"Could you kindly reskewer?"

[drumdude]

Allowing Gemli to post would make SeN less dormant as well as decrease the echo chamber effect. DCP deserves to maintain his blog free from challenge and reason.

A safe space, if you will.

[Rivendale]

So, DCP is not allowing gemli to comment, but is quoting his deleted comments--which only he can verify are accurate-- and then he is responding to pieces of those deleted comments in his posts? Wow. That's dishonest. I'm sure patheos approves of that.

Why dosen't Gemli's comments show up on his own discuss account?

[Marcus]

So, DCP is not allowing gemli to comment, but is quoting his deleted comments--which only he can verify are accurate-- and then he is responding to pieces of those deleted comments in his posts? Wow. That's dishonest. I'm sure patheos approves of that.

Why dosen't Gemli's comments show up on his own discuss account?

Good question. I thought they would, but they are not there. I don't know how that works.

[Marcus]

DanielPeterson Mod Dreamer 15 hours ago
I'm not sensing a huge groundswell of enthusiasm for granting gemli renewed commenting privileges here. (Which, at this point -- I've had a very busy day -- I still don't even know how to do.)

DCP knows exactly how to do that. This additional lie lends even more credence to the idea that DCP just made up the recent 'gemli' posts to generate interest.

His dishonesty is well documented in many cases, and this situation is just more of the same.

[Rivendale]

DanielPeterson Mod Dreamer 15 hours ago
I'm not sensing a huge groundswell of enthusiasm for granting gemli renewed commenting privileges here. (Which, at this point -- I've had a very busy day -- I still don't even know how to do.)

DCP knows exactly how to do that. This additional lie lends even more credence to the idea that DCP just made up the recent 'gemli' posts to generate interest.

His dishonesty is well documented in many cases, and this situation is just more of the same.

That Phillip Leaning quote was an old Gemli quote. And I think the Buffoon was also.

[drumdude]

The deleted discuss comment proves that Gemli is posting something. We just don’t know what.

The process of unbanning could not be easier, and there is even a guide on it here:

https://help.disqus.com/en/articles/171 ... ow-banning

Dan simply needs to follow it and click the remove button next to Gemli’s name. But I think it’s quite clear Dan has no intention of clicking the 3 buttons needed to unban Gemli.

[Marcus]

The deleted discuss comment proves that Gemli is posting something...

Except that only DCP told us gemli posted and he didn't allow it. To me, that is NOT proof that Gemli is posting.

[Marcus]

DCP knows exactly how to do that. This additional lie lends even more credence to the idea that DCP just made up the recent 'gemli' posts to generate interest.

His dishonesty is well documented in many cases, and this situation is just more of the same.

That Phillip Leaning quote was an old Gemli quote. And I think the Buffoon was also.

And Phillip Leaning hadn't posted for 9 days. It's not likely gemli would respond more than a week later.

[Marcus]

Peterson's post that gemli called him a 'depraved buffoon' didn't ring true. Note this, from May 2024:

It’s a slow day, and I’m in the mood:

By the way, the angle of attack on this issue has changed now. (I knew that it would. The conclusion always remains the same -- i.e., that I'm a depraved buffoon -- ...

It's becoming more and more likely that Peterson manufactured these posts that he says were from gemli. Here's the full quote with link:

DanielPeterson Mod t. tangata neneva a year ago
ttn: "I'm sorry, but I am a recently recovering pretender of science, now turned part time fumbling historian. I can't help it. I am just a banausic old droner. Ask Sister T."

Banausic. What a wonderful word! I've only seen it once or twice before, and not for years. Thanks for reminding me of it.

By the way, the angle of attack on this issue has changed now. (I knew that it would. The conclusion always remains the same -- i.e., that I'm a depraved buffoon -- but the means used to establish that conclusion are infinitely varied. Previously, my failure to do the temple work for Frenchy and Wanda proved me to be a selfish and lazy unbeliever. Now, though, my belief in the efficacy of vicarious temple work proves me to be incredibly stoopid because the whole idea of vicarious temple work is itself incredibly stoopid.

It's amusing to watch, if one is in the right mood.

https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base ... 3F&s_o=asc#

[drumdude]

If I understand correctly how the comment system works, it's not possible for Dan to fake the circled region. That is evidence that at minimum, an account named "gemli" posted the deleted comment that Dan is responding to. What we have to take Dan at his word for is that he is accurately reproducing said post.