How do you solve a problem called....Tony

I came to look around and found this thread and knowing that many members have expressed dissatisfaction with Tony1's posts and attitudes I took the time to read through the entire thread before making any comment. I know that I am not known for posting in this forum. However, here we have the majority expressing the need for action in responding to a disruptive member. This is not unique to this forum. You may choose to ignore Tony1's posts or respond to them. This has always been your option. Unless Tony1 does something to get hisself banned from the board, (and I do not see that happening, as Tony1 has a history but it is never truely out of the limits of of the boards rules)

then you will each in your own way have to come up with a way to deal with Tony1. Tony1 may be disrtuptive but he is a member of this community none the less. He supplies you with many a thought and responce. I do not personally agree with Tony1's behaviour and I understand the flustration that some feel when having to deal with Tony1's posts. If you feel this strongly about Tony1 then I would suggest that you take it up with Porfiry as to the disruption factor. Tony1 has his rights too. Whether you agree with them or not. So you must make your choice as to what you will do. A week or a month will not change anything other than delay your decision on what to do, that too, is a decision. I understand that most here are reluctant to take that step. It is evident from the consideration that has been given and expressed in thought here within this thread. I have no personal aminosity towards Tony1 nor can I say that I have any towards the other members of this community. There are those I choose not to respond to for one reason or another but that is my choice and not something I try to pass on to other members of the community. There are those on both sides of the issue here. It is your choice as to what you will respond to this post with but those are your choices as I see them. That folks are my 2¢.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Originally posted by wet1
many members have expressed dissatisfaction with Tony1's posts and attitudes I took the time to read through the entire thread before making any comment.*

Undoubtedly you noticed that this was the religion forum.

*However, here we have the majority expressing the need for action in responding to a disruptive member.*

The only thing getting disrupted here are flights of fancy that some posters blithely soar off on.
You'll note that I don't post in the Science Fiction forums where flights of fancy or even pure insanity are the norm.

*There are those on both sides of the issue here.*

I'm on one side.
Those who disagree with me are apparently on the other side.
That's pretty close to a perfect definition of debate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess that ends the failed experiment called “No Tony Week.” It seems a week of timeout had little to no effect on our post-happy friend. I think Wet1 has the right idea though, its up to each of us to deal with Tony in our own way: Ignore him, debate him (and I use that term very loosely), or find out where he lives and kill his pets, whatever floats your boat.

In more ways than one Tony has informed me that he thinks the modern study of biology is complete poppycock. He doesn’t really have any reasons for his belief other than scripture and clichéd creationist propaganda he picked up somewhere. He believes that God created the universe, period. Biology, archeology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, and physics are all terribly, terribly mistaken, and worse yet they are poisoning our youth with their blasphemous and incorrect views. Tony, please let me commend you on your strong will, it must have been difficult to go through your schooling without allowing science to cloud your better judgment. It shows incredible character that you were able to dismiss each and every science textbook you were ever forced to read.

By the way, feel free to haphazardly toss insults my way, misquote me, dismiss me as a fool, and all those other “debating” tactics your so fond of. After all, you wouldn’t be Tony1 if you didn’t.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cainxinth,

This is the "Religion" forum. A fact which Tony1 has reminded us of many times. As such, why are you so offended by the expression of his religious beliefs in this forum? I could understand your reaction more, maybe, if he went into a science forum with the intention of disrupting it with such expression. However, this IS a "Religion" debate forum where I would expect to find individuals with strong religious beliefs.

If such is so offensive to you, maybe another forum would suit you better?

 

A good point cupid, but please allow me to explain my condemnation of Tony.

I have strong atheistic beliefs and many of you have strong theistic beliefs, but we are able to communicate with each other and discuss our ideologies despite their conflicting nature. Tony has shown through his actions that he is not interested in debating anything; all he is interested in doing is sneering at anyone and everyone from an ideology alternative to his own. I will admit my post was angry and rash, but only because of Tony’s frequent and crude attacks on the “holy books” of my ideology, science text books. With the exception of that last post when I admit i stooped to his level, I discuss alternatives to the creationist view in a manner that respects those who hold different beliefs than mine. Also, I have noticed that this is the religion forum, but i also noticed the prefix before the name of this website, so I think the scientific alternative to religion is relevant here.

