The problem with Internet liars is that despite the permanent archive of the Internet they will continue to deny their lies in the hopes that people will be too lazy to go back and look them up. As a public service to all the honest posters on AvC, I have started this page to document the liars and their lies in one easy-to-access page. If there is a liar you want to document, or a lie from a reported liar, please submit the information to Dev and Trance and be vindicated.

 

For ease of use, the most damning statements will be highlighted in red.

 

 

 

dillan

 

 

 

Lie Number One

 

Technically, dillan has lied about being a liar dozens of times, but I’m only counting it as one lie.

 

This denial occurs in the same thread when he fessed up to lying about being realitybites. He also says I accused him of saying something he didn't on the thread referenced in Lie Number Four, which is a lie.

 

“Whenever I do, you pounce on it by accusing me of lying.. It's all a perception game for you. You really are pathetic Dev.. The fact remains you call me a liar in almost every threads, and never back it up. Even the Sam Harris thread.. you called me a liar, and didn't back it up.. Infact you accused me of saying something I didn't in that thread, and yet you still accused me of lying.. This is a stupid discussion.. You are the deceptor here... you are the liar here.. You lie by branding people with unsubstantiated claims, and then once the brand sticks, it's easy to paint them that way .. This is what politicians do, and this is what you do.”

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/731e6e86d116a44b

 

Here dillan seems to imply that if you google “dillan liar”, as I suggest people do, you’ll just find me accusing him of being a liar. Obviously, he doesn’t want the new poster to actually do it because of all the times he’s lied on this group:

 

“I wouldn't waste time with Dev. He will come back and tell you that I am a liar, and you should google to find out references to where I have lied. He will fail to tell you that in all those instances it was him who had initiated that charge. It's a good gimmick.. make an accusation and point to that as a references to prove the initial charge. I just ignore him, and I think most people should.”

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/b3b124d641349f17

 

 

 

Lie Number Two

 

Dillan denied being realitybites for a long time. It was the main topic of this thread:

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/8d64a33137b0b7eb/

 

dillan: “ah ? I have no idea what you're talking about simp. who's realitybite? And how did you change the topic like that.. it's cool..”

 

dillan: “lol.. dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. Besides, you have been accusing me being disingenuous for years, what's new anyway.. :)..”

 

dillan: “I, Dillan Fernando, never posted in this group under the moniker of realitybite...@gmail.com”

 

Finally, dillan admits to being realitybites:

 

“I will address one lie I did say.. when I pretended to be realitybites.. The reason I did that was to try to prove this group is blatantly biased, But simpleton caught on to me.”

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/461f44f3ff02871f

 

Despite this admission to lying, dillan still complains when anyone calls him a liar and accuses them of being liars for it.

 

 

 

Lie Number Three

 

“Unfortunately, these dimensions cannot be measured in any meaningful way by any test, so I am not too surprised that religious people end up in the lower half of the IQ spectrum because they focus more on emotional and moral intelligence over IQ.” – Dillan

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/6e3a76a3ef893d11

 

Dev: “You are against high IQs, remember? You said yourself that people with high IQs focus less on morality. God forbid we have mental exercises. That would be anarchy.”

 

dillan: “LOL.. you are such a liar !!.. I said IQ tests cannot pick up morality AND I also said, religious people focus more on morality, that the IQ test cannot pick up!..”

cathyb: “Nope, you actually said that christians do poorly on IQ tests because they focus more on morality. The fact that this is utter nonsense and makes no sense at all (it sort of suggests that people who like running, video games,or anything at all a lot will also lose all their brain cells when confronted with an IQ test, heh) does not stop it from being an implication that if people do well on IQ tests they do so because they are focusing less on morality:”

 

<quotes Dillan>

 

“I suggest you withdraw your accusation of lying, Of course, I don't expect you to follow that suggestion, because I've read a lot of christian posts on this group; it does happen, but not often. Perhaps you will pleasantly surprise us.”

 

dillan: “Comeon Cathy. Where did I say that high IQ people focus less morality? That's what Dev accused me of saying. I know you guys like to stick together and come to his aid, but this is becoming really silly. Obviously I can't fend off and respond to everyone in the group. This has become sort of an atheists v Dillan forum now. You guys are not only being unfair, but you guys seem to be playing dirty.”

dillan: “Yes, so ? I ask you again, where did I say people with high IQ focus less on morality ? All I said was religious people focus more. That doesn't mean atheists focus less, it means religious focus is more on morality over everything else. Dev is putting words in my mouth, and you are assisting him in that.”

