an opportunity to talk about me
Where are you hateful? read your blog. Or better yet, I suggest an open post asking the same question, and let all who find your site tell you.
One of my many blog admirers is concerned that I am full of hate. I did beg to differ but he was most insistent. And I have to concede I may not have a fully objective viewpoint on this issue.
Please feel free to browse around my blog and get back to me if you have any comments you feel would be relevant.
Thanks!
Not at all – I find that even your occasional sarcastic comment, more often than not, is generally done tongue in cheek.
LikeLike
Thank you, but you might be accused of being biased so I’ll have to wait for some proper Christian folks with real points of view to let me know.
LikeLike
What on earth? Whoever that is should have a better read around your blog. You speak frankly. Since when is that hateful? I thought the Christians called that love.
LikeLike
It was Askthebigot’s editor’s partner. They don’t like me pointing out that she hurts people by saying gay marriage is a sin, and that no-one should make cakes for a same sex wedding.
LikeLike
Um, I’ve visited Askthebigot’s blog. Pot meet kettle is all I can say. Obviously they don’t feel very loved by you’re truthfulness. Hmmm….I wonder how that can be. It so clearly is the loving thing to do, telling other people when they’re wrong and what they can do to fix that.
LikeLike
My point of view has always been that it’s OK to disagree with me, I can’t force anyone to be right.
Bear in mind, it’s just a matter of time before they add, “Syndrome” after my name —
LikeLike
Anyone has the right to be wrong if the want to…
LikeLike
No, actually I couldn’t care less whether or not you think she, or anyone else, hurts your or anyone else’s feelings on the subject of sin or not sin, not my bag. Anyway that is just another of your fantastic baseless accusations, or do you have actual proof of her harm to others that you mention?
Also, I must have totally missed where she or anyone else said no one should make cakes for a same sex wedding, can you link to that? This thinking again demonstrates your lack of understanding in regard to rights and your disregard for truth.
LikeLike
@ Hewhoshallnotbenamed
It would be really super- great if you had your own blog, then we could all pop over and insult you properly.
Wouldn’t that be fun? Come on, what do you say? 🙂
LikeLike
What a smashing idea! He could delete our comments when he got bored of us too – so it would be a win-win situation! 😀
LikeLike
They don’t play like that. Most of the Sunbeams for Jesus club are merely pew warmers I am sure; similar to those dual blogger thingies you mentioned, perhaps?
It’s almost the same as talking to an invisible friend, I guess.
LikeLike
Oh no! I need to invent another Daily Award. The one that gets me singing something. Singsong of the Day perhaps?
‘A sunbeam, a sunbeam, Jesus wants me for a sunbeam ..’
LikeLike
@ Ark
Snort of the day award for that comment Ark. (This gets awarded daily – obviously – to the first blog post or comment that has me making a mess all over my keyboard because it is so funny).
Still laughing now 😀
LikeLike
I think Hewho might have been telling porkies. He’s admitted he’s the husband of Mrs Faust, the editor of the Bigot blog, which he initially lied about (pretending he was a random bystander) until Pink found out he was commenting from the same IP address. Well, Ark what would you say if I suggested that Hewho might well be PR Faust who you previous had a long and boring argument with over on the Bigot blog? If this is the case, he already has a blog:
http://prfaust.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/ad-homenim-atheist-strikes-back/
If that’s not his blog, then it’s his brother-in-law’s blog, or his cousin’s blog, or something similar, so I’m quite sure it’s fair game. 🙂
Isn’t investigation fun??
LikeLike
LOl…I saw Pink’s comment re this and smiled like Dick Dastardly at his detective work.
What can I say? What a pair of Plonkers.
LikeLike
Go Pink! 🙂
LikeLike
Go Pink? And what would your response be if someone who disagreed with your position worked to reveal your name on their blogs, Violet? Or is all of this “justified” because we are “evil” and “intolerant”?
LikeLike
Askme – I can’t speak for Vi, but for me, it would make no difference if someone revealed my name on mine.
LikeLike
To be honest, I’d find it a bit weird if anyone bothered, they’d be more than disappointed with the results. I’d only be a bit sad for my mum when she inevitably googled my name (she’s cyber-nosy) and found the sharper end of my atheist tongue. She’d understand and support why I’ve focussed on most of the areas that have attracted my attention though. Anyway, I hope your mum doesn’t go googling your name, and I am sorry if this drama somehow causes her any pain or embarassment. Although from what you say, I expect you’re completely open about your position with her and her partner.