So finally, Cupid, I was not “offended by the expression of [Tony1’s] religious beliefs.” I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine, and for the rudeness he’s shown me from the moment I was unfortunate enough to meet him.

As for everyone else, I started this thread because it appeared to me that Tony1 was affecting the entire forum. I thought I could get through to him by ignoring him. As we can all see that didn’t work. He still has the same attitude problem he always had.

 

***With the exception of that last post when I admit i stooped to his level, I discuss alternatives to the creationist view in a manner that respects those who hold different beliefs than mine.***

I'm not so sure about that, Cainxinth. See below.

***So finally, Cupid, I was not “offended by the expression of [Tony1’s] religious beliefs.” I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine, and for the rudeness he’s shown me from the moment I was unfortunate enough to meet him.***

Looking back in the 'Why I don't think god exists' thread which you started:

On 12-04-01, you had similar complaints about Elbaz and Taken.

On 12-05-01, you complained about Tony1.

On 12-06-01, you admitted that you were the one being antagonistic and arrogant and that your manner was less-than-civil or courteous.

On 12-07-01, you changed your mind and contended that the problem in the thread was with Elbaz and the rest of sciforums' "believers". Later that day, you popped in on that thread and called this place a nut house.

On 12-08-01, you checked back into the nut house and changed your tune with Elbaz after learning that Elbaz, a believer, also believed in evolution. Later that day, you apologized to Elbaz and called yourself a f****** idiot and a clod. You started this thread about Tony1 the same day.

No offense, Cainxinth, but I really think you are confused about the issues.

 

Tiassa

***O Mr Blonde Cupid, Wise Sage of All Things***

Would you go so far as to say that you have extended courtesy here? I wouldn't. Sarcasm, perhaps. But I'm sure that's not what you meant to project here since, as recent history has shown, perceived sarcasm could subject you to ostracism.

***A) Yes, that is a response to your question.***

Yes? Excuse me while I fill in the blanks... O.K. I think this brings us back to your own assessment of your posts in the highlighted threads... "Reactionary"... What do you mean by "reactionary"? As in ultraconservative? As in direct opposition to progress or liberalism? As used in Marxist theory? Other?

I’m asking for clarification, by the way, not demanding information. You know that, but since you choose to have a problem distinguishing the difference, I’ll take your one word assessment “Reactionary” to mean that your posts are characterized by reaction. It is on that basis that I will continue. Please feel free to correct my assessment of your assessment if you feel the need.

***B) If you would be so courteous as to perhaps get around to providing those citations and explanations which demonstrate how you reach your conclusions, it will be more than simply appreciated. It will be taken as a demonstration that you're not FoS.***

Speaking of my assessment that a less-than-”noble” manner is being projected onto another poster… the basis for my assessment is not only splattered all over these boards, as you put it, it is being adequately demonstrated in your current interaction with me in this thread.

1. I informed you that I reviewed the two threads which you pointed to and asked if you wanted to hear my assessment. You initially reacted by demanding that I assess all 1460 or so posts, softened later to “encourage,” before characterizing my clarifying questions as demands. Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own demanding attitude onto me.

2. In response to your demand that I assess all the posts, I asked you repeatedly if the highlighted threads were not meant to be representative of the issues and whether or not we should take seriously your complaint about another poster's manner… You reacted with an unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer (and then later implied that I was FoS because I hadn’t yet gotten around to providing citations and explanations as to how I arrived at my assessment). Here we see the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own unwillingness or inability to communicate an answer onto me.

