in reference to Celestial Kingdom calling Gee a liar
I realize this distinction probably doesn't matter much to anyone but me, but just for the record I used the word "lies" with regard to statements in Gee's book, but never called Gee personally a "liar". The subtle difference is that I felt he had succumbed to the temptation to disingenuity, but I did not state that this means he's a bad or uniformly untrustworthy person.
Of course, I've apologized even for what I did say, so hopefully this will eventually be forgotten and I can get on with my lonely life unmolested and unashamed.
-CK
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Is there any reason that Gee needs to be treated with kid gloves? It's like everyone wants to pussyfoot around, acting like Gee is made of glass or something.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:Is there any reason that Gee needs to be treated with kid gloves? It's like everyone wants to pussyfoot around, acting like Gee is made of glass or something.
I don't think it's ever appropriate to throw accusations of lying around, unless you have solid and damning evidence. It doesn't matter who is on the receiving end of it or who is doing the accusing.
Is it just me, or is it just a bit ironic that the person who chastises Celestial Kingdom for calling Gee a liar won't even respond to my email asking him to explain why he called me a liar?
Runtu wrote:I don't think it's ever appropriate to throw accusations of lying around, unless you have solid and damning evidence. It doesn't matter who is on the receiving end of it or who is doing the accusing.
I thought he did have such evidence. And not just him, but several others.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Runtu wrote:I don't think it's ever appropriate to throw accusations of lying around, unless you have solid and damning evidence. It doesn't matter who is on the receiving end of it or who is doing the accusing.
I thought he did have such evidence. And not just him, but several others.
I think the distinction was that he had evidence that Gee was wrong. That led him to believe he was either duplicitous or incompetent. As they say, it goes to motive, and I'm not sure any of us has any solid evidence that Gee was intentionally dishonest.
Just my two cents. Like I said, I don't like being called a liar, particularly when it's done without reason.