Bumble Bee Tuna

Oh, so you redefined 'reader' as "someone who spends so much time on II that they can manage to read this thread multiple times in a single day". I define reader as 'someone who reads the thread'.

I do not have an estimate. I can't determine any viable means of producing one, without doing extensive research watching the 'Who's Online' page and recording data. And even then I would need past data that is no longer recordable. If I had to say, though, I would estimate at least 25 people have read this thread, erring on the side of caution, but it's impossible to know whether those posters have stopped bothering yet or not. However, I'd be inclined to think that the ones that did decide to stop reading the thread did so because you ruined any hope for discussion and thus they'd fall into the sick of Rad category. I don't see the value in coming up with arbitrary estimates that are based on fairly variable assumptions. I still think it's funny, though, that you're trying to ignore being called out on how ridiculous your math is. Your estimate could be right, it's certainly possible. But the "math" you did to arrive at that estimate was entirely arbitrary.

If your estimate happened to be correct, it would be just like someone saying 16/64 = 1/4 by cancelling the 6s. Yeah, they're right, but their method would fail anywhere else. Your method is completely worthless.

-B

Family Man

That's a big if, Rad. What is cynical is to say: I have a list but I'm not going to publish it.

No, Rad, you don't have a list. You never did.

Radorth

And if I published it in the next ten minutes, you would do what EXACTLY?

"Help" prove you wrong ain't good enough. And no there is no benefit to me or anybody else because it would merely set off another round of time wasting accusations of lying and semantical arguments. Right? Thanks anyway. I learned my lesson after the Gang defined "incapable" as "pretty much without" and then ignored all other statements I made which show I never thought I was incapable of sin.

Rad

Radorth

I didn't say that either. You had to rewrite what I said to make a point. Man you want to be in the Gang bad, don't you BBT?

Wow hey, we're down to 25 regular readers who might actually give a rat's butt about this thread? I doubt ti anyway. You underestimate the intelligence of folks here I think. It's closer to 10.

Rad

christ-on-a-stick

Hey Radorth,

Well, going along with your "if I were to publish the list in the next 10 minutes" scenario, what would *I* do EXACTLY?

Well, if the list genuinely showed Fenton to have misquoted you, I would expect him to concede to having misquoted you and I would also (finally!) be convinced that you are not lying your head off.

What would you expect people to do???

By a) making an accusation b) claiming to have proof of it and c) refusing to show that proof, you are making yourself appear to be not only a liar, but the worst kind of hypocrite. Now you and I haven't tangled (that I can recall) on these boards so I don't think you can honestly brush aside my observation here by lumping me in with some "Gang" or claiming I have a "grudge".

I'm just an interested onlooker who finds your behavior reprehensible considering you come here as a "witness for Christ".

Daggah

Put up or shut up, Radorth.

Bumble Bee Tuna

So tell me, how does someone who "tune[s] in say two or three times a day" NOT fit the description of someone visiting II so often that they can view this thread multiple times? You can't tune into a thread 2 to 3 times a day without visiting II multiple times daily (or if someone was so obsessed with this thread that they would visit it multiple times in a single session). I didn't change anything of substance in your definition, I just exaggerated to make it more obvious what was stupid about that definition, since you obviously were incapable of seeing what was wrong with the original form.

Regardless, your estimate is already too low. Just looking at the "Topic Review" below the reply field I can count 12 members aside from you who are reading and replying to this thread. And that's only the people who have posted in the last 40 posts, and completely excluding lurkers.

BTW to answer your scenario I would look at the supposed evidence and see if I agreed that they were instances of you being misquoted or if that was just your persecution complex acting up again. If I thought they were misquotes, I would say so, though it wouldn't really make me care much. Your methodology of hiding the evidence until the thread was derailed a few miles from the track is reprehensible whether the evidence exists or not, though it is much worse if the evidence actually does not exist.

So why don't you end the immature bullshit and just post whatever you have? It's just getting worse and worse the longer you wait.

-B

pescifish

The kind of personal insults, accusations and bickering demonstrated in this thread is inappropriate for this forum.

All users should keep in mind the following excerpts from the Forum Rules and Policies I am temporarily closing this thread at this time because it is no longer a discussion of a General Religious nature. If the GRD mods feel it is appropriate, I urge them to reopen it with whatever guidance they feel is necessary.

pescifish, Administrator