3. You are content to post ambiguous, one-word responses addressed to no one in particular when communicating /reacting to me in this thread. When you are asked nicely to be so courteous as to address me by name you retort with sarcasm. (Yet, what you perceive as the failure of another to communicate fully, leaving you to fill in the blanks, and what you perceive as intentional sarcasm on the part of another poster is deemed by you to be unacceptable). Later, you insinuate that there is a lack of courtesy on my part because I had not yet provided citations and examples which support my assessment. Here, we see again the characteristic reaction of a less-than-”noble” manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own lack of courtesy onto me.

These examples are meant to be representative of the types of demonstrations which were the basis of my assessment. Similar demonstrations are splattered all over these boards. You know where they are.

 

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
I guess that ends the failed experiment called “No Tony Week.”*

I guess that demonstrates your understanding of science.
Lesson #1: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FAILED EXPERIMENT.

*It seems a week of timeout had little to no effect on our post-happy friend.*

I note one failed observation.
I wasn't even at my computer all week.
Weekend, that's it.

*...kill his pets...*

I'm not actually going to complain about this because it is so lame, but that is what the rules are talking about when referring to "threatening" and "violating laws."

*Biology, archeology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, and physics are all terribly, terribly mistaken...*

Not "terribly" mistaken.
Merely mistaken in one thing each.

*but only because of Tony’s frequent and crude attacks on the “holy books” of my ideology, science text books.*

Interestingly, that is why it is important to discuss evolution in a religion forum, rather than a science forum, although science fiction may seem more approprite.

*I was offended his absolute disrespect for mine*

Displaced offense you have going there.
I wasn't dissing your beliefs, I was dissing those of the clowns that taught you.
I had no idea that you had swallowed them hook, line and sinker.

*and for the rudeness he’s shown me*

Sorry, but what rudeness?

BTW, blonde_cupid, tiassa's posts should be read with the clear understanding that "Stoned" doesn't appear above his avatar for show.
The unfortunate thing about tiassa is that he is sufficiently skilled at placing words one after another that being stoned doesn't significantly affect the appearance of his posts.
The result is that he appears to be making very literate and cogent statements, but they are in fact a literate equivalent of word-salad i.e. sentence-salad.

 

Cainxinth,

A very good effort and as I said in an earlier post I almost made the same suggestion. But the issue I saw was that unless everyone bought into it then it was doomed to fail. Also since t1 only posts at weekends, which you may not have realized then a single week would have little to no impact.

And I entirely agree with you that it is t1’s attitude that is the problem and not his beliefs, no matter how weird we might consider them. Although, it is his weird beliefs that are responsible for his atrocious attitude so it is understandable that many here cannot separate the two.

However, some good views have been expressed, and you should stop apologizing for speaking your mind. Your views are shared by many here.

I have to admit I don’t understand why blonde_cupid cannot see the issue.

I’ll continue to simply skip over his posts for the foreseeable future and will hence refrain from any interaction with him. There are many interesting and fundamental issues concerning religion that should take our attention, and t1’s gibberish is distracting us from pursuing those more productive avenues of discussion.

I strongly recommend that everyone take the same approach.

Take care
Cris

 

"Sir" Blonde Cupid? "Mister" Blonde Cupid? "God"?

Easily enough responded to, Blonde Cupid.

Would you go so far as to say that you have any courtesy left coming to you? We'll get to that in a moment.

This one will do, from dictionary.com:

As to reactionary movements: there is always a cause that sets a reaction in motion. This is worth examining as much as the reaction itself. As to the other, that my attitude has favored reaction, I stand by it. That trend is evident in my exchanges with Tony1, KalvinB, Randolfo, and others, including yourself.

Well enough. And what do you mean that you're merely asking for clarification and not demanding information? After all, on 12/13 you offer an "objective opinion" for which you offer no support, and then continue to demand: Did you take the time to read your own posts in the two threads which were highlighted? If so, how would you assess your own manner? It is your assessment you asked to offer, and you've done nothing but give an opinion, refuse to support it, and continue to inquire as to my own opinion which, as has been stated before, is splattered all over nine months of people's topics. I offered repeated opportunities to explain the basis of your opinion:

And the best you could do is "ask for clarification".

