I think he should stay banned here. I was happy with a month BEFORE he did that spamming and disguising himself in such a sick way. After that, I totally think he should stay permanently banned.
I think he basically caused disruption overall and in the end was rather chaotic and deceptive.
I'm against his behavior and his arrogance. And I obviously disagree with his arguments but thats no problem for me...until his arguments are expressed with arrogance, flaming, repeated digressing, double standards and such dishonesty.
Its not him I'm against. Its the way he expresses himself. He seems to believe that what he did wasn't wrong. He seems to actually think he was right never mind acceptable! There's the self-righteous arrogance for you. But then sometimes he would do what he clearly new was wrong because he thought it was justified. And he totally wasted time. It was basically anti-debate in many cases.
Like when he told me Charles Darwin believed in God because of the edition of 'Origin' where he said 'the creator', I explained how I was very familiar with this argument and that it wasn't in the original, it was added afterwards - As Dawkins put it "probably as a sop to the religious lobby".
What was his reply? "Yeah I know Darwin didn't really believe in God I was just trying to annoy you".
And I told him "pity you failed
"
Often he just wasted time because he wasn't willing to debate properly. Then he accused me of being bad at debating. Well whether I am or not - I mean I'm new to this - at least I actually debate! Daystar was often anti-debate. He often wouldn't debate at all and would just completely digress.
He has said that he can't answer all the quesitons, fine. But IF he's going to answer why are his answers so often a complete and utter digression if he doesn't like the question? It was time wasting and causing trouble.
So its not him I'm against, its the way he expresses his beliefs and arguments. And his flaming. And the fact he often refuses to debate when he doesn't want to and causes trouble! He was anti-debate when he wanted to be. He just debated when HE wanted to. He would avoid our questions (at least mine, I can't speak for everybody), but expect a lot of us to answer all his. Double standards there.
If he expressed his arguments better and didn't flame at people for no good reason. And wasn't so anti-debate when he didn't want to debate about somethimg, causing so much disruption - then that would be fine. The whole point about debating is the fact people disagree.
When they start acting like a complete prick and causing so much disruption thats the problem. I'm not saying Daystar's necessarily a prick himself, or he's a bad person. But for whatever reason, whether he is or not - he certainly acts like a prick when he doesn't want to address what you say to him. With the self-righteous double standards he holds. And that's what I'm against.
That's what I think. That's my problem with him.
Evf
I think he basically caused disruption overall and in the end was rather chaotic and deceptive.
I'm against his behavior and his arrogance. And I obviously disagree with his arguments but thats no problem for me...until his arguments are expressed with arrogance, flaming, repeated digressing, double standards and such dishonesty.
Its not him I'm against. Its the way he expresses himself. He seems to believe that what he did wasn't wrong. He seems to actually think he was right never mind acceptable! There's the self-righteous arrogance for you. But then sometimes he would do what he clearly new was wrong because he thought it was justified. And he totally wasted time. It was basically anti-debate in many cases.
Like when he told me Charles Darwin believed in God because of the edition of 'Origin' where he said 'the creator', I explained how I was very familiar with this argument and that it wasn't in the original, it was added afterwards - As Dawkins put it "probably as a sop to the religious lobby".
What was his reply? "Yeah I know Darwin didn't really believe in God I was just trying to annoy you".
And I told him "pity you failed
"Often he just wasted time because he wasn't willing to debate properly. Then he accused me of being bad at debating. Well whether I am or not - I mean I'm new to this - at least I actually debate! Daystar was often anti-debate. He often wouldn't debate at all and would just completely digress.
He has said that he can't answer all the quesitons, fine. But IF he's going to answer why are his answers so often a complete and utter digression if he doesn't like the question? It was time wasting and causing trouble.
So its not him I'm against, its the way he expresses his beliefs and arguments. And his flaming. And the fact he often refuses to debate when he doesn't want to and causes trouble! He was anti-debate when he wanted to be. He just debated when HE wanted to. He would avoid our questions (at least mine, I can't speak for everybody), but expect a lot of us to answer all his. Double standards there.
If he expressed his arguments better and didn't flame at people for no good reason. And wasn't so anti-debate when he didn't want to debate about somethimg, causing so much disruption - then that would be fine. The whole point about debating is the fact people disagree.
When they start acting like a complete prick and causing so much disruption thats the problem. I'm not saying Daystar's necessarily a prick himself, or he's a bad person. But for whatever reason, whether he is or not - he certainly acts like a prick when he doesn't want to address what you say to him. With the self-righteous double standards he holds. And that's what I'm against.
That's what I think. That's my problem with him.
Evf