I’m not sure how to answer your question, because you’re right that we should be entitled to our privacy in Blogland. But as far as I’m aware, all the info he found was easily obtainable in the public domain, is that not right? Pink is completely open about his identity and I can see how people hiding behind silly names (like me) must be annoying for people like him. He was concerned your whole set-up was a lie and a sham, and I think what he brought to light is very important for people to know, people who read your blog and are influenced by it. You and your husband come from a scary looking church, and most of the people who jump in to defend you are either employed by you, married to your employee or are part of your cult-like church. That’s correct, isn’t it? I think, given the nature of the advice you give on your blog, and the fact that you are inviting Christians to come to you as an expert in the field of same sex marriage, it’s only fair and honest for all your credentials to be public.
What was your reasoning for keeping your identity private?
LikeLike
“To be honest, I’d find it a bit weird if anyone bothered,” Weird is a mild way to put it. Disturbing and unsettling I would say would be most people’s response. It is certainly mine. Why are you cheering this on? Why are you participating?
Pink chooses to reveal his identity, as do many other bloggers. I chose not to, because there are people other than me involved in my story. Of course I have been honest with everyone in my family and my closest gay friends with what I blog about. Upon launch, I sent them all a link to the blog with an invitation to read, comment, and share their thoughts with me. My mom doesn’t need to google anything. She need only read or askme. My mom’s partner has commented on several posts. When it comes to my personal relationships, there is no room for secrecy. For ANY of them, but especially my mom, I want her life to be her story to tell. That is why I don’t give information about her or her partner unless it is glowing. They don’t need anyone probing into their life because I am choosing to talk about my positions.
But apparently, you and Pink knows what is best for me and them.
He proclaims to be a great researcher. Since you both are skilled at unearthing information about those on my blog using their IP addresses (really a breach of blogging etiquette wouldn’t you say?) you would see that very few of those who comment on my blog live near me.
“most of the people who jump in to defend you are either employed by you, married to your employee or are part of your cult-like church. That’s correct, isn’t it?”
You have all the tools, and have proven that you have the motivation, to answer that for yourself. My husband engaged Ark about a discussion on the historicity of the New Testament, hardly a regular commentor. Frau is my editor, not a member of my church but certainly a member of our community. Hewho is her husband, not a Christian as he has stated over and over. Now, scour the IPs of everyone else on my threads, because obviously this is really really important to you. You will discover that your conclusions are wildly incorrect.
“only fair and honest for all your credentials to be public” Well, I guess you decide what is fair and honest. My credentials are that I have first-hand experience being raised by an amazing woman who is in a relationship with another woman. That’s the part that is relevant to the discussion.
LikeLike
“Why are you cheering this on? Why are you participating?” Past tense – I cheered it on while he was investigating. I thought there was a significant chance that you had fabricated the whole story. And now, as stated, I think your religious circumstances are relevant to your blog, so it’s vital that your readers know who you are. You don’t exactly publicise that your husband is pastor in a church that doesn’t accept practising homosexuals, trans people or people who have divorced and remarried as members. It does put a different slant on everything you say for any Christians reading your posts.
LikeLike
Well, if that’s how you want to rationalize it then I guess it makes it easier on your conscience. The reality is that everything that I have ever said about myself, my husband, my editor (I did a whole post dedicated to her role) is true. There is no fabrication, cover-up, or lying about anything. My anonymity was an attempt to make the targeting for my beliefs fall solely on me.
Why is it a surprise that my husband and I agree on this issue? And, as he told you on his blog, among church attendees we have those “Who are gay but not Christian. Who are gay and Christian and working this through. Who were drug addicts, involved in prostitution, alcoholism, adultery, etc., who have chosen to abstain and seek to follow Christ on these issues. And some of them have chosen to become members.” I would add that we have several members who have been divorced and remarried.
But since you think that “it’s vital” that my readers know who I am I guess that justifies having something done to me that you would be horrified to have done to you. If people begin sending my mother hate mail or my kids are bullied at school over this, I’ll let them know that you and Pink believed that this outing of my identity was “vital.”
LikeLike
I’m being polite about this because I feel sorry for your mother, given the things you say about gay people. But if she already knew about the blog then that’s a moot point. Your information was in the public domain, you are pushing a horrifically harmful agenda on a site with suspicious traffic (and still won’t admit how many of the characters are friends and church members), and besides all this, the views of you and your husband on these issues must be public knowledge because of the church. Don’t start trying to play blame and guilt games for imaginary outcomes – it’s tedious. You think that your mum and her partner don’t deserve to be members in your church, work for World Vision, get married or even raise you. I know we have no hope in convincing you that any gay person deserves to be treated with respect, but it will help any confused or upset gay person, or their friends and relatives, who stumble on your site, to know you as more than an anonymous Christian. I’m sure you even believe that from your point of view.