And without offering us a clue as to what issue you have trouble with, you demand "clarification" of the issue? Once again, you are demanding my opinion in lieu of providing the basis of your own. I even pointed out the lack of citation to support the "objective opinion" you claimed:

And again, without offering any background to how you arrived at your "objective opinion", you asked for "clarification" yet again

What's the matter, Blonde Cupid? Why do you choose to wield an opinion you can't support? Even when you get your answer, you're not happy:

Once again, you are invited to demonstrate your assessment. Once again, you choose to ask for further "clarification":

And I even went so far as to answer this digression for you. Really, who else was I talking to at that point, Blonde Cupid? What else could that be a response to? Okay, so I'll grant you that issue, but what do you expect? One word is all it's really worth, since you aren't paying attention to any of the others. This way, at least I know you're seeing it, because you continue to whine about it:

You'll notice that you're still asking questions and finding issues to focus on other than explaining the basis of your assessment. Which brings us pretty much to the present:

Like I said, and as I promised we'd get to: Would you go so far as to say you have any specific courtesy coming to you? As we've examined this morning, you pretty much seem to have no basis for the opinion upon which you mount your continued press. So I'm not particularly worried about whether or not I've extended enough courtesy to satisfy your ongoing demand for that which you will not give.

Is this one of those self-centered things where you think everyone in the world will look at a sentence and think it means exactly what you mean? There's nine months of it, and you seem happy to complain about it. Now, show us what and why, and be prepared to trace the history back to its starting point. You keep flinging accusations: have you anything to back them? It's all I've ever asked, which is more than we can say of you.

And here,sir, you are inaccurate. So here's my moral question: Should I assume the best in you, and wonder if you've just forgotten the chronology? Or should I assume that you're born into sin, and therefore prone to your worst side, and assume that this is a calculated slight of the facts? I initially reacted by what? Guess what, Blonde Cupid, and it's the second time at least that I will point it out to you:

So, I'll remind you of that again, and ask you to kindly respect the truth, if it isn't too difficult for you. When you put your chronology together, strive for a little more accuracy. Such distinctions may seem small, but you're the one flinging around the term less-than-noble. My core assumption is toward the better side of people; I can only assume this is an unintentional lexical fumble.

Well? How long are you going to carry those self-righteous inquiries forth without providing the basis for the opinion upon which you hang that righteous notion? How long are you going to skip giving the honest assessment you asked to give back on 12/12? I see a couple familiar complaints being thrown at me; too bad you couldn't give the detail validating those complaints. I don't know why you won't.

Still driving that point home, eh? Shall I ask you nicely again for the evidentiary basis of your opinion? I hate resorting to the I asked first tactic, but, frankly, I did ask first and this, like your other complaints, seems to be without any merit.

So what have you accomplished? It seems to me you've accomplished a complete restatement of yourself and again without offering any real basis for it, and also to have held up your own current refusal to provide the criteria of an "honest" and "objective" opinion in favor of pressing forth with your accusatory inquisition. These three points are a wonderful, if partisan, account of the breakdown of our own portion in this topic, but the simple fact remains that the opinion upon which you base your righteous press has no demonstrable merit; you've chosen it to be that way.

So now guess what? I've had to spell it out for you. You have, at this point, exhausted your credibility because I really would have thought you bright enough to figure out the necessity of supporting your "honest"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and "objective"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

assessment. But it looks pretty sick, doesn't it, when you put it in order. And what seems really buggy about it is that you demonstrate that you've lost track of the chronology, and thus I assert that at least part of your attitude problem is, indeed, that the complaint you voice is FoS. I mean, come on: it's not even real on that point, what am I supposed to think?

