I really can't believe you all bought it!

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I?

So in other words, a very low bar of evidence for you and a very high bar of evidence for everyone else.

Why does this remind me of every narcissist I've ever met.                  

                 
                 
                 
                 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.

Oh, not to mention the false threat narrative, narcissists love this one, they always play the victim when they are the bully.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.

Coming from the guy who always claims to be a mind reader.   

[Yuri Bezmenov]

A principle fundamental to science, and to scientists, is that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and yes, if it is a third party making the claims against somebody, the onus is upon them to prove those claims true, not for the party the claims are made against to prove otherwise, so as to disallow a 'win by default', which in logic, is not a valid outcome.

For example, if you were to accuse me of being a paedophile (and I'm not for a minute suggesting you have or are), it would rest upon YOU to prove that *I* had abused the child, not my responsibility to prove that I did not. You would be the one who must present the evidence, and not I the one who had to refute all hypothetical possible sources of that which could potentially be seen as evidence by SOME party, by however slim a margin. The latter equates to a herculean task, and one both impossible and impractical, for it is not possible to prove a negative. One can of course prove a person IS something or DID something, but proving that same person ISN'T  that thing, or that they did NOT do a thing is quite different and logically impossible. And what is more, demanding the accused prove their innocence rather than demanding the accuser prove the guilt of the accused is neither fair nor reasonable. That gives way too much (false and undeserved) of a shadowy, nasty sort of pseudo-credibility to accusers at the expense of the party facing the accusation.

This is not science, though, it's simply stopping a bully.

You have made empirical claims without sufficient evidence to back them up.

If the situation was reversed, you'd be eating this person for lunch by now.

[Fun With Matches]

I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.

I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.

[Al Swearegen]

I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.

I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.

Oh fuck that.

"Innocent bullied" Odeon has been trying to peddle this narrative whereby I am a big nasty bully trying to bring down his forum and hurt his family and therefore ANYTHING he says or does is a righteous stand against this evil menance. He is playing the virtuopus defender.

Then to give more credence to this dishonest narrative he has a brief hiatus (which everyone felt so badly for him for) and then comes back giving me ultimatums (which seems to be "I must back down and take whatever shit he throws at me") and finally to try to extend this point drums up propaganda that I was the cause of AFF going down.

I call this bullshit and he says I am using history revisionism and being dishonest. Fine I back my narrative almost perfectly to that of the people that were there at the time and from the words THEY used at the time to explain the situation INCLUDING two of the three Admins.

In return he backs nothing and I call him on that.

You say "Poor Odeon". Really? LOL

[Icequeen]

I was never a member of AFF, so I don't know what happen there.

All I've been privy to is what I see here and saw at WP.

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch...bitch.

...and I do put some credence into what The Minister of silly walks says.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.

Look at the title of this thread.

Odeon slings mud at people, they sling it back and then at that point odeon keeps it going.

Like Ozy used to say, he's a member of the Pathetically Pathological Last Word Getter Inner's Club.

[odeon]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

Nor I.

Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.

So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.

Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.

I can, he can't.  Who is credible?

Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.

In other words, you can't back yourself and are a propagandist with no credibility. Don't worry.  I got it.

Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much. But for the record, the person I quoted the most was Gareth Even without his many quotes:
*  I put far more on the table to back myself than you could
* AND all sourced from this website
* AND by people from that forum
* AND from that time compared to..."I heard from a source..."

Blow it out your arse, you impotent, little slug

Wanker. Your walls of text do not equal evidence. The only person who actually knows is Amy. Everything else is speculation. Mine is credible, yours is little more than copying and pasting.

So fuck off, little man. You are a bully and your pattern here is more than enough evidence for me.

[odeon]

I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.

I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.

Oh fuck that.

"Innocent bullied" Odeon has been trying to peddle this narrative whereby I am a big nasty bully trying to bring down his forum and hurt his family and therefore ANYTHING he says or does is a righteous stand against this evil menance. He is playing the virtuopus defender.

Then to give more credence to this dishonest narrative he has a brief hiatus (which everyone felt so badly for him for) and then comes back giving me ultimatums (which seems to be "I must back down and take whatever shit he throws at me") and finally to try to extend this point drums up propaganda that I was the cause of AFF going down.