“I would add that we have several members who have been divorced and remarried.” I hope this is a typo and you mean attendees. Otherwise my respect for you plummeted even further. This is CLEARLY a sin in the Bible. Same sex marriage isn’t even mentioned. If you really allow remarried people in your membership, you are even bigger hypocrites than I imagined. One rule for the heteros, another for the homos.
LikeLike
So, in summary, you are saying that tactics of mining and exposing my identity are not only justifiable but noble because I hold a position which is “horrifically harmful.” (That position being that children have a right to be known by and loved by their mother and father and that public policy should reflect that reality.) But should the same tactics be used against you, they would be unacceptable, not doubt.
I’m not worried about my gay family and friends having access to the blog- we are open about our differences. I’m concerned about the crazies (there are some on both sides of this debate, as is VERY evident from this whole debacle) knowing WHO THEY ARE!!! Which no one could have known until you four went on your crusade. But there is no acknowledgement or regret of your double standard. They are all acceptable losses for the sake of you “loving” cause. Can you hear yourself?
LikeLike
You are part of a church that openly shun practising homosexuals and trans people, yet you boast that you admit divorced and remarried people. Can you hear yourself on the double standards here?
I don’t know what ‘crazies’ you are referring to, but given that you are public about your stance on your home territory in your church, I don’t see how your blog being public would affect this. Are you ashamed of anything you’ve said on your blog? Is it anything you wouldn’t have said in public in your church?
LikeLike
Yes yes. You hate my church. I know.
The question again Violet, is whether or not I would be “justified” or noble if I revealed your identity. Or is it only justified because you have deemed me “harmful.”
LikeLike
Feel free to reveal my identity. It adds nothing to my story. We are not in the same situation.
LikeLike
Well, then why not do it yourself? After all, maybe someone else may would deem it “vital.” Someone that knows what is better for you than you do?
You mentioned elsewhere that you were concerned that I would go all “eye for an eye” on you and reveal your identity. But you have me confused with your compatriots. I will not be exposing you. I will not (as ever) be running smear pieces on you. Though I recommend that you be sure to dance when Pink says dance. Because you don’t want him as your enemy.
LikeLike
What on earth are you talking about?
1. You can’t go ‘eye for eye’ on me because there’s nothing to find.
2. You did run a smear piece on me on your most recent post.
3. And Pink? Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve done nothing but argue with him from day one. The only time we’ve been civil to each other is when we’re fighting for equal rights for same sex couples.
LikeLike
“You can’t go ‘eye for eye’ on me because there’s nothing to find.”
I WON’T go “eye for eye” because I refuse to lower myself to the bottom-feeding methods employed by the “love and tolerance” crowd.
“You did run a smear piece on me on your most recent post.”
You mean when I mentioned that you had run a smear piece on me? The same post where I prayed for you that God would give you good gifts? My dear, I hope that your defensiveness is an indication of your regret at having participated in this ill-motivated endeavor.
Argue with Pink? Hardly. Cheering him on and exchanging private messages about “how” he has revealed my name doesn’t sound much like you are taking a strong stand against him. Dance, my girl. He will not offer you the same courtesy as I have.
LikeLike
Oh, and regarding how many church member comment on my posts, Clare has itemized those on my most recent thread here.(Again, because that’s really important to you guys) http://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/i-dont-want-to-be-moved/
Why don’t you check into their IPs (you guys have so much experience at that) and see how many of them are even in my state. And then do come back and report your findings. I’d love to know where these patient, articulate, level-headed fellow bigots reside.
LikeLike
If you don’t want to be open about how many of the people regularly contributing to the discussion on your site are your employees or have sworn submission to your husband, that’s fine.
LikeLike
Why aren’t you zealous to uncover it, Violet? In you quest for love and justice? Afraid that your premise for participating in this witch hunt will unravel and then *gasp* you may have to admit that you were unethical and hypocritical?
LikeLike
Again, if you don’t feel comfortable honestly answering the question, feel free to divert the conversation to meaningless accusations.
LikeLike
The reality is that you were eager to participate in seeking out the identity of those you do not like when you thought it would forward your cause. Now, you resist employing the same tactics because you KNOW that you will not like the results. Because you and Pink now understand that everything you thought about me and those on my blog was a fabrication. But still, you will admit no guilt. No regrets, right? Because you and Pink are loving and tolerant.
Just. Admit. That. You. Play. Dirty.
And that you don’t care if people are harmed by it.
LikeLike
I think you’re a bit confused somewhere along the line. I mentioned I felt uncomfortable at one point because I thought knowledge of what you have been writing would hurt your mother. But you clearly have no problem with your views being public and associated with you personally – you had already notified everyone you care about regarding your blog, and your discriminatory views on same sex couples are advertised within your church. Although you didn’t answer my earlier question – have you been saying anything on your blog that you wouldn’t say in public?