What, so in lieu of any examples from the debates 'twixt Tony1 and myself (you know, the ones you wanted to give your honest and objective assessment of?) you attempt to provide examples from a conversation you initiate in what is being revealed to be some hostile intent? What is it that is so damned important about me that KalvinB needs to hire help to set me up, that Tony1 needs to stop me from posting, and that you, sir, need to initiate disingenuously a conversation in order to build an evidentiary case? Indeed, we know where they are. Do you realize that people also get to follow your end of the conversation? That people get to watch you refuse to support your "honest" and "objective" assessment?

You're out of time as far as I'm concerned, Blonde Cupid. In proper faith to the human condition, I feel I owe you one post to redeem yourself. So let's see it. Start anywhere; we'll work backwards and you can eventually see the advent and growth of the rivalries which have brought us to this point.

It's up to you: I've done what I can.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I’m not going to start splitting hairs about who here is nice and who isn’t. Cupid, if you cant see that Tony1 is a condescending jerk then you have far different taste in friends than I do. He treats people with different beliefs than his own like they were utter fools, like they are all drones that unthinkingly “swallowed” their current ideologies. I left the faith that I was raised in with no small amount of soul searching, it was a painful process for me, my family and friends, but one I felt I ultimately had to make, and I won’t be spoken down to or belittled by intolerant asses like Tony.

By the way Tony, I said it before but I guess you missed it: the scientific alternative to religion is reverent in the SciForums Religion board. This site used to be a Science News outlet (you know… blasphemy), how did you get here anyway?

 

*Originally posted by Cris
I strongly recommend that everyone take the same approach.*

To God, too.
Maybe if you close your eyes real hard, God won't be there.

*Originally posted by tiassa
As to reactionary movements: there is always a cause that sets a reaction in motion.*

Of course there is.
It is called "digging in your heels."

*It is your assessment you asked to offer, and you've done nothing but give an opinion, refuse to support it, and continue to inquire as to my own opinion which, as has been stated before, is splattered all over nine months of people's topics.*

It's that splattering effect which makes it difficult for people to ascertain your opinion, other than "I don't like Christianity."

*What is it that is so damned important about me that KalvinB needs to hire help to set me up, that Tony1 needs to stop me from posting, and that you, sir, need to initiate disingenuously a conversation in order to build an evidentiary case?*

Nothing.
It's the stoned randomness, as in "splattered all over" that makes it tough to discuss issues.
It's like driving through a cloud of grasshoppers.
You still get where you're going but the windshield is splattered with grasshopper guts.

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
if you cant see that Tony1 is a condescending jerk then you have far different taste in friends than I do.*

All your friends are condescending jerks, too?

*He treats people with different beliefs than his own like they were utter fools, like they are all drones that unthinkingly “swallowed” their current ideologies.*

If I were actually doing that, I would be posting things like "I spit on your foolishness."
I don't do that.

*I left the faith that I was raised in with no small amount of soul searching, it was a painful process for me, my family and friends, but one I felt I ultimately had to make, and I won’t be spoken down to or belittled by intolerant asses like Tony.*

Granted, changing one's mind is often painful, but it is worth considering that one may be wrong before and after changing it.
The idea is to change it to the right thing.

You seem to have a problem with being offended.
That is foretold...

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
(Matthew 24:10, KJV).

I realize that you would like to blame me for all your problems, and have every one in the world join you in doing so, but is there some teeny-tiny hint of a possibility of a chance that you might share some of the blame in your own problems?

*the scientific alternative to religion is reverent in the SciForums Religion board.*

You do realize that an alternative for religion is another religion, just as the alternative for a Goodyear tire is, say, a BF Goodrich tire?
No one replaces a flat tire with a typewriter.

But then again, that's why I said that science should be discussed in the religion forum, since it is a religion.

 

"Granted, changing one's mind is often painful, but it is worth considering that one may be wrong before and after changing it. The idea is to change it to the right thing."

Tony with every post you show yourself to be everything that I’ve said you are. An intolerant, snide prick who believes he his living by the "one true ideology" and that all others have made the wrong choice.

