@ghost-of-a-duke saidWell, I gave you a personal account of the circumstances surrounding the placement of TWO of your stories in shows 403 and 404 but you accused me of lying and then went on to make the deluded and paranoid cockamamie claim that I was supposedly deliberately sabotaging my own radio programme in order to humiliate you in the eyes of your family, when in fact it was your delusional email that was the attempt to sabotage the programme.
I have told you on numerous occasions that I give people the benefit of the doubt when they share personal accounts, not wishing to be the kind of person who accuses someone of lying about something that was actually true.
You even pressed on, narcissistically, with this delusion after I'd pointed out you'd completely got the wrong end of the stick.
So much, then for "not wishing to be the kind of person who accuses someone of lying about something that was actually true".
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
...and all because you flew into a fury when I told you - in private - that I didn't think your opinion of Suzianne was somehow "verified" compared to mine. That was your beef.
The next chapter in that story was the hysterical revenge ~ an email, which you pretended was from the local government you work for, clearly intended to get the radio programme taken off the air by making the delusional accusation.
@fmf saidVery little of that bares any relation to what actually occurred, and are linking things which are not linked. We both know what actually happened, and it's a million miles from your contorted version. I'm content with that.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
...and all because you flew into a fury when I told you - in private - that I didn't think your opinion of Suzianne was somehow "verified" compared to mine. That was your beef.
The next chapter in that story was the hysterical revenge ~ an email, which you pretended was from the local government you work for, clearly intended to get the radio programme taken off the air by making the delusional accusation.
Fortunately you don't get to control conversations. If you having nothing relevant to say to the OP, jog on.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidVery little of that bares any relation to what actually occurred, and are linking things which are not linked. We both know what actually happened, and it's a million miles from your contorted version.
Very little of that bares any relation to what actually occurred, and are linking things which are not linked. We both know what actually happened, and it's a million miles from your contorted version. I'm content with that.
Fortunately you don't get to control conversations. If you having nothing relevant to say to the OP, jog on.
You are either completely delusional or you are lying through your teeth. You decide. I know exactly what happened [i.e. why I put more than one of your stories in those shows] and your email to the radio station was paranoid/deluded or fabricated nonsense.
-Removed-Why are you unable to give your opinion on the biblical passage in question? Kelly has done so. You could easily parrot what he has written, or do a quick Google search to copy the opinion of somebody else.
Alternatively, you could join the conversation and give you view on why Jesus said he wasn't going to the festival, but went anyway in secret. Many people have understood that as an example of Jesus telling a lie. If you disagree with this, why?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYour textbook case of deluded behaviour is completely relevant to the conversation that we have been having for the last 30+ pages.
Fortunately you don't get to control conversations. If you having nothing relevant to say to the OP, jog on.