 

(Notice how little sense that defense makes: saying religious people focus more than atheists on morality is not saying that atheists focus less. LOL.)

Thread: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/3bec389e5e8b6917/

 

 

 

Lie Number Four

 

dillan accuses me of making up a correlation I posted a link to.

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7b185f784e58c2ae

 

This is dillan’s usual pattern of accusing others of lying when he’s caught in a lie.

 

---post from Dev---

On May 11, 5:02 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you said the following..
> "I didn't "concoct" any correlation between religiosity and economic
> development. I didn't need to. It is already accepted as fact by

> > > > anyone with any knowledge of world affairs."

> So, where did I say that there you concocted that specific
> correlation?

The post that was a response to, you fucking genius!

 

"LOL.. no.. just the correlation you concocted using that." -- you

 

Seriously, dillan. Stop it. You're hurting yourself.

 

> That's what you accused me of doing.. saying something you didn't
> say.. and here you are doing the same thing..

No, dillan, like I said before--everything I accused you of saying you
said. I just proved it _yet again_, I just proved this whole schtick
of yours is a crazy lie, so just stop it. Nobody but you could be
stupid enough to deny it. Except maybe Keith. Or Brock.

---end---

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/669b3dc475459b42

 

Full thread for reference: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/6faedc62fd039a6/

 

 

 

Brock Organ

 

 

 

Dev: “And it obviously refers to how they defined ‘injury’, since that same report confirms that _he burned a fucking cross into a student_.”

Brock: “The report does not confirm that, rather, it simply alleges that is nature of the complaint;  the report concludes: <posts some quotes from the report>”

 

Dev: “You are simply lying, Brock. Why do you think that's acceptable? It says in the report, and I quote:

 

‘Mr. Freshwater did burn a cross onto the complaining family’s child’s
arm using an electrostatic device not designed for that purpose.’

 

You are such a fucking liar, and I can prove you knew better because your quote:

 

‘While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose.’

 

Is followed _DIRECTLY_ by this:

 

‘Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an 'X' not a 'cross,' all of the students described the marking as a 'cross' and the pictures provided depict a 'cross'.’

 

So there we have it, Brock. You are lying, lying, lying and it's right there on the Internet forever that you're a worthless liar.”

 

After this refute, Brock Organ simply repeated his initial lie. And it came up again on another thread, in which Brock continued to lie.

 

Brock Organ denying the lie after the fact:

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/0904f3baa64ea44c

 

Me linking to the relevant posts, in which I exposed the lie.

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/437202b196d29910

 

Link to the original thread:

 

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/a242c83a3419c00b/

 

 

 

GamingAsshole

 

 

 

After a long refute of GamingAsshole’s incorrect definition of “secular”, he backpeddled. But instead of admitting he made a mistake, he pretended he got it right the first time as an excuse to be hostile and accuse another poster of misinterpretation.

 

Post #1

GamingAsshole: A secular nation is described as a nation that has no religion, not a diverse nation of religions.  Are you this stupid?

Post #2

 

Dev: Let's go ahead and assume, just for fun, that your definition of "secular" as a nation of no religion was correct. Now how the fuck does that make sense? Not even the Founding Fathers attempted to _eliminate_ religion from the populus, or thought it would ever happen. By your disproven definition of "secular", your initial statement makes absolutely no fucking sense at all.

 

Post #3

 

GamingAsshole: Of no religion?  Dipshit, I said a government that does not recognize any religion.  A country can be composed entirely of religious people and still be secular.

Thread: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/37505a3e1998a91d/

 

 

 

 Chris

 

 

 

Chris is worth mentioning because he constantly accuses other people of being liars for accurately relaying things he says, and later denies.

 

Does Chris defend rape?

Thread: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/7d26375f79ed2ee0/

 

"Well, I don't know. Imagine what usually happened when a country overran another one. Women WERE raped, *ripped up*, the usual stuff. Combat was hand to hand, not the type were *accustomed* to. Women in particular often felt the brunt of dangerously high levels of testosterone. It might seem kind of strange that God gave them rules whereby they can take liberties, but what were the alternative ways that invaders dealt with women?" – Chris’s defense for rape (one of them, quoted—hence his nickname, “Nazi Rape Boy”)

 

“No, you're a liar. A damned dirty liar. And you know it. I've explained this numerous times. In that post I was attempting to put certain things in context. That STILL doesn't mean I understood the reasons for some biblical passages - I've also made that clear on numerous occasions.  Do you understand what life was like in those times? Largely you didn't until I spelled it out for you. People used to cook their infant children as a sacrifice to some pagan deity. Warfare was quiiiiiiiiite different from what it is today moron.”