I call this bullshit and he says I am using history revisionism and being dishonest. Fine I back my narrative almost perfectly to that of the people that were there at the time and from the words THEY used at the time to explain the situation INCLUDING two of the three Admins.

In return he backs nothing and I call him on that.

You say "Poor Odeon". Really? LOL

Pretty sure she didn't say that. You're as dishonest as always. Let's hear the bigotry next

[Al Swearegen]

I wish everyone would stop targeting Odeon and leave him alone. He’s not an angel, but he isn’t constantly down peoples’ throats.

I really don’t get the moral stuff, one can justify morals by being as self-righteous as they like, I see a lot of that going on in here. A person with better morals can bully others into submission, using guilttrips, getting them to back themselves up...the end of the day, you can call anything right or better, and justified, but constantly nagging somebody into it is a form of bullying.

Oh fuck that.

"Innocent bullied" Odeon has been trying to peddle this narrative whereby I am a big nasty bully trying to bring down his forum and hurt his family and therefore ANYTHING he says or does is a righteous stand against this evil menance. He is playing the virtuopus defender.

Then to give more credence to this dishonest narrative he has a brief hiatus (which everyone felt so badly for him for) and then comes back giving me ultimatums (which seems to be "I must back down and take whatever shit he throws at me") and finally to try to extend this point drums up propaganda that I was the cause of AFF going down.

I call this bullshit and he says I am using history revisionism and being dishonest. Fine I back my narrative almost perfectly to that of the people that were there at the time and from the words THEY used at the time to explain the situation INCLUDING two of the three Admins.

In return he backs nothing and I call him on that.

You say "Poor Odeon". Really? LOL

Pretty sure she didn't say that. You're as dishonest as always. Let's hear the bigotry next

No idea what "the bigotry" is that you are expecting/hoping for/fantasising about?

[Al Swearegen]

I see no atttempt on walkie's part to make some sort of emotionally-ruled competitive event take place. She has nothing to gain from doing so as far as I can see.

Nor I.

Odeon made some big claims that smeared me and stated them as dact based statements and when I argued the polar opposite, he said that "I" was being dishonest and engaging in history revisionism.

So I backed everything I said with other people's words including 2 of the 3 Admins.

Now it is on him to show he is not lies and hot air and back his big claims.

I can, he can't.  Who is credible?

Arguing with you is utterly pointless. Also, quoting people who weren't behind the decision to close down AFF amounts to a lot of hot air, nothing more. I have heard opposing opinions that I find credible, especially in light of your behaviour here, and so the difference between me and you now is that I don't quote my sources. Why should I? I already know what you are and won't allow what happened at AFF to happen here.

In other words, you can't back yourself and are a propagandist with no credibility. Don't worry.  I got it.

Look, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much. But for the record, the person I quoted the most was Gareth Even without his many quotes:
*  I put far more on the table to back myself than you could
* AND all sourced from this website
* AND by people from that forum
* AND from that time compared to..."I heard from a source..."

Blow it out your arse, you impotent, little slug

Wanker. Your walls of text do not equal evidence. The only person who actually knows is Amy. Everything else is speculation. Mine is credible, yours is little more than copying and pasting.

So fuck off, little man. You are a bully and your pattern here is more than enough evidence for me.

You are a joke. You know that right. Who made big claims? YOU did. Out of nowhere. They concerned me and AFF. This little diatribe about evidence and speculation, was NOT your position when you made claims against me. Was it, slug?
You also called my narrative, history revisionism and dishonest. Yet you are unable to match or even give an attempt of backing yourself and faced with evidence that would be unable to be attained under most circumstances, you wave it off.  I would hate to be the victim of a crime with someone like you on the jury.

At what point did you consider focusing those standards on your own self. You made big claims and whilst I present really good evidence to support my narrative, you have nothing but speculation AND you call yourself credible.

[odeon]

It's more than enough for me to see your behaviour here and compare it to what I've been told about your behaviour at AFF. It's what you are, Al, a bully. A pathetic little excuse of a man-child.

Now fuck off.

[Al Swearegen]

It's more than enough for me to see your behaviour here and compare it to what I've been told about your behaviour at AFF. It's what you are, Al, a bully. A pathetic little excuse of a man-child.