As for your questioning of the relevance of discussing science here. Science is not a religion it is the opposite of religion it is the alternative to religion; it covers many of the same questions religion does and provides different answers. For example how was the world created? A. God created it or B. Stars, gases, physics, I’ve said it all before. I choose B. You say I choose it blindly, unthinkingly. I say I choose it after much soul searching and your only response is to insult me again. Tony is it totally impossible for you to respect a difference of opinion, even one as fundamental as this?

Bottom line, Tony, have you noticed how all the atheists and religionists on this board are able to amicably discuss our differences and engage in friendly discussions, everyone that is except for you.

Last thing. Again, I wonder how did you find your way here in the first place Tony?

 

*Originally posted by Cainxinth
Tony with every post you show yourself to be everything that I’ve said you are. An intolerant, snide prick who believes he his living by the "one true ideology" and that all others have made the wrong choice.*

I didn't even mention what the truth was, and you're already riding off into the sunset ready to tilt every windmill.
Your offense is showing.
May I suggest that the truth isn't the issue, merely a very thin skin?

*As for your questioning of the relevance of discussing science here. Science is not a religion it is the opposite of religion it is the alternative to religion;*

Of course, earlier you were mentioning your holy books, namely science text books.
You and I both know that you worship science.
That makes it a religion, regardless of the politically correct whitewash painted over it.

*For example how was the world created? A. God created it or B. Stars, gases, physics, I’ve said it all before. I choose B. You say I choose it blindly, unthinkingly. I say I choose it after much soul searching and your only response is to insult me again. Tony is it totally impossible for you to respect a difference of opinion, even one as fundamental as this?*

OK, allow me to say here that I respect your opinion.
Now, let's get back to trashing your opinion...
If it is a good opinion, then it should be able to withstand some trashing.

BTW, how do stars, gases and physics create the universe?
It seems to me that you've confused the mechanisms by which the universe exists with the cause of the universe.
It is very similar to describing a spot welder when I ask you why Ford builds cars.
It's nice to know how a spot welder works, but it has nothing to do with why Ford builds cars.

*Bottom line, Tony, have you noticed how all the atheists and religionists on this board are able to amicably discuss our differences and engage in friendly discussions, everyone that is except for you.*

I understand your need for warm fuzzies.
I feel your pain.
But don't you want to know if your beliefs can withstand some scrutiny?

*Last thing. Again, I wonder how did you find your way here in the first place Tony? *

I used this thing called the "internet."

 

“That makes it a religion, regardless of the politically correct whitewash painted over it.“

Its not whitewash, its basic definitions. If you define religion as: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” than no, science is most certainly not a religion. If you meant, “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Then yes I agree the pursuit of scientific truths is a religion of sorts. Of course, that would also imply that I am a member of the Church of Sex as well.

“OK, allow me to say here that I respect your opinion.”

Maybe we are getting through to you after all.

“Now, let's get back to trashing your opinion...”

Maybe not.

I suppose these question still stand: 1. Tony, have you noticed how all the atheists and religionists on this board are able to amicably discuss our differences and engage in friendly discussions, everyone that is except for you? 2. What brought you to SciForums.com?

 

Cainxinth

As one who has watched Tony1's posting habits since he arrived, allow me to point out a certain key which now rests in your lap. Note, Tony1 wrote:

Perhaps this is Tony1's own problem, as well. As has been repeatedly noted here, he never starts topics. Watch his rare affirmative assertions, they all have to do with dominion and power and crushing. Ne'er does he affirm the more positive messages of Chrisitanity except to wonder why people don't think of verbal abuse as a sincere attempt to help better another. By and large, he identifies with what he is not. And never does he claim anything directly. On the one hand, he claims to know God's thoughts and processes; to the other, he resists that point specifically yet enacts it. Watch when he claims something to be of the Devil: how does he know that this satan was not sent by God? How confidently he attributes the ways of the Holy Spirit to Darkness! Or with other people: he answers not the sentence, but what he thinks they're saying to him--that is, Tony1 determines what people are saying and responds accordingly; while this is an interpretive privilege of each individual, you'll note that Tony1 rarely, if ever, responds to the actual sentence he claims to be responding to--usually, he's pulled a few words out of it to change the meaning of the sentence. (This is a classic device of Chrisitan apologism: define your declared enemies for them, and thus make it easier to know what it is you're declaring war against.)

