government and we are here to help you".

(The way they work, the ones who don't like your posts look for a reason to warn, suspend, ban .. and then they want you to come back as a begging supplicant to return .. not my style, so I will prefer to avoid the ban by stepping back from the forum .. I do learn some stuff here so I prefer to keep my 'privileges' intact.)

All this nonsense was a total surprise to me and completely changed my energy, view and responsibilities toward the forum, and my participations had been dependent upon viewing this as a reasonably sensible discussion place.

Now I see it only as a forum where some interesting factual and historical matters are researched (more on the factoid level) and when I see those I will listen and maybe contribute. I see no value whatsoever in about 90% of the discussions, many of which are threads where earlier I would read the threads and often post, looking for the snippet or two of substance. Now I skip totally or maybe do a quick skim.

And those like dreadnought (whoever he is) and the many various vulgar-and-tude posters (from whatever camp) are very welcome to skip over my posts. In many cases your skipover will be my preference.

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

No, you failed to answer questions, and then abandoned the threads. Your suspension occurred after you dodged questions for days -- not before. At any time you could have chose to answer; yet you ducked and dodged.

Everything else is your attempt to rationalize evasion and re-characterize it as a someone's - anyone's - fault except your own.

Handle it.

Steven Avery

Actually, I have rarely seen a skeptic here actually satisfied with an answer to any question. One question will lead to five more, with a cabal of skeptics all going in different directions of demanding. And the tude that you have - chiding, not listening, etc. is the norm for many. This forum is an absolute mess in that way.

Shalom,
Steven

Vicious Love

Here's the thing, though: we're not making these demands out of sheer caprice: you, yourself, explicitly promised to address Red Dave's two simple questions. You then chastised us for allegedly doing exactly what you are doing right now and, to all appearances, have been doing since reply #1.

Besides, how are our demands relevant? I thought the reason you weren't keeping your word was that you would be banned for doing so? Or have you dropped that pretense?

So you're not afraid of being banned for repeatedly breaking forum rules by calling people (mods, even!) doofuses (doofi?) and other such personal attacks, but you're afraid of being banned for answering two incredibly straightforward questions?

Your righteous indignation is... unconvincing.

I'm handling it rather well, but you should know I see it as confirmation of your hypocrisy. I imagine anyone else who's followed this exchange feels the same way. Consequently, your arguments won't carry much weight in their eyes in the future. It has to do with integrity.

And thereby break your promise. Gotcha.

I have no interest in paying back the money I borrowed last week. Funny how promises are, for people who want to be considered trustworthy.

Make you a deal, praxeus: if you answer Red Dave's two questions in a civil, straightforward manner, without dragging this martyr act out any further, and you somehow get banned for it, I will self-ban myself that very day, and never donate to this woefully corrupt site again? Deal?

viciouslove@gmail.com. Mail me the answers you promised you would have.

And how, exactly, did a moderator's actions change your responsibility to keep your word?

Lemme get this straight: this forum is unfair, therefore you cannot or will not answer two of the simplest, most straightforward questions ever posted on these boards?

The mods here are goose-stepping tyrants*, therefore all the discussions you thought were interesting are actually pointless? How does that work, exactly? Disinterest by association? We post on a board with fascist dogs* for mods, therefore we and our posts are beneath notice? And you are exempt from this because...?

* Have mercy

Vicious Love

Ah, so now it's pearls before swine, is it? We're too obnoxious and demanding to settle for you keeping your word, therefore you are under no obligation to keep your word.

None of this jives with that lecture you gave us on integrity. Feel like retracting that?

You don't say? Have you met my friend Kettle? He's trying to make it in the textile industry.

Right, nothing messes up a board quite like users chiding others, not listening, dodging questions, projecting their faults, or trying to get themselves banned and go out in a blaze of martyrdom.

Steven Avery

VL, if there are some questions to really would be good to be addressed, we can get to them in time. That is why I invited folks to discuss with me in PM about where and how. However I will not take any demands on this forum and probably we have to find another venue and better groundrules for discussion. The situation changed here radically.

Oh, your 'deal' is funny. Five other skeptics would come up with other diversions and demands and 'deals' like the one who started this stuff above. You are in no position to make a 'deal' for other posters or the forum.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
On the flood, of course the situation is not so much the date .. the questions get into the nature of the claimed evidences for older histories than the date given (whether 2000 BC, 2500 BC or whatever). They are long, rather fascinating and interesting discussions. It probably would take a good while (and energy) on any forum to get a handle on the issues and would become a major discussion enterprise.

"therefore all the discussions you thought were interesting are actually pointless?"

There are lots of mythicist discussions here that are pointless nonsense, they are starting with a ton of skeptic-baggage presups. (Look how blithely the 'moderator' declared by fiat that the gospels were not from the era of Jesus as an example, and that was on a good thread.)

Yet within such pointless discussions (often the mythicist junque) I used to look for a point or two of interest. Now I pass those discussions by.

Vicious Love

I quoted the questions in my above post, and provided my e-mail. How much time do you need?

Edit: Ah. So you were unable to provide the promised answers within the promised time. Pity.

Steven Avery

Would you please quote my "promise" to give an exact date (or my limits) for the flood ? In general; and by a "promised time".

Thanks.

(Since I do not make "promises", and have specifically stated that before, I would appreciate where I supposedly contradicted my own strong convictions about not making promises.)

And if I made no such "promise" I will expect a clear retraction.

Shalom,
Steven

Vicious Love

If Red Dave or some other user doesn't beat me to it, I'll dig it up within, say... three days good for you? I'm not a big fan of digging through old threads unless I must. The 22nd of July, 1:00 GMT, if not sooner. Promise.

Steven Avery

The only reason you have to dig through old threads (or retract your words) is that you are very specifically claiming I made "promises" about this and that.

And that therefore I could be "breaking" these "promises".

To me this is a very significant claim, especially since I very clearly, as a matter of stated conviction, do not make promises.

(Leaving aside whether I might consider "promise" as appropriate terminology for deep covenant and commitment, where the word may have applicability.)

I will challenge you to find a single "promise" I have made on this or any forum.

Shalom,
Steven Avery