You blog is a fabrication. You don’t admit that your opinions are driven by the extremist church your husband heads. You don’t admit that the ‘random’ ‘bloggers’ attacking anyone who disagrees with are associated with you through employment or through swearing obedience and submission to your husband. You still won’t honestly admit to what extent this is the case, so I have to conclude you still have things to hide.
LikeLike
“have you been saying anything on your blog that you wouldn’t say in public?”
Nope. Again, I don’t hide things from those in my life with whom I disagree. I also don’t shove it in their face, troll their FB updates or personal blogs when they state their beliefs, or regularly post about my positions on FB. Instead we have those infrequent conversations face-to-face.
But you have admitted that your mother would not be comfortable with what you write. If you can’t share it with you mother, is that an indication that something you are saying perhaps should not be said?
“Your blog is a fabrication.”
How convenient for you if it were.
“You don’t admit that the ‘random’ ‘bloggers’ attacking anyone who disagrees with are associated with you through employment or through swearing obedience and submission to your husband.”
If you did your homework, which for obvious reasons you choose not to, you would see that NO ONE on the current thread attends my church or even lives in my time zone that I know of. The exception is “Hewho” who lives in my town but is not even a Christian and does not attend our church.
The only “regular commentor” who attends my church is my husband. According to WordPress he had 50 comments among my “recent comments.” And if you look at my “Would you attend a gay wedding post” (you remember that one, right? You grabbed a couple lines out of it and… oh… yes, that’s right- wrote a smear piece about it.) you will see that nearly every one of those 50 comments was because he got roped into a long conversation with Ark about the historicity of the New Testament after my gay wedding post. Other than that one discussion, he hardly ever comments.
So, if your case about my blog being a “sham” is due to who comments, you have been debunked, my dear. And you will have to admit (BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE BUT YOU) that everything I’ve ever written is real, true, and genuine. And now due to your collective “research” as you all put it, you know the flesh and blood person behind it all.
I have pressed this with you, Violet, because I have seen glimpses of a desire for fairness and genuine dialogue in your posts and sometimes even in your questions on my blog. I have done the same with Clare, who in my opinion is a hurting woman but not one who delights in twisting thorns into the sides of others.
I am asking for an admission from you. A recognition that you were wrong. That you would be unsettled if I were to employ the same tactics with you. That I have never lied or fabricated anything on my blog (and if you persist in that vein could you please explicitly cite where I have done so?). And, if you can bring yourself to it, that you are sorry for your participation.
I am sure you will want the final word here and I joyfully give it to you. I will also say that in many ways you are a greater blogger than I. I don’t know HOW you manage to maintain so many conversations at once and still write as often as you do. You either have more time on your hands than I, or are just brighter and more efficient. (I expect the latter is more likely the case.) I have added the “recent comments” to my page because, after having visited your blog several times this weekend, I realized that your blog layout is much more user friendly than mine. And obviously has better pictures.
LikeLike
Thanks for popping over, I’m glad we’ve had the opportunity to clear the air. I must say I find your discussion approach interesting – and perhaps you find mine equally bizarre, please let me know. You start with compliments/prayer/love, then move into attack mode, and then invariably finish the discussion with “I’ll let you have the last word” combined with compliments/prayer/love. I’m just left wondering if this is taught method I’m unfamiliar with or if it comes naturally to you, as I’ve observed it on a number of threads.
I’m pleased to hear that none of the non-bloggers that pitch in on your site are members of the church. It was disturbing to think that they were people who had sworn to be submissive to your husband. Thank you for your honesty.
Relationships with mothers are odd, aren’t they? You disapprove of your mother expressing her sexual orientation, wouldn’t allow her to join your church, and you’re happy for her to know that you don’t think she brought you up appropriately. I disapprove of my mother’s religion (although not too much about her chosen interpretation). I have no idea why I would want to shield her from potential upset – I’ll think about this because you’re right, it just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Fascinating that you say I have been “confused and paranoid about the whole thing” after Pink’s post. This right after Pink writes to you: “I did uncover Mrs. Faust’s name, if you want to know how, I’ll give you details privately ;)” Quite a little racket you guys have going, eh? All in the name of tolerance and love, after all.
LikeLike
You’d just posted your name online. It was a joke. That’s why you are ‘confused and paranoid’.
LikeLike
It’s a “joke” that you guys are privately messaging about all of this?
LikeLike
Privately? It’s all in public.
LikeLike
is it? Not according to that thread with Pink, my dear.