 

From the article:

According to Human Rights Watch, 660 Muslims were massacred over the course of the next two days, including the patients in the Al-Amin clinic. Twelve mosques and 300 houses went up in flames. Young girls were marched to a nearby Christian town and forced to eat pork and drink alcohol. Many were raped, and 50 were killed.

 

Dev:

> > They knew what motivated them to fight, Chris. Certainly better than
> > someone like you who probably didn't even know about this conflict
> > until you just read about it. Fucktard.

Chris:

>  Answer me this. If a Muslim kills half your family, how would you
>  react?

 

Dev:

I'll tell you how I wouldn't react: with torturing, raping and killing
little girls like the Christians did.

 

---

 

Chris actually admits to defending rape in this thread, but continues to call Dev a liar:

 

“> You indeed did
> not say it was the best way it could be done, but it still qualifies
> as a _defense_.

In some sense of the word. Difficult circumstances entail provisions if you will. And I don't freaking know all the details (in fact I know NONE of the details). As I've said, w/regards to dictums that have LONG EXPIRED, I tried to put them in some sort of context. More then you're willing to do.”

And then:

“All we hear all the time is RAPE RAPE RAPE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE. The bible says it's ok to RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPe people. This is a lie. And you're a liar for suggesting that I would, under any circumstances, defend an instance of rape.”

 

 

 

bob600

 

 

 

bob600 is easily one of the worst atheist posters in the history of Atheism vs. Christianity, and accuses others of being liars when they quote his own words back at him.

 

---

 

Dag Yo: What current "extreme view" are you suggesting that Dev is "incapable of recognizing" and "seeing the danger and wrongness of"?

 

bob600: Yo, Yo,  you are in danger of thinking like Dev. Please don't tell me that you don't understand the simple words "current extreme view". Let me explain, current:- "belonging to the time actually passing" that really means "now", extreme:-  "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion" and view:- "a particular manner of looking at something" Now try and put the words together bearing these definitions in mind  and I am sure it will come to you. And I never suggested he could not recognize extreme views, just that IF he was incapable of doing so then any explaining on my part would be water of a ducks back. Quack Quack.

 

Dag Yo: Give an example you twit.  You implied that Dev holds extreme views which might be dangerous and wrong.  What the fuck are they?  Or are you just spouting nonsense?

 

bob600: Are you word blind or deliberately trying to sound stupid? When you find the words I used that implies Dev held extreme views feel free to shove them up my ass, until then, back off.

 

Dag Yo: Those words of yours are in the extended section of this very post.  I pasted them to the top of my post when I first brought the matter up. And sorry if i confused you by putting your own words in quotation marks earlier so you could easily recognize that I was actually quoting you. Here they are bob, your exact words: "However, if you are incapable of recognizing a current extreme view and seeing the danger and wrongness of it, then any explaining I can do would be
water off a ducks back."

 

---

 

“Hey, shit in the dark, I don't remember saying that theists were not adequately proven to be false or erroneous. Seems like all friends of Dev lie as much as he does, I suppose it makes up for not having a coherent argument.”

 

<earlier on thread>

 

"So far neither I or any theists have heard very little on this group that comes close to a good enough argument to convert a theist."

 

Thread for both examples: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/5c79116f1d6de73d/

 

 

 

29FAN

 

 

 

In the spirit of exposing the pathological liars on this site, I'm going to start with 29Fan. 

 

I'll be taking a look at both 29Fan's strategy and her lies.

 

29Fan is quite a piece of work because, in my opinion, she uses a combination of disingenuity and pathological lies. When she thinks enough time has passed and people will have forgotten what she's said she feels free to revise history. The rest of the time she implies a lot of stuff, is generally abusive, ignorant, and accuses others of doing exactly what she is doing.

 

In real life this strategy, while sleazy, often works because people either have no way of knowing if Skanks like 29Fan are telling the truth, or they can't prove they're lying, or they simply can't be bothered to find out so will believe the first person shoveling the shit.

 

My guess is that this sleazy behavior is standard practice in 29Fan's life. 

 

Of course, I can't know that for sure, but are people really that different online than they are in real life?