The bottom line, Cainxinth, is that Tony1 will not subject his beliefs to scrutiny because his beliefs are a running permutation of his core bigotries: he will say anything and believe whatever it takes because at the core of it seems to be a fixation on winning and losing, and he only seems to think of himself as a good Christian so long as he pretends he's winning his sad, illiterate, juvenile, imaginary war. It's why he reduces Christian faith to such silly precepts: believe in Jesus, and be despised for your beliefs. Well, I seem to recall a guy at the World Church who, upon hearing that one of his members committed suicide after shooting at Jews and Asians, remarked that it was a sad day when a fellow soldier was forced to take his life, but to remember the glory of dead kikes and gooks. By the standards Tony1 set out, this guy's the messiah.

Is it any wonder Tony1 is fixated on scrutiny? He's trying to deflect all scrutiny from his own demonstrative bigotries. He knows his theology is unsupportable, and he knows his motivations are earthsick and greedy. Worst of all, he knows his neurotic pursuit of "victory" has compelled him to speak on God's behalf in a manner and under circumstances which may not be appropriate. He may well have called the acts of the Holy Spirit of God devilish in inspiration. It's a hard thing, I would imagine, believing that you have to win, but having to lose in order to win.

I wonder why he bothers fighting at all.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Blond_cupid,

First I want to applogize for not responding sonner. I wasn't in the mode to reply and was feeling rather snotty and snippy. So I chose not post any thing.

I was not suggesting that we "mob" Tony1. That was the intent of the topic starter, not me. Just that his actions will be bring about pepole ignoring him and pushing him a way. Do I feel that one person should take it upon himself to entice (SP?) others into following thier lead in pushing some one out. Well that depends. Here at this board, no they shouldn't. As stated before they have a couple of better actions to take. Such as logeing a formal complaint to just just plain ignoring the person.

No they can not hurt you unless you let them, but how often are pepole expected to just stand there and take it? After a while it just becomes simply aggervating to some one do this to your self and others. If it wasn't you wouldn't be involved in this topic.

WOW, you have just nailed on the head what Tony1 does! He tends to start off fine (not all the time) then when he is asked why he belives the way he does he quickly toses up a few quotes from the bible and begins telling others how stupid, desperate, delusional, retarded, or in the throes of hallucinations they are. I have even see him say that they are being controlled by demons, becuase they belive differently then he does.

So are you saying that you are "shocked" by his behavior??

I personaly have not seen a post ware Tony stays with the flow, but then again I haven't read every one os his post (and I wont it will take to long).

I have to agree with you. It is not just one person. He just one the worst offenders.

Threads tend to start at a perticular point and after a few post they tend to also move into other areas. This is normal. The complaint with Tony1 is that he goes into a thread and maybe starts off with something relevent, like stating his belifs, but once again once he is questioned about his belifs he begins to degrade the belifs of others. I belive he does this just piss pepole off and get them riled up. This causes a dispruption and takes a way from the discusion. Unfortunetly many pepole play right into his hands. When you are not the target of his manipulation and be hard to see, becuase it is usally just a sentence or 2 that are inflammatory with the rest of the post just being filler.

I was not calling him a jerk it was just ment as an example. I do my best to refrain from name calling.

His behavior is like a pet rock???? A pet rock does not speak!! IT just sits there. He does much more then that!

I was not advocating that he should be worried about wether or not a group accepts him. I was saying that if he does not like the natural response to his actions he should rethink how he is acting.