LikeLike
Again, what on earth are you talking about? Is that the one where he jokes he’ll tell me your name in private, just after you’d posted your name?
LikeLike
VW, this can not really be an honest statement.
“Pink, who did some digging into your wife’s identity, did so out of genuine concern that her blog was a complete sham. It’s not normal to find two people commenting individually from the same IP address, and it did honestly give the impression that the whole thing could have been concocted to give a false impression about the experiences of someone brought up by a gay couple. His intentions were honourable.”
What is “not normal” about married people living in the same house using the same computer? How is that ‘way out there’ and ‘beyond the pale’? So much so as to warrant the altruistic investigation by the good citizen Pink? As he continues to libel me and others concerned on his own blog I’m having a hard time believing this was an honest effort of a concerned individual with honorable intentions.
You all played this one dirty. Just admit it you’ll feel better. Or keep doing it but be honest about it.
LikeLike
Libel you? You were wholly dishonest. Ever heard of disclosure and recusal? How about conflict of interests?
You all engaged in deception. When I mentioned the IP issue, Askme’s response was “what’s your smoking gun?”- an implied denial, not an explanation. You were no more forthcoming. You attempted to dissimulate with ambiguity and double-talk:
“Or was I also in a disingenuous way adding traffic to Violetwisp’s blog when our debate began there? Am I a sham traffic generator for both sides? Or maybe I’m a blog traffic generator for hire and both VW and Askme are paying me vast sums of money, that must be it.”
It’s now clear that you had no relation whatsoever with Violet Wisp, so you weren’t just hiding one connection, you used the opportunity to dissimulate further by casting doubt on another. Bait and switch.
Would you like to clarify further? Is your wife a member of Askme’s church? How long have they known each other? Do you share political affiliations with your wife or with the Faust’s? Does your wife get paid for editing? Will the payment depend on that website being successful and there being traffic?
So you concealed vested interests and I’m a ‘bully’ for revealing your deception. For clarifying that that blog isn’t a genuine individual sharing their opinions, but a masked religiopolitical agenda pushed by a church- from which the blogger in question benefits financially.
This game wasn’t just a matter of hiding Askme’s identity so she could throw rocks at people from behind a wall. It was a concerted effort which included members of her church and your wife and you (if we believe your version of events); But considering all the farce that has already gone on, I’m not inclined to take anything any of you say at face value.
Mr. Faust’s post made everything about how this posse works even more clear as he falsely accused ‘me’ of anonymity- just a blatant, outright lie.
LikeLike
Pink, you are a bully for reasons that are clear. Your detective work to reveal a deception that did and does not exist to cover some larger conspiracy that did not and does not exist, and that frankly makes no sense, possibly not even to you the author of said conspiracy makes you a fool and an obsessed and paranoid one at that.
Libel, you continue to contribute characteristics to me that have been proven false. You continue to convict me for actions and intent that are in error.
All of your paranoid delusional accusations have been refuted and proven false, So I will not take the time to answer them individually (again) in this comment.
LikeLike
You’re not just a scam artist, you’re a practiced one at that. You scammed your way out of explaining you had a connection to Mrs. Faust. You’ve answered none of the questions that pertain to your conflict of interests:
Is your wife a member of Askme’s church? How long have they known each other? Do you share political affiliations with your wife or with the Faust’s? Does your wife get paid for editing? Will the payment depend on that website being successful and there being traffic?
And you answer without clicking the reply button, which is either ignorance or intentionally designed so that people only see your answers if they go back to the original post.
LikeLike
Pink, Is this The Hague? Am I on trial for crimes against the blogosphere? Please provide the contract or law I have violated and please provide your credentials or warrant that authorize you to prosecute.
What impartiality are you speaking to? was there ever a claim made by me or anyone else to impartiality? What is the relevance? This is a debate of opposing and differing opinions, no one involved is impartial. And seriously, disclosure and recusal? From a man who uses the name Pink Agendist? Again, this is a debate of issues on blogs, not a trial, and most definitely not mine. Although clear evidence of something is indeed being presented in this discussion.
On that note I will answer your questions as you have become, for the moment, slightly amusing again.
No, she is not a member of the church. They have known each other four or five years. (?) No one is or has been paid for anything, not My wife, Not Mrs Faust, Mr Faust and not me. There is no money being made here in any way by anyone.
As to political affiliation shared with the Faust’s, I honestly do not know. As to My wife, No, she maintains a party affiliation, I do not. If you wish to discuss politics we can do that.
As to the reply button, again you have uncovered yet another of my dastardly underhanded tactics. I may have indeed done so, in error. The third option you forgot, human fallibility. There has been no intentional hiding of my comments. And really what would be the point of making a comment and then hiding it? That can’t really make sense, even to you. And really, what next, my tyops adn splellling errers?
