A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Bucky Ball]

You mean failed to name a single person who called for your ban? Waiting for these hundred members. List them or be forever known a liar.

LOL. You mean he's not ? The only case of HIV cure on the planet ... not reported in the journals.

[Bucky Ball]

"Can you imagine being so hated ?"
What the actual fuck.
Can we say "passive-aggressive" ?
Instead of whining about being so disliked, any rational person would look at them-self, and ask what they did to have EARNED such a reaction.

[Drich]

Well, what do you know? We've got ourselves a real wakin', talkin' broken record that truly believes it is clever.

said no one of consequence...

---

5
yes we did and you are still wrong dummy.

YOUR OWN post proves again you are too fucking stupid to even read a definition. 
To ban is an infinitive, an action, a verb. 
You were not ban. You were banned. Past tense. 
Please keep it up. 
Demonstrating what an ignorant red neck fool you are, puts everything you write in proper context. 
I forget, did you graduate from 4th Grade ?
But I do appreciate as always your BIG RED LETTERS.

"The past tense of ban is banned.
The third-person singular simple present indicative form of ban is bans.
The present participle of ban is banning.
The past participle of ban is banned."

You can try to fake it some of the time ... you can't fake it all of the time.
You have nothing at all to offer here.
Get lost.

1

---

@Drich

100 members?! Jesus Christ, Drich it was like, four. Your delusions of grandeur are really quite entering. 😂🤦‍♀️

it was every active member except two admins. 1/2 you marry's threaten to walk away a few did. plus you all went on a few days behind my back 30 to 40 pages of dialog before one of you had the decency to tell me the whole website was trying to get me ban. 60+ total pages of hate mail in all.

---

yo mamma (she so fat she counts as 9) and yo daddy (he's no account) and you.
 like what i did there?

You mean failed to name a single person who called for your ban? Waiting for these hundred members. List them or be forever known a liar.

cheesey chas.
minnie
buckster
and some guy who screen name was a play on words.. reminds me of a the word pedaphile

Just because i don't like to point fingers and name names doesn't mean i cant.

it was for me as an admin specificly said "he is creating content for this website and has done nothing wrong.

Except you hadn't created it for that website, as you've admitted.

again douche not a requirement of the spam rule for the website look it up moron. that is your own personal rule. and yes i did that specific post/create a video for an individual on that website. he asked the question and i said i was thinking of doing a video on it anyway, maybe i will do it next. I did and was ban for making the video.

Is that really what the admins said? Or did it read more like "We can't quite justify banning your dumb ass yet but stop acting like a jack-ass"?

what was i doing that is to be considered jackassery? again my actions did not break any rule and was openly exonerated for the spam rule. yet the official reason for the ban was not being a jackass, but spam. that is a winkie winkie from the admin who invited me and set up my account twice. once after i was on a auto ban list (not autobahn) was set up by the admin/everything but the avatar pic. and again after one of you hacked me and changed my password. that admin deleted the old account and set me back up with my original screen name and even avatar this time.

Again same admin exonerated from breaking the spam rule, may or may not have told me not to be a jackass. (can't remember, As being a dick even if we do not break the rules is a rule) so if i broke it it would have been sited. then posted next video there first as it was a response to an member question, and then the other admin chimed in never spoke with them before they said they were changing their ruling and then next thing i know being ban for spam winkie winkie.

but the admins here believe in the preservation of free speech

The argument from free speech is the ultimate concession. It concedes that the best thing that can be said for your argument is that you cannot literally be jailed for making it.

actually that is a red herring. no i can't be jailed but what i said could not be easily dismissed. in less than a month i reduced the sum total of the atheist intellectual might on that website into a ad hom/ad hoc pile of desperation... seeking anything and everything to discredit the messenger rather than the message. i was called every name in the book every one of my shared experiences was challenged/i was called liar spelling grammar under constant assault. then the first video, then my voice and presentation, then it became a free for all on all the little technical aspects of a video. i hired a guy who does the video work and pod casts for disney world to show me how to set things up, he gave me a list of cheap/quality things to get, then soon the technical ad homs stopped. then i let it leak my factory walk through was on my youtube page along with some of my patent work. which lent me some legitimacy on at least some of the work claims. THEN it became about spam mind you we were 6 or 7 video in and now it becomes a problem. which again is not a problem here or reddit or any of the other forums. Again i was creating content for the express purpose of discussion. the video op allows my whole point to be expressed. 95% of the time you guys read a few sentences and go 1/2 cocked into the subject not understanding the nuances of my subject. The video eliminates those who only want to rape the OP for info they can use to spin a ad hoc or ad hom attack. The fact that i was aware of this is what i think the final straw was.

