A question of honesty

Originally posted by Suzianne
My conversations with others (including sonship) about my disagreement of this "eternal torment" issue was not all that long ago.

Why does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?

Originally posted by FMF
Sure. But if sonship has no need to "explain" what he said then I don't really see that there's been any point to anything you've been saying. Why have you been framing my quoting of sonship as "advice" to divegeester? You have been grasping the wrong end of the stick all along.

And thus we see your reason for misdirecting. Yeah, I get that, believe me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I could describe the difference in one word, but you'd deny that, too.

What is the "Suzianne-style of forum-combat" according to you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
2008 may have been when you came to RHP, but you did not start posting here prolifically until more recently. My conversations with others (including sonship) about my disagreement of this "eternal torment" issue was not all that long ago. You can ask him. (But I tend to compress the past. Things I think are "not all that long ago" could have been years ...[text shortened]... my being a "fan" of sonship is somewhat true, but not to the degree you are making it out to be.

OK, thanks, but it's not something I'm concerned about or interested in anyway to be honest.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And thus we see your reason for misdirecting. Yeah, I get that, believe me.

How is it "misdirecting"? What is it you think "misdirecting" means?

Originally posted by FMF
Why does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?

Look, you can stop now.

It has NOTHING to do with it. But that's why you brought it up. To infer that *I* think it has something to do with it.

That's weak. Weak and cheap. Weak and cheap so that the weak-minded can take it in as truth and believe every single misdirected word of it. And THAT is "FMF-style forum combat".

Originally posted by FMF
How is it "misdirecting"? What is it you think "misdirecting" means?

Ok, cool, now for the "innocent act".

Misdirecting is what you do. And I'm far from the only one who sees it. But most don't post in this forum. That's maybe why you concentrate your efforts here.

Look, I said I was done, but I let you suck me back in. I should have stopped then.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It has NOTHING to do with it. But that's why you brought it up. To infer that *I* think it has something to do with it.

Not so. You brought it up on the previous page. You said: "Sonship and I have disagreed, most recently on this very issue of "eternal torment". Most of this was before you [divegeester] showed up in this forum. Yes, things happened here before you [divegeester] showed up." That was you bringing it up, not me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Misdirecting is what you do.

Yes, I know you think this is so, but this doesn't answer the question about what the word "misdirection" means according to you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's weak. Weak and cheap. Weak and cheap so that the weak-minded can take it in as truth and believe every single misdirected word of it. And THAT is "FMF-style forum combat".

What is the "Suzianne-style of forum-combat" according to you?

Originally posted by divegeester
OK, thanks, but it's not something I'm concerned about or interested in anyway to be honest.

That's abundantly clear, even though you spent two posts deriding my "relationship" with sonship.

I'm sorry I let FMF shift me into "defense" mode, so I was already there when you jumped on me with something you're not that concerned about or interested in.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's abundantly clear, even though you spent two posts deriding my "relationship" with sonship.

Perhaps divegeester is baffled by how you appear to be attacking the words sonship said when I quote them but not attacking the words sonship said when he said them. Perhaps.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm sorry I let FMF shift me into "defense" mode...

Really? What is your "offence" mode like? 😀

Originally posted by FMF
Not so. You brought it up on the previous page. You said: [b]"Sonship and I have disagreed, most recently on this very issue of "eternal torment". Most of this was before you [divegeester] showed up in this forum. Yes, things happened here before you [divegeester] showed up." That was you bringing it up, not me.[/b]

TO which, you said:

"Why does this have any bearing on people confronting sonship over his public pronouncements on this forum in recent weeks?"

Anyone can see that these two statements have ZERO to do with each other. I have no idea why you brought up what you brought up. You can give it a rest now.

Originally posted by FMF
Really? What is your "offence" mode like? 😀

Step a little closer and you just might see it. I'm out of practice. With practice, you probably wouldn't see it coming.