Now fuck off.

It is one of your sillier opinions but kudos for your consistency of narrative. That is something new the slug may be in the process of metamorphise. Doubtful but I have optimism

[Walkie]

It was quite clear what you were implying, Walkie, but claiming that nobody is taking what I said seriously is just not true. If you think you can read people's minds, then read mine.

I wasn't  reading minds, Odeon. I was  just judging  by what people have openly said  on this forum. The only person I can see who openly supports your narrative is hiding behind a new account, and not telling us who the heck he was on AFF.  Without a lot more info than that, I'm not willing to take his opinion seriously, especially not given that  it's defamatory.

I've agreed with you that Al's behaviour here is a form of bullying, and I do  I stand by what I said.  That said, I  regret making so strong a point of it when I did.  I regret that  because I didn't know that this bloody great can of worms was about to be re-opened did I? For my own part, I want Al to think twice about that behaviour. I don't want to beat him about the head with a great big stick until he feels totally justified in resuming said behaviour.  Especially not if that entails dredging up some really unsound and unjust asccusatons concerning what went on years ago on another board and citing a bunch of anonymous witnesses.

You're acting as if you've made up your mind to ban Al, and you're desperate to justify that action to yourself.  Might be wrong; you might be thoroughly dishonest , like some people say, but to my mind , I'm looking at a man acting under extreme pressure . And yeah, Al is  surely instumental in piling on the  pressure. There are no angels here. The relationship beween you and Al has turned toxic and is bring out the worst in you both.  Something needs to be done about that,  for everybody's sake.

Well, there's your justification, if you need one: something needs to be done. I've already said that I'd rather let Pyraxis take control ; if therte's a better way forward, she's more likely to find it isn't she? because it isn't personal to her. You turned down that suggestion.  Well, OK, you're the boss, but Al being banned by Odeon is still the worst-case-scenario for this board, IMO... short of whole board falling apart.

  Unlike some, I don't believe  you're actually lying, Odeon.  (except to yourse;f, maybe) . And  I bloody well wish that people would stop crying "Liar" at each other, because it's worse-than- pointless talking things over if nobody is willing to take it on trust that others are  doing their best to communicate honestly.  Aspies generally do try to communicate honestly (we're notorious for being excessively honest , FFS) ... except insofar as that might entail  spilling the beans on some deeply personal shit, ofc.

 Ofc, neither you nor Al is gonna spill, not in the middle of a fight  on the spazznet's most notorious forum, with your detractors taking detailed notes on all you say, to use in evidence against you.  That's just natural self-preservation.  Can't blame you in the least.  However,  I don't see it being resolved any other way than by getting under the skin.  I think  we've got  all sorts of personal shit that has nothing to do with this forum coming into this. In an ideal world, you'd both backl off, go into analysis, IRL, and come back with a more detached perspective.   But yeah, I know, I know,  that's not gonna happen either; that's just my own pleasant little daydream

Oh, and by posting the last few messages, you just lost what little respect I had for you and your opinions.

Well, i'm evidently not currying favour here, am I? I've been open enough about my POV to risk pissing everybody off. That said, I'm not m,ade of stone. It actually  does grieve me to lose your respect. It also grieved me to openly agree with Scap and Co, at this juncture.    Not so long back, Al was having a go at me , in his usual dogged fashion.  You backed me up. More than that, your responses were genuinely outraged and  flaming angry,  so it seemed to me.  I was  (and remain)  grateful for that.  I haven't forgotten, nor shall I, but I just don't do that "blind loyalty" thing, especially not when I do actually  sympathise with both sides.

I've said it before, but i'll say again: you and Al are both being inflammatory in your different fashions, both goading each other beyond endurance.  I don't want to be cheering for Team Odeon  and more than I want to be cheering fo Team Al,  because I really  do believe that only makes matters worse.

I'm bloody sad about the whole damned mess, truth to tell, but I don't believe that scapegoating solves it.

[EDIT. I actually wrote this yesteday, but didnt post it - called away from PC.  I now note that IQ also finds the "Al destroyed AFF" theory credible. But that doesn't alter my opinions]