So when you b-holes ask why do i keep my misspelled words and bad grammar? because if you have no way to ad hom and attack the messenger then they are kicked out for 'reasons.' you only want people you think you can beat up on your web site. if i take all of that away and you are faced with proof that i am who i say i am and have done and experience what i say i have it shoots to shit everything you believe. and most of you can not deal with that.

because i as everyone else was literally told in my second to last thread i had done nothing wrong.

Getting away with it is not the same as not doing anything wrong.
[/quote] EXONERATED I WAS ACCUSED JUDGED AND FOUND INNOCENT. Then found guilty of doing what was first judged not guilty.
why can't you simply except how unfair people who are not like you can be treated by your peers?

Poor baby doesn't have an atheist forum to preach at. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

dummy we are on AF.org...

---

You mean failed to name a single person who called for your ban? Waiting for these hundred members. List them or be forever known a liar.

LOL. You mean he's not ? The only case of HIV cure on the planet ... not reported in the journals.

2

---

"Can you imagine being so hated ?"
What the actual fuck.
Can we say "passive-aggressive" ?
Instead of whining about being so disliked, any rational person would look at them-self, and ask what they did to have EARNED such a reaction.

3

[Bucky Ball]

---

He named 5, (actually I didn't ... I always advocated that he leave voluntarily, 
I never tell admins how to run their own site.) 
So that might be 4. 
96 names to go, Drippy. 
Get your ass busy.

[Paleophyte]

EXONERATED I WAS ACCUSED JUDGED AND FOUND INNOCENT. Then found guilty of doing what was first judged not guilty.

OK, I'll explain this to you using small words.

What you are calling "exonerated" was a situation where the mods had to rule on your actions and you were allowed to continue posting by the thinnest possible margin. One vote different and your as would have been out the door. A smart puppy takes note of that and tries not to get a repeat vote. You weren't a smart puppy were you?

What you are whining about as "persecution" was a single mod changing their mind when you, repeating the mistake that required the first ruling, required yet another ruling.

You acted like a fool and were shown the door.

---

---

He named 5, (actually I didn't ... I always advocated that he leave voluntarily, 
I never tell admins how to run their own site.) 
So that might be 4. 
96 names to go, Drippy. 
Get your ass busy.

If you're out then I only count two and I can't imagine Chas or Minimalist threatening to leave the site over this blowhard.

100 names to go Drich.

[Silver]

A.S.K.ing is precisely what leads one to atheism.

[LadyForCamus]

@Drich “every active member”?! Seriously, what is wrong with the way your brain makes memories?

[Abaddon_ire]

You mean failed to name a single person who called for your ban? Waiting for these hundred members. List them or be forever known a liar.

LOL. You mean he's not ? The only case of HIV cure on the planet ... not reported in the journals.

Funny enough, no. Spontaneous remission of HIV is documented in a couple of cases, two that I have read of. Drich was not one of those, nor has Drich been documented in the lit.

Because it never happened.

Now obviously, hordes of researchers immediately descended on those two isolated cases in droves, because that is a cure right before one's eyes if one can figure it out.

Somehow, Drich is not a lab specimen at this point providing the route to a cure. No. According to Drich he has no responsibility to the species to make his "cure" available for study. It is based on faith in god and those pesky scientists do not deserve that evidence since they do not have faith in his particular flavour or deity.


In other words, Drich is flat out lying. And he will not stop causing death in the name of his jebus. Because that is what he wants. Believe my flavour of jebus or taste death. That is Drich's only position.

[Paleophyte]

@Drich “every active member”?! Seriously, what is wrong with the way your brain makes memories?

He lies a lot?

[Bucky Ball]

LOL. You mean he's not ? The only case of HIV cure on the planet ... not reported in the journals.

Funny enough, no. Spontaneous remission of HIV is documented in a couple of cases, two that I have read of. Drich was not one of those, nor has Drich been documented in the lit.

Because it never happened.

Now obviously, hordes of researchers immediately descended on those two isolated cases in droves, because that is a cure right before one's eyes if one can figure it out.

Somehow, Drich is not a lab specimen at this point providing the route to a cure. No. According to Drich he has no responsibility to the species to make his "cure" available for study. It is based on faith in god and those pesky scientists do not deserve that evidence since they do not have faith in his particular flavour or deity.


In other words, Drich is flat out lying. And he will not stop causing death in the name of his jebus. Because that is what he wants. Believe my flavour of jebus or taste death. That is Drich's only position.

The two cases I discussed above. They both had Bone Marrow transplants. There is an explanation for their cures.