Saturnalia

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

no. i did not fall for it. also i agree that you add nothing to the site but disruption.

Sent from my tablet using CF

It's not precisely disruption; it's more a question of ego. AV insists that every thread be devoted to talking to him. It's a weird form of narcissism, I suspect. And he's not being honest about claiming that it's only about creationism that he adds nothing. His claim is general.

 

[eclipsenow]

Just out of curiosity, did anyone remember Saturnalia this year; or, as I predicted, was it eclipsed by Christmas?

Does anyone remember you posting a serious comment on a science-y thread? Were you expecting serious answers, or can we all just answer you the way you answer us?

 

[eclipsenow]

It's not precisely disruption; it's more a question of ego. AV insists that every thread be devoted to talking to him. It's a weird form of narcissism, I suspect. And he's not being honest about claiming that it's only about creationism that he adds nothing. His claim is general.

I actually wish AV would get banned. He drags down the tone of every thread he enters and generally makes a nuisance of himself. Basically, he's a childish little punk that can't answer a straight question or admit his own inconsistencies. I don't know why I wasted time trying to answer him in the Global Warming thread, and I really hate it when I discover that I've wasted time on yet another navel-gazing, attention deficit internet troll. VOMIT!

 

[AV1611VET]

Does anyone remember you posting a serious comment on a science-y thread?

Join Date: 17th December 2010

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually wish AV would get banned.

Take a number and get in line, newbie.

And while you're waiting for me to get banned, go ahead and compare your Friend's List to mine.

You might be surprised, while perusing it, that I even have some atheists and agnostics on it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Take a number and get in line, newbie.

And while you're waiting for me to get banned, go ahead and compare your Friend's List to mine.

You might be surprised, while perusing it, that I even have some atheists and agnostics on it.

Now you sound just like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you sound just like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

Oh, quit it!

 

[Tomk80]

Now you sound just like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

Well, it's at least a change from him sounding like a toddler.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you sound just like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

Well, it's at least a change from him sounding like a toddler.

How does this sound to you grown-ups?

I actually wish AV would get banned.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How does this sound to you grown-ups?

Not the worst idea I've heard today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not the worst idea I've heard today.

You might be required to state a legitimate reason for it; and vomiting is not a legitimate reason.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You might be required to state a legitimate reason for it; and vomiting is not a legitimate reason.

If anyone legitimate asks for a reason, I'll volunteer one.

 

[AV1611VET]

You might be required to state a legitimate reason for it; and vomiting is not a legitimate reason.

If anyone legitimate asks for a reason, I'll volunteer one.

Let me restate my point, with emphasis:

You might be required to state a legitimate reason for it; and vomiting is not a legitimate reason.

Key words: required, legitimate.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let me restate my point, with emphasis:

Key words: required, legitimate.

I will restate my point with greater emphasis: when someone with a shred of legitimacy asks me for a reason, I'll be happy to give them one -- or several, as the case may be.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will restate my point with greater emphasis: when someone with a shred of legitimacy asks me for a reason, I'll be happy to give them one -- or several, as the case may be.

Even then it doesn't work that way.

You don't just ban someone outright, unless it's justified.

Eclipso is about the fourth person here who has wanted us (okay, me) outright banned; and there are proper procedures to follow before someone is banned ... like issuing warnings and infractions first.

This is why we're thankful that people with your attitude don't run the show here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Even then it doesn't work that way.

You don't just ban someone outright, unless it's justified.

Agreed -- and I'll present my justification when someone legitimate asks for it.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You might be required to state a legitimate reason for it; and vomiting is not a legitimate reason.

Trolling might be. And you have made over 2.5 million posts without contributing anything of value. By your own admission, I might add.

As an example of a narcissistic child with behavioral disorders, you might have some use. As a poster on a forum, you're merely a troll.

I feel great pity for you. I have asked for several novenas to be said for your soul. With intervention, you might yet see reason. Otherwise, you'll probably wallow in the abyss of ignorance you're in right now until death.

As I say, I pity you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Even then it doesn't work that way.

You don't just ban someone outright, unless it's justified.

Eclipso is about the fourth person here who has wanted us (okay, me) outright banned; and there are proper procedures to follow before someone is banned ... like issuing warnings and infractions first.

This is why we're thankful that people with your attitude don't run the show here.

You have had at least 2 suspensions since I've been here. Are you on your last warning now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed -- and I'll present my justification when someone legitimate asks for it.

No, you won't; or I'm sure you would have done it already.

For example, I believe posting pornography is one justification for banning someone outright; with no prior warning.

If you're saying you have justification for banning me outright, I say you're wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trolling might be.

No, trolling isn't.