For Ren:

[_marg]

Here you go Ren, I've taken out the posts you took so seriously by me, that you are bringing it up almost 3 months later, how I accused you of having sexual fantasies of Moniker. How terrible! So where is your sense of humor Ren? You think I'm serious do ya? Why do I bother with these twit-nits?

Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:17 am

Marg: by the way..RoP do you appreciate the difference between fallacious ad hominem versus ad hominem?

Ren: Hmm - maybe.

You mean the difference between stating that you refuse to see the truth of this situation because you are a flaming hypocrite...

...and...

...stating that you are wrong because you have a fairly scary desire to suck my chocolate salty balls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2T9L9Q7FQ&feature=related

---------------------------------------

Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:44 am

Marg: quoting signature line of RoP:" "I don't think my life will be impacted too much if I don't know the mythological stories of Shintoism" ~ marg
...after trying to repeatedly dispute the statements of others regarding the beliefs of Shintoism..."

RoP, just because you have sexual fantasies of Moniker and I'm critical of her, does not mean you should resort to making up lies. Can't you get her attention and affection in more honest ways?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Moniker wrote to marg (her post has been deleted but this portion was quoted in mine): Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:46 am:

Here's some ad homs to suck on with Ren's chocolate salty balls!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Response Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:54 am

Moniker I think Ren would like you to suck on his chocolate salty balls. and for anyone who is reading they can find out about those balls in the telestial forum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:56 am

Moniker wrote:


Uhoh -- margey follows JAK about and JAK follows me about and then asks me some porno question......... hmmmmmmmmm..........

I suggest we not go there......


Marg response: We aren't all as obsessed with sex as you are Moniker..but good news Moniker I think Ren is.

---------------------------------------------
Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:58 am

I'm obsessed with sex? I wonder why you think that........ hmmmmmm........ 'cause I talk about it?

Wanna see JAK asking me about porno -- WHERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT ART?

[_Ren]

The reason it's relavent is because when faced with a post detailing where JAK had 'gone wrong', you didn't actually address it. Instead, you went for the personal attack. If you had actually addressed the substance of the reply I gave as well as get a 'jab' in along the way, then you'd have a point. But you didn't, so you don't.
It's just ironic given how much you bang on about 'ad hominems' - all the damn time.

It's a double standard. And it's horrendous.

You were not 'joking around'. And if you manage to convince anybody that you were, then good for you...! :)

But seriously, I'm done with this. You don't like me. I don't like you.
I will make every effort to not get involved in threads you are involved in from now on - for both our sakes, and for everybody else's.

[_marg]

The reason it's relavent is because when faced with a post detailing where JAK had 'gone wrong', you didn't actually address it.

What on earth are you talking about, did you not in the other thread complain about how I said you had sexual fantasies about Moniker? Now what are you going on about?

Instead, you went for the personal attack.

When? Recent or 3 months ago. If recent, yes I went for an attack, because you piped into a conversation you weren't part of only to offer some jabs.

If you had actually addressed the substance of the reply I gave as well as get a 'jab' in along the way, then you'd have a point.

Substance? Give me a break.

But you didn't, so you don't.
It's just ironic given how much you bang on about 'ad hominems' - all the damn time.

Well because people such as yourself don't understand what I'm banging on about.

It's a double standard. And it's horrendous.

Awww...poor boy!

But seriously, I'm done with this. You don't like me. I don't like you.

I don't think about you except when you post your little pathetic mindless posts I read every once in a while. I don't respect you Ren, it's not a question of like. You are probably a very nice person.

I will make every effort to not get involved in threads you are involved in from now on - for both our sakes, and for everybody else's.

Very considerate of you...thanks.

[_Ren]

What on earth are you talking about, did you not in the other thread complain about how I said you had sexual fantasies about Moniker? Now what are you going on about?

I'm talking about this post:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 583#129583

...that you never responded to, and only engaged in irrelevant personal attack from then on. including the attacks referenced above.
Again, notice that the response to the temporary sig line had nothing to do with what it was correctly pointing out. You wanted to divert away from what was happening.

I don't mention it because I take it 'so seriously'. (Let's hope that sinks in sometime soon). I mention it because you're the one that bangs on about 'avoiding the issue' by making things personal - with 'jokes' or otherwise... And yet this is exactly what you did...