 

Now, the problem with doing this on the Internet is that not only is it a public place, but everything you say is archived. Those of us who receive posts in our email have a double back up of what has been said.

So, when people, like 29Fan and others on this site lie they always get caught.

 

What's interesting about 29Fan is that from the moment she joined AvC, for some reason, which she's too gutless to explain she targeted me.

 

29Fan joined AvC on June 16, 2008.

 

She did not post anything publicly to AvC but instead contacted me privately by email on June 17, 2008, "responding" to a post I had made 10 days previous. In fact, she wasn't "responding" to the post, her email to me was simply heaping abuse on me.

 

I posted the email to AvC with the request that 29Fan stop emailing me privately and then I responded to her insulting comments.

 

As you can see with the following quotes, despite the virulent and unprovoked personal attack that 29Fan made in her email to me my response was quite polite.

 

29Fan aka Skank said:

"If you're  an adult, take it in, and shut up.  But this...." My journey to anti-theism began on 9/11 and has culminated here."  Why? Who died, to you?  Were you a whiney girl in Bill O'Reillly's show, living in a $1 million home in Manhatten when your hubby was killed? You didn't have a $5 dollar bill in your wallet to buy your baby some diapers.  Who do I sue?  She couldn't wait.

 

Get over it.   It's called life.  Get out of this squidgy environment, talk to people who really suffer after loss, and rejoice that they lived in that life.  Been there, neice, brother, mom and dad.    The differences are astronomical...   don't ever discuss politics, religion, or taxes.   Nothing to do with religion...just people. Anyone care anymore?"

 

Trance's response to 29Fan:

"29fan. If you're going to comment on my posts, please do so publicly and not in private emails. Do not email me privately again. I find the last paragraph of this response quite ironic since you obviously had to be reading a newsgroup which discusses religion in order to read and respond to my posts.

 

I also strongly suggest you not make assumptions about me, since assumptions are usually false.

You have no idea who I am or what my 9/11 experience may have been so to attack me so virulently in the way you did is both shameful and idiotic."

 

Here is the link with both conversations:

 

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/06428042a9c8042c

 

On June 24, 2008, ignoring my request to stop sending me private emails, 29Fan sent me another private and insulting email.

 

I chose to ignore that one, thinking that she would stop if I didn't respond.

 

No such luck.

 

On June 29, 2008, she sent me a third private email again ignoring my request that she not send me private emails and insulting me yet again. I posted this email to AvC as well telling 29Fan that she was going to be blocked from my email account and any further contact had to be public or it would be ignored.

 

29Fan aka Skank said:

""I've never seen an atheist try so hard and so desperately to defend theism and the theist approach"

 

Your Assumptions?   All who beleive in God, and all who don't, and don't give a rat's arse  about what you think,  are here, or anywhere you might post?     Just shut up and go out and do something.   Some day, you may be  in a life or death situation, and a person may save you...a cop, a firefighter, another person on the street.   Will you stop them with this ponderous flood?     Get off your arse, learn and think before you post.   I may be your life saver...and I'm Catholic.."

Again, she received a completely undeserved polite response.

 

Trance said:

"Now to speak to your comments.

 

Trance said:
"I've never seen an atheist try so hard and so desperately to defend theism and the theist approach"

29fan said:
Your Assumptions?

Trance replies:
If you read the sentence my comments are based on my experience so no they are not assumption.

29fan said:
 All who beleive in God, and all who don't, and don't give a rat's arse  about what you think,  are here, or anywhere you might post?

Trance replies:
This sentence makes no sense but I'll try to guess what you mean. Are you saying that no-one anywhere, atheist or theist gives "a rat's ass what I think"?

Well I'll let the atheists on this site determine that.

I definitely don't give a rat's ass what you think.

29fan said:
Just shut up and go out and do something.

Trance replies:
That's pretty arrogant of you. I'll decide what to do with my life and my time. Thanks.

And frankly it's none of your business what I choose to do with it.

29fan said:
Some day, you may be  in a life or death situation, and a person may save you...a cop, a firefighter, another person on the street.   Will you stop them with this ponderous flood?     Get off your arse, learn and think before you post.   I may be your life saver...and I'm Catholic..

Trance replies:
What has "a life or death situation" got to do with anything unless the person "rescuing" me is an immoral theist in which case he'll just let me die. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that kind of thing happened nor the last time.

Sadly there are immoral theists out there who would do exactly that to an atheist which is kind of the point of having all these discussions on morality here.

