This message was self-deleted by its author

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. That thread clearly shows that the 'banned disruptor' wasn't me

You, of course, leave out the reply to #162 ("I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel?&quot . You also leave out the clear problem with the link that Leontius had given - while Leontius thought it linked to the "Young People Today Have No Idea What Easter Is Really About" thread, darkstar3 had said to Leontius "You realize you linked to this thread, right?". trotsky said "You mean the post from the banned disruptor?" - and it's clear that meant #32 in the thread that trotsky post that in - #32 had been posted by mistertrickster on Apr 7th, and was banned by Skinner on April 10th. That's why trotsky said "I clicked on your link and post #32 is not from muriel?". You can ask him, if you want to be sure.

No, I've never been banned; I was unaware of that mix-up (it happened 2 days after my posts in the thread, so I'm not surprised). Even if I had noticed it, I wouldn't have needed to reply to him - it is (a) obvious that the 'banned' remark is about mistertrickster and (b) I know trotsky would not accuse me of being banned.

So, you're happy with you links being shot through with unbelievable crap about mind control, seeing through walls, testing of EMP weapons that killed people in cities that was completely covered up, and accusations that Obama is secretly killing people in the USA. You could have linked to sensible articles, but you're sticking with the lunatic crap instead, because you think that makes your case better.

"Couldn't you have stated your objections to my thread without resorting to name-calling and character assassination?"

I did. I criticised the content of the links, not you. I quoted them, and called them '(right wing) paranoid nonsense' and 'crap'. I didn't call you any names. I didn't go after your character. You, however, replied by talking about me - an implication of being a 'banned disrupter', though you got that from a thread you hadn't bothered reading properly. You claimed I was being 'rude, disrespectful and slanderous' towards you. I wasn't - I criticised what you had linked to. Again, you hadn't bothered reading.

"Do you always have to be so mean-spirited?"

I'm mean-spirited to people like Dupree, who write complete bollocks. I'm mean-spirited towards Chuck Norris, who is approvingly quoted in your link for the "Obama is secretly killing Americans in the USA before taking total control" crap. That is the kind of thing a DUer should never be linking to, unless it's to denounce it.

"Are you unable to have polite, respectful dialogue with those who disagree with you?"

Oh, that's rich, from the person who decided to going digging in the archives to find something to attack me with, when I had just criticised some idiotic articles you linked to.

"If my thread is not appropriate to the "Skeptics Group', why couldn't you merely say so, without all the mean, nasty personal attacks?"

I haven't made any personal attacks. I told you the material you link to is not suitable for this Group.

"Are you even capable of being respectful to those who disagree with you?"

Again, that's rich, from the person who came up with "your slanderous, untruthful personal attack on me" when I hadn't said anything at all about you, slanderous or not. I'll say this; I don't respect you, after your links, your preference for them over something rational that talks about this form of stalking, and your accusations of me when I point out the idiocy of that material.