Speaking of hiding comments, where exactly was it you made a clear accusation to me? And please don’t again reference your innuendo as if that was a clear accusation. Either link to it or simply admit you never made one prior to revealing your grand scam theory.
LikeLike
Not quite Den Haag. The nephew of this GAY couple who spent all his summers growing up with us works at the ICC, so I have to be precise.
You’re trying to spin the whole thing around. You hid, you dissimulated and now it’s other people’s faults. Where does personal responsibility stand in this? Or is there none?
Do you mean to say your wife works for free? Honestly? You expect us to believe this?
And if she does work for free, can you explain why? Because then ideology MUST come into play.
LikeLike
Pink, As I see it the chain of events plays this way. You entered into a debate and left it unfinished when it got uncomfortable, for you. Sometime later you and I engaged again, you pretended you had no idea of the previous debate when I first accused you of running away. you then brought up the same erroneous argument, were proven wrong again, all the while becoming more thuggish and nasty as the case for your points unraveled.
As it progressed you became enraged, Then out of nowhere you make a complete change of direction and note that you have my IP address and therefore know what I am and that I am some sort of scam artist. I repeatedly ask you directly to make your accusation as I have nothing to hide, you refused and offered nothing but innuendo instead. Then you ran away, which I have on good authority was not your style. New style for spring maybe?
Then on the blogs of others and your own, you run through a gambit of wild theories, I am Mrs. Faust, I am Mr. Faust, we are all possibly the same person, this is all an effort to make money by duping poor innocent…well I’m not sure who you think we were trying to dupe, but I do indeed wish I knew how this was all supposed to make money. This theory of yours is a complete fabrication, you may believe it, but a fabrication nonetheless. Then as that was not enough, to further embarrass yourself you post this crazed theory and start harassing people at her church with more accusations based on your half-assed detective work.
Do I expect you to believe my wife is not paid? Pink, frankly at this point I wouldn’t venture even a wild guess as to what you might believe at any given moment. But yes she is not paid. Why does she do it? She is helping a friend, is that a completely alien concept to you?
Do they share similar ideologies? Pink do you wish to retract this question?
LikeLike
Citizen Pink, any reply? did I click the wrong button?
LikeLike
Howls of laughter. You DO realise he is quoting moi on his blog?
Oh what joy!
LikeLike
Haha, I couldn’t even be bothered reading it! What a classic post to stumble on.
LikeLike
I am already leaving a comment as we speak. Currently the only comment is from his blinking Missus, who is fawning all over him.
Their sex life must be lots of fun.
Oral sex by text.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Bigot is Mrs Faust. Mrs Faust is the editor. Although Bigot could be a ‘character’ made up by the lovely Faust couple I suppose, and they’re pretending to be her pastor and her editor? Are we spending too much time thinking about this? 😉
LikeLike
It’s worth a few minutes, but i won’t linger much more than that.
I truly am getting fed up with it all. Doesn’t it wear you out?
I am going to try to stick to reading such stuff that’s more historical and analytical rather that “burn the gays” and ”damn the atheist” type diatribe.
You cant argue with insane people too long else you become like them.
Haven’t you ever listened to Primary School teachers?
After a year or two you get the feeling that any minute they will send you to the naughty step!
LikeLike
I know what you mean. But I don’t argue with them to change their minds. I argue with them for an alternative point of view to be on display. It disturbs me that people with real issues could stumble on it and agree with it without seeing any challenge to their foul opinions. They are genuinely contributing to ruining people’s lives. I’ve looked at some of the real blogs of other people that comment there, and there have been a couple I’m concerned about – the depressed gay Christian struggling with everything and being told they’re loved deeply (but they can’t ever have a relationship). It’s disgusting.
LikeLike
I can appreciate this perspective yet there is a danger of being sucked into this arena of nonsense and to maintain composure when dealing with nutjobs like this is almost impossible.
Think, Debillis, Pew, Unklee, etc etc. At the core they bare ll the same.
Even your latest ‘fan’ – Brandon? – is too weird for me.
And I wonder why a depressed gay christian would willingly wander on to the site of a frigging headcase like Bigot?
Consider, comments on the majority of such sites dry up almost immediately the non believer gives a wide berth.
Look at Mark Hamilton’s blog.
As already noted almost every non atheist commenter is a non blogger; a cheerleader from the pews, more likely.
I’ve been ”discussing ” with a tonker also called Brandon and aside from my dialogue his blog is almost devoid of visitors.
I dunno, difficult call.
I enjoy learning new material, and the toe to toe is fun sometimes. But eventually….?