I did also attack you - no doubt about it. But then, I don't repeat the mantra of "ad hominem" over and over...

Substance? Give me a break.

Ahh - I get ya. No, I don't copy stuff from encyclopedias / google-ed sites and fob it off as my own words.
You're right. My bad.

[_marg]

What on earth are you talking about, did you not in the other thread complain about how I said you had sexual fantasies about Moniker? Now what are you going on about?

I'm talking about this post:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 583#129583

...that you never responded to, and only engaged in irrelevant personal attack from then on. including the attacks referenced above.
Again, notice that the response to the temporary sig line had nothing to do with what it was correctly pointing out. You wanted to divert away from what was happening.

I see so now you are going on about some post in a thread which got spliced and moved around to other threads and bringing up how I didn't respond to you. And that's been on your mind for how long now?

Look Ren, you wrote this in the other thread : "The last time I did it - instead of responding rationally and intelligently you attempted to jump to an ad hominem swipe about 'sexual fantasies' that - ironically enough - were your own 'fantasy'.

Nothing in what you just linked to had anything to do with "sexual fantasies" your complaint. Quit going off on tangents.

Focus Ren. The posts I brought here did. You seem to be attempting to look for something elxe trivial to shift focus off your absurd complaint.

I don't mention it because I take it 'so seriously'. (Let's hope that sinks in sometime soon).

Right you don't mention "sexual fantasies" 3 months later from the discussion as if serious. Just read your own words ..will ya?

I mention it because you're the one that bangs on about 'avoiding the issue' by making things personal - with 'jokes' or otherwise... And yet this is exactly what you did...

I honestly can't follow you. I brought the posts over here which were directly related to your complaint, and what you are going on about now I have no idea. Not that I care.

I did also attack you - no doubt about it.

Oh ..how honest of you to admit the obvious! Wow, I'm impressed.

But then, I don't repeat the mantra of "ad hominem" over and over...

"But", so now you want to diminish take away your admittance of attacking. I'm not talking about ad homs now, you are. You appear to not like it.

Substance? Give me a break.

Ahh - I get ya. No, I don't copy stuff from encyclopedias / google-ed sites and fob it off as my own words.
You're right. My bad.[/quote]

Nice attempt at a shift away from you. This issue here is your mindless interjection. Whatever anyone else does, JAK or whomever, is irrelevant. Focus and finish Ren, stop going off on tangents.

[_Ren]

Nothing in what you just linked to had anything to do with "sexual fantasies" your complaint.

Errr, it relates to exactly what I was talking about. I was talking about you reaching the point where you gave up and didn't bother to even attempt to rebut anything anymore. Instead, you decided to throw out irrelevant 'jokes' that had nothing to do with the topic at hand - funnily enough, in an attempt to do what you are now accusing me of doing. Attempting to 'divert'.
...up until that point, you had actually been attempting rebuttals. That's why the post I pointed out is important.

The "sexual fantasies" - ermm - 'joke' is notable because it was so desperate.

Right you don't mention "sexual fantasies" 3 months later from the discussion as if serious. Just read your own words ..will ya?

No - YOU need to read my words marg. Your post was notable not just because of the desperation of the 'joke'. It was also notable because it was such a blatent effort to do anything other than actually discuss the topic at hand.

Focus Ren.

Quite honestly, I don't think this means much coming from the lady currently suffering from 'Dart-esque' tourettes (which she critises so often), insisting on shoving as many uses of the words 'idiot', 'stupid' and 'nit-wit' as she can humanly manage into all her posts.
Just as you did in 'that thread', you can't find any other way to divert from the facts.

"But", so now you want to diminish take away your admittance of attacking

Nope. It's called 'admitting my part in what happened'.
Hypocrites are often incapable of doing the same.

[_marg]

No - YOU need to read my words marg. Your post was notable not just because of the desperation of the 'joke'. It was also notable because it was such a blatent effort to do anything other than actually discuss the topic at hand.

I hope you don't mind but I'm not going to continue to spend time dealing with your petty nonsense. I brought the posts over here, I've done my bit. Blather away if you wish in this thread.