There are those of us atheists who would like to educate theists in this regard.

I certainly wouldn't stop a rescue of a theist just because he was a theist, but there are a lot of theists who think atheists deserve to die.

My life, my personal well-being, my career, my personal and professional reputation have been threatened and periodically ruined by theists over the years because of their pathological lies, immorality and unethical behavior.

Am I going to shut up because you send me a nasty email telling me too?

No. And all future emails from you are going to be blocked.

If you have anything to say post it here or I won't be seeing it.

Good bye 29fan."

 

Here's the link with both conversations:

 

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/dd32bc617c39c48f

 

It seems my threat to block 29Fan and not look at her insults, was more than she could handle so she finally started posting publicly to AvC on July 14, 2008.

 

Of course her first post was directed at me and, as usual, was as insulting as possible.

 

I'd like to note here that any theist on this site who whines in the future about the language atheists use is going to get a link to this Page with a request to read 29Fan's emails and posts to me. And anyone who accuses me of being rude and insulting is going to get the same.

 

Up until now all of 29Fan's emails appear to be intended to insult and provoke me. I've responded politely but of course I'm now getting ticked off particularly since I clearly haven't done anything to deserve the abuse she's heaping on me.

 

In this email she tells her first blatant lie. She accuses me of calling her an "ignorant theist". As you can clearly see by reading the links, I did not. After sending me three insulting and extremely judgmental emails she also starts accusing me of being judgmental. Apparently her hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

29Fan said:

"And, there you go.  Your belief system, and that of others, is no one else's business in a professional, business environment.     Ruined?

What happened, you shoot your mouth off and get all judgemental? "ignorant theist like 29fan ".  Ignoranttheist, like it's all one word.  It's not, but you say it is....so must be true.   Like I said, get out, do and learn something, and shut up.  Your sad insular thoughts, spewing out your mouth are your downfall, the "theists" aren't out to ruin your life, you're doing fine all on your own."

 

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/4e0adc423be11581

 

Now I'm ticked and want to know what her problem is so I ask her straight out.

 

Trance said:

"Except for the fact that I don't discuss this type of stuff in my work environment.

Ø       Ruined?
> What happened, you shoot your mouth off and get all judgemental?

You really make a lot of assumptions don't you?

> "ignorant theist like 29fan ".

 Ignoranttheist, like it's all one
> word.  It's not, but you say it is....so must be true.

Um where did I say that? Where did I call you an "ignorant theist"?

Oh, I didn't. So why are you lying?

Perhaps you just want to nail yourself to your proverbial cross and play the poor victim?

> Like I said,
> get out, do and learn something, and shut up.

What I do with my life is none of your business. Or do you think you have the "god-given" right to dictate what everyone on the Internet should be doing?


> Your sad insular
> thoughts, spewing out your mouth are your downfall, the "theists"
> aren't out to ruin your life, you're doing fine all on your own.


No, there are theists like you who:
1. Need to learn some manners.
2. Need to learn some moral values.
3. Need to understand that they have no right to dictate to the rest of the world what everyone should or shouldn't do.

Who do you think you are? Your god himself?

Do you think it's socially acceptable and moral to abuse people who don't agree with your religious beliefs?

Do you think it's socially acceptable and moral to infringe the rights of those who don't agree with your religious beliefs? Such as their right to Free Speech?

What personal grudge do you have against me?

First you started emailing me privately and insulting and abusing me.

When I challenged you and posted your emails now you are doing it publicly.

Publicly is better than privately.

However, please explain what your personal grudge is. Let's have it out here publicly.

It doesn't seem to bother you that there are a lot of other atheists here giving their opinions but for some reason it really bothers you that I'm here giving my opinions.

There has to be a reason for that.

Would you like to explain? Or are you too much of a coward to do that?"

 

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/57abeffc264e3870

 

29Fan now completely ignores my challenge to explain why she's targeting me and hasn't interacted with anyone else on the site but she's obviously read my response because now for the first time she responds to someone else, one of Dev's posts.

 

So, for the first time, one full month later, on July 17, 2008, 29Fan starts posting and responding to other people's posts after I ask her why she's not doing that. In my opinion, she's now lying by omission and evasion.