LikeLike
Not allowed. (oral sex by text or otherwise). I have already written about what is not allowed ie anything that does not lead to procreation. I hang my head in shame that I too, have quoted you. Well, I mentioned you and gave a link so that’s good enough.
LikeLike
Yep, no Hewhoshallnotbenamed on that Bigot post they quote from, just PRFaust sounding a lot like him, but not allowed to get too nasty, because he’s a loving pastor type.
LikeLike
If you are referencing.
“Am I friends with ATB? Who can say? Maybe I am, or maybe I’m just someone who stumbled across a bunch of bullies arrogantly picking on someone and I just don’t like that kind of thing.”
That is not pretending or telling ‘porkies’ that was actually me just not providing you an answer to your question.
falsely representing myself would have looked more like ” I AM just someone who stumbled across a bunch of bullies arrogantly picking on someone and I just don’t like that kind of thing.”
LikeLike
Why didn’t you just say, “I’m her editor’s husband”? It really does put a different shine on the conversation, so it is false representation to pretend you might be impartial.
LikeLike
At the time your rude condescending and aloof tone, coupled with your clear misunderstanding of the subject matter your were referencing for your points, bugged me. So I did not answer as I did not care to, as it was what you wanted. You were just looking for a way to pigeonhole my comments anyway right? As you are now, correct? I know the The Bigot so my comments have no bearing. Awfully convenient.
Again, all my comments have been consistent, all from me, not word edited by another, and totally genuine.
LikeLike
You know Mrs. Faust and you concealed that fact while your wife was taking money from her. That’s the definition of impropriety. You’re a pack of lying, cheating, deceiving underlings, trying to make money at the expense of hate speech.
LikeLike
That’s not an honest, straightforward answer, and that just goes to show who/what you are. This is actually easy. I can say I never met Violet Wisp. We’ve exchanged a couple of messages, but I don’t even know what her job is. I do know she separated then ended up with the same person and had a child- but that’s it. No editing websites. No private relationships. No altering or deleting comments from blogs- which I’m sure you’ve notice his pastorship mentioned you then removed the mention of you… which only heightens speculation. At this point you people are only digging a deeper hole.
LikeLike
There is indeed a deeper hole being dug. Knowing her implies no impropriety and in no way invalidates any of the content of any of my comments. You were defeated in debate and have concocted this vast conspiracy as a cover for you failed argument. You ask many questions and answer few. You make accusations that are refuted yet you continue to make them and cry “all lies!” every time they are proven false.
And more telling, you totally avoid the fact that even if all was as you say it is, and it is not, what bearing would it have on the validity of the argument that beat yours in debate? None.
As to his comment about me, being up and then deleted, I don’t know what you are referring to, feel free to describe it and the context. I am not up all night chain smoking and drinking vodka, Poire Williams or whatever it is you drink while you hunt snipe.
So keep rambling about money exchanging hands and devious plots and about how I am going to make money at the expense of hate speech. Poor little hate speech, being exploited like that. Keep digging Citizen Pink and please keep your very special stories coming.
LikeLike
Still no answers:
1. Is your wife a church member?
2. How long have they known each other?
3. Is your wife paid to edit?
4. If not, why does she offer free services?
5. Do you or your wife share religious or political affiliations with the Faust’s?
Very easy, simple questions.
LikeLike
Citizen Pink, I did answer these questions, scroll up the page. You responded to the answers. So what is the purpose of this lie? And as probably no one but us is reading this, why the lie?
Or is this evidence of short term memory loss? Too much drink?
LikeLike
Your wife does this editing work for free and you don’t see issues with that?
There’s a reason she does it for free isn’t there? Would you like to clarify? If it’s not church related, what’s behind it?
LikeLike
People don’t generally engage in causes of this variety because they have nothing better to do. They’re pushing something.
LikeLike
And as much as you’re all dancing around the issue and attempting to minimize it, the facts remain:
A group of people with prior knowledge of each other set up a website where they pretended to be casual independent agents, who just ‘happened to’ share the same anti-gay ideology.
Those are facts. You didn’t disclose any relationships to anyone involved. In fact at first you all dissimulated. End of story.
That would like me writing reviews for my partner’s movies on Amazon. Totally unethical because there’s an intrinsic bias.
If you don’t see that, then your vision of ethics is even more skewed than I imagined.
Even if I just recommend a restaurant or a business or a play on my blog, I make sure to specify whether I’m a friend of the owners, or people connected to the project.
LikeLike
Citizen Pink, What is being pushed for gain? Where is the money?
Again, your “facts” are fiction. My wife does not get paid, I have had absolutely nothing to do with starting a website or blog for Askme. I gain nothing financially in any way from knowing the Faust’s and neither does my wife. Nor are we members of their church. We also provide no work for their church.