Of course not that punishment would be above and beyound what is called for. Allthough the person who is caught breaking the speed limt manny times should have a heftyier price to pay.

Well lets look at the choices he has left pepole.

1.) Play into his manipulation and be part of the disruption of the thread.

2.) sit back take what he has to dish out with out a peep.

3.) ignore him, loge a complaint, or similar action.

He hasn't left any room for discussion. He has been called on this many times before. At best he ignores it, or continues to quote pepole out of context in order to try and manipulated what they have said into ammunition against them.


=========

In short...

I was never advocating that an idividual try and entice others on the this board to push Tony1 out. I was advocating that each person who is affected by this to make thier own choice on how to deal with it.

I can clearly see that you have been trying to bring up a different point of view on this subject. Unfortunetly I don't feel that point of view is relevent in this situation. He has been such a repeat offender that I feel he shouldn't be molly coddled. After all he has brought it on him self.

It has been and still is my belife that he does this intentionally. Not to join into a discussion, but rather to draw attention to him self. This sort of behavior is self centered and disprutive.

Who ever started this topic will not achive anything, becuase he / she gave Tony1 exactly what he was looking for, our undevided attention.

Ok I lied it wasn't short.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just the way I see it.

666

 

tiassa,

***Here, we see again the characteristic reaction of a less-than-noble manner being projected onto another poster. The projection of your own lack of courtesy onto me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still driving that point home, eh?***

Yes.

***Shall I ask you nicely again for the evidentiary basis of your opinion?***

If you feel the need to ask for something that you've already received.

***I hate resorting to the I asked first tactic***

But, of course, you chose to resort to it anyway.

***but, frankly, I did ask first and this, like your other complaints, seems to be without any merit.***

Take my assessment as a complaint, if you wish. But, just so I don't leave you in a confused state... look back in this thread. The first question asked between the two of us was a question which I asked of you, to which you retorted with a diversionary demand. It was fairly clear from this outset that you did not want what I had to offer - you demanded something else.

But, you are right. Who did or said what first is not a point worth resorting to. Which leaves me wondering why you think it is such an important matter in the assessment of your prolonged, bitter, hostile discourse with Tony1. I'd be more than happy to comment on it (who drew first blood?) if you see that as a major point which you believe I need to take into consideration. My assessment, though, is that it's really not that important.

What I was prepared to assess were your charges in general, using specific examples which you provided as evidence in your attempted prosecution. However, you chose diversion to avoid hearing what I had to say by demanding that I assess 1460 or so posts. What I saw in the posting history, in most of your interactions with Tony1 (and now, me) was contributory negligence in the form of a characteristic reaction which projects your own less-than-noble manner onto another poster.

It is an assessment not far removed from your own "Reactionary" assessment except that it expands on the actual nature of the reaction. A nature which you continue to demonstrate here.

 

Cainxinth,

***I’m not going to start splitting hairs about who here is nice and who isn’t.***

I think that hair was split when you started this thread.

What difference do you see between a f****** idiot, a clod and a jerk?


You called yourself an idiot. (An imbecile; blockhead)

You called yourself a clod. (A dull, ignorant or stupid person)

You called Tony1 a jerk. (A dull, stupid or fatuous person; numbskull)

I don't see much difference. It appears that you might be projecting what you see as some of your own short-comings onto someone else. That's understandable. Many of us do that.

What is not understandable is why you would want to ostracize someone else for the same short-comings? Do you not like yourself that much?

 

Cupid, do you really think Tony is an understanding, tolerant, and wise person. Someone you would like to spend time discussing the meaning of life with? Does anyone here think of Tony that way?

Or like me, do you think Tony is a hyperactive nut, bent on attacking anyone remotely different than him, irrespective of their belief in god. I don’t think it requires 1400 posts to see which of those two descriptions more accurately describes Tony.

P.S. I called myself those names because I had unknowingly been rude to Elbaz, and I was apologizing to him, not making statements about myself in general. Unlike some, I admit it when I have behaved badly.