 

"yikes. Couldn't get through all this. " Stupidity" mingled with a belief system bombarded with all that 12 year olds want to hear Jim Jones-ville. Cult and death, here we come. Define stupid....there's an enormous lack of children in school who are paying attention to their education, because they are allowed to not to, contact your local School Board. It's not stupid, it's "getting by", can't be arsed to do any work. hard as your teachers try, you don't have to, and they get away with it. Trailer Park poor Mom will be in their faces...suddenly, the kid is learning disabled. The school trying to educate is turned on it's head, now must accommodate slut child and sluttier drunken Mom with no brain left....and sends a piece of crap to school, and out in the world...she may be breaking into your home soon, looking for $$, with her boyfriend, who has a gun. Stop the grand-standing and tying everything into one little bunch. "Beliefs that are stupid"....no, at this point, they are not stupid, never were, and they will get away with it. An then, we'll hear about their poor, torn homes. And so it goes. These are children, they're being sent to school ignorant, not stupid, with entitlement. That starts at home. Religion doesn't matter...back in the day, couldn't get into my high school unless you were smart, and had good grades. Period. Religious beliefs were your own, as it should be...the boyfriend, not allowed, that was called upbringing."

 

29Fan now, through her generally abusive attitude, establishes a reputation for herself as a total Skank by insulting numerous posters on AvC. 

 

Even STB and Daffy tell her off.

 

In a recent post, she blatantly lies again, denying that she send me emails privately and targeted me specifically for an entire month.

 

Trance said: "Skank whores who join groups to target and harass individuals privately by email"

 

29Fan blatantly lies: Never did any such thing, never would, be careful who you choose as "leader", 

 

Trance said: " then when confronted publicly on their whoring activity start to actually post and harass other individuals don't have brains. "

29Fan doesn't appear to know where she is: Um, you do all know this isn't public, it's a bitty Google extremist group....

Trance said: "What insanity drives you to post to a news group that you don't believe should exist? "

29Fan shows her hypocrisy: Name of Group...Atheism-vs-Christianity.  A waste of time, breath, air, space.    No such thing.  Believe, don't...endless hate, not productive.  And no one cares.    It's not a "problem" to be solved...don't citizens of every country have enough of those they'd like solved?    Your Conservative issues are very different from ours.

Trance said: "You're obviously too much of a coward and too dishonest to just come out and say what it is."

 

Now what's interesting here is 29Fan removes a critical sentence and then claims not to understand what I'm saying. Was it deliberate? Judging by my past experience with 29Fan I would say so, but that's not something that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so I'll let people make up their own minds on that on.

 

29Fan, in my opinion, is playing dumb here and lying by omission and evasion: Haven't an effin clue what this means....mindless rambling.....there's a surprise.   I've said what it is....and you lash out.  Be whatever the fuck you want, don't hurt anyone, be at peace with whatever, and shut the fuck  up.  Seems to be difficult for you to shut up.

 

Here's the section she chopped up, complete and in context:

What insanity drives you to post to a news group that you don't
> believe should exist?
>
> What whoring agenda do you have?
>
> You're obviously too much of a coward and too dishonest to just come
> out and say what it is.

 

 

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/73e2115ea873d72b

 

So tell me, do you think 29Fan is a lying Skank?

 

 

 

thea

 

 

 

Submitted by Neil Kelsey.

 

Drafterman: Heracles is the sone of Zeus. Where is that in the Bible?

 

thea:  I just told you -- Genesis 3:15 -- the promise of the Christ child to the woman after she sinned.  Heracles is the name of the man the Greeks gave to God, Who is in the heavens.

Drafterman: No it isn't. Heracles is the name of the man the Greeks gave to the son of Zeus and a mortal woman whom Hera hated and had to perform 12 labors. Where is that in the Bible?

 

thea: Genesis:  and the promise of the Christ Child to the woman after she sinned and before she was named Eve.

 

Drafterman: This has nothing to do with Heracles

 

thea: I didn't say the Bible had anything to do with Heracles.

Thread: http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/1ff616ce6046a322/

 

 

 

simonsaysbye

 

 

 

“So the reason why I am a worthless fucktard is because I made the claim that I never made the claim that you said that ‘should’ and ‘would’ mean the same thing. But I challenge you to find ANYWHERE were I made this alleged claim.  (Hint: you will not be able to.)”

 

<previous paragraph>

 

“I never claimed that you were saying that ‘should’ and ‘would’ meant the same thing.”

 

<previous post>

 

“You have already told me that you were demonstrating that the two words mean basically the same thing, so what should I call you for turning around and saying that I was making it up?” – simonsaysbye

 

Simon defends his comments (LOL): http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/da0c81fdf98658bf/