Why does she do it? Again I answered this question for you, I guess the concept was alien to you.
Do they share similar views on the subject? what a ridiculous question.
This is the web, and debate, nothing more than that. This is not a legal matter, this is not a business in which I have interest. I have not pushed, recommended or reviewed anything. You argument for disclosure is irrelevant and nothing more, as I have said before, than a grand diversion from the fact that your argument failed.
There was never anything more at stake than our egos, apparently you went all-in when maybe you shouldn’t have.
LikeLike
Obviously you don’t understand ethics. You’ve endorsed a website, an ideology and a position where you had a vested interest.
Disclosure isn’t just about private and personal financial gain- it’s also social in nature.
If I recommend a restaurant or a website, and I’m friendly with the owners, there will be an inherent bias.
BTW, your puerile and somewhat imbecilic ‘tricks’ only work with fools. ‘Citizen’ this or that, references to alcohol- it’s all the result of the mind of… well, whatever you are. I’d rather not venture a guess.
The fact is you don’t know the difference between a failed argument and one that isn’t because you don’t grasp the basic parameters of logic. My suggestion would be more time with books and less time on the internet. Coursera offers some excellent courses including an intro to logic from Stanford, which is free.
LikeLike
Citizen Pink,
Define my vested interest. Specific to Knowing and not knowing the Faust’s. How does my interest differ between the two scenarios? How does it have any relevance on anything I have said?
Your logic and ethics? Your view of your own logic and ethics is not aligned with reality. I endorsed my own position and nothing more. Produce the proof I have endorsed anything else. The bias towards my own position and my ideology was, and is, self evident. If somehow that was hidden from you, look within. I suggest one of the courses you referenced.
As to the argument, saying something does not make it so. Good luck with that logic. If you want another go at debate, anytime, any subject.
Do you understand the Citizen reference?, As to the rest, of my “tricks” I’m glad to hear they are working on you.
LikeLike
“I couldn’t care less whether or not you think she, or anyone else, hurts your or anyone else’s feelings” Promoting the kind of beliefs she holds doesn’t just hurt people’s feelings, it contributes to ruining lives. Telling two adults who love each other that they don’t deserve the same rights as any other two adults who love each other, and that physical expression of their love is essentially evil, brings joy to none and devastation to many.
LikeLike
So are you saying that these “hurt people” are not emotionally strong enough to resist the trap of internalizing the thoughts and belief of others? Are you also saying that you/they need the approval of others to provide validity to your/their choice in partner?
Or is there some sort of concrete A caused B evidence of actual harm caused by her blog?
LikeLike
That’s a silly question that betrays how little you either know, or are willing to recognise about religion. Most religious people are indoctrinated from childhood. When they become aware that they are attracted to people of the same sex, which they ‘know’ is a ‘sin’, it’s devastating for them. They want to please their god, but they believe they are sinners and not worth having a loving relationship with someone they’re attracted to. Shame, guilt, fear, disgust, self-hatred – all very damaging. And let’s not even get on to the gay people who are convinced by their Christian brothers and sisters that they can be converted to heterosexuality, and marry someone of the opposition, courting disaster for both of them; the ones who are forced to forever live their relationships in secret because they are too ashamed or afraid to tell their families; and the ones who try to remain celibate and get completely messed up by thought repression and lack of a partner. Bigot proclaiming that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married, that gay sex is a sin, and that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed jobs with Christian organisations, is promoting and encouraging the beliefs that lead to all these, and more, harmful situations.
LikeLike
So she is responsible for the weak mind? Speaking to gay people, put your big person pants on and accept that you are gay and live your life in the manner that best brings fulfillment to your life, within the boundaries of your actual rights.
LikeLike
What weak mind? Are you referring to a vulnerable section of society who have been traditionally victimised and are still discriminated against on a daily basis around the world? And please don’t start talking about your definition of ‘rights’ again. If it’s not accepted by any dictionary or any international organisation, it’s your personal fantasy definition that means nothing in the real world.
LikeLike
VW my definition of rights is actually widely accepted as the definition by those who have spent lifetimes on the subject. And really a dictionary definition in no way, in its brevity could define such a subject. And organizational acceptance? So when slavery was internationaly accepted was it good just and correct? Please VW, I know you are better than that.
However my point, spicific to big person pants was this. live by your own terms. You need no aproval for your life, you are the aproval. Just do it without infringing on others.
LikeLike
“VW my definition of rights is actually widely accepted as the definition by those who have spent lifetimes on the subject.” Sources please.
LikeLike
Ark, I am seriously tempted, time is my issue, If I did it would actually be for exactly that purpose. Although you might be surprised, