I do hope it lasts for a very long time, Not_Now.Soon.

<<I'm not giving a vow of silence. Reread the past few posts if there's confusion. Either way enjoy your space. For however long it lasts.>>

By racking up more and more posters on OLO who refuse to respond to me, I save myself more an more time. For I get to debunk the rubbish of my opponents without having to become entangled in a pointless and lengthy debate whereby my opponent was wrong from the very beginning anyway.

So, from the bottom of my heart, Not_Now.Soon, I thank you for your silence. It never achieves the desired silencing effect it's so designed to have (which is based on the assumption that the other is merely after a reaction), but it does, however, tie the hands of the person who makes such a vow.

I look forward to never hearing from you again. As I have said to others here on OLO who now refuse to refuse to respond to me, silence is the greatest compliment they can pay me. It screams: Your arguments counter mine successfully, but I'm going to pretend that they don't by making my vow of silence appear as thought it's the real reason for my response complete lack or response.

If I were one of those who actually managed to achieve a response from the likes of those who have blacklisted me, I would be seriously questioning the veracity of my arguments.

Are you sure that's what you want from me AJ Philips? Silence?

It recently occured to me that my not responding to you could be taken as a frustration for you instead of a gift. This from considering how my lack of replies were reacted to by Toni Lavis and Opinionated2 had become something of a frustration to not recoginize them when they were talking to me. (For Toni that was temporary also, for O2, we'll see I suppose). Still, based on your quick changes of tone, I think more time and more space is needed.

For the change in tone I mean here is an example.
<That, of course, is sad,>
<I look forward to never hearing from you again. >

Live with your successes of not having a counter point given back to you. But do try to heal while your doing that too. A Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde approach does make me want to respond, (either because of a kind tone promising a fresh start, or a sharp criticism inviting a similar reply) but it also makes me think there's still a turmoil of emotions going on underneath, so more space is still needed.

Unfortunately, I do, Not_Now.Soon.

<<Are you sure that's what you want from me AJ Philips? Silence?>>

As much as it pains me to say so, yes, this is what I want from you. In this discussion, you have demonstrated yourself to be utterly dishonest, and I have no intention of continuing communication with such a person beyond debunking what they say.

I will, therefore, continue to debunk the dishonest religious claims you make, as we continue to politely ignore each other.

I'm sorry it had to come to this.

Through our conversations I've lost trust in you too, AJ Philips. But I have been honest throughout it all, and still am.

That's unfortunate, Not_Now.Soon.

<<Through our conversations I've lost trust in you too, AJ Philips.>>

For I have given you absolutely no reason to justify such a position. In fact, I think you are simply adopting this position to avoid addressing the fact that I have pointed out that your god is evil?

Remember what I had once saidn about how disappointing it was that Christians inevitably and eventually have to resort to abuse and/or character assassination.

Yeah, well, there you go...

<<But I have been honest throughout it all, and still am.>>

The fact that you cannot haven’t show where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct” suggests otherwise.

You have been dishonest and you need to own that. Remember the ninth commandment, Not_Now.Soon, remember it. You appear to have forgotten about it.

AJ Philips.

<The fact that you cannot haven’t show where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct” suggests otherwise.>

Among all of the lists of fallacies I've seen you quote to try and negate another poster, I think one of them was "moving the goal posts." Which is what you've done here on this topic. Twice actually. Origionally I said you had to change your position away from what Rasha's origional points because they were unfounded. You've denied such a change even though it isn't a big deal to admit. I supplied the actual text of conversation from changing the "I agree with everything" moment, to the several other changes to get further and further away from that point.

At first your claim is that I was just reading your mind, and that your actual words hold no merit to see such a change unless I claim to know your thoughts. Now you claim that unless you are quoted as directly saying that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians, then you woun't conceded a change in position. Which as far as I can tell is a second measure of moving the goal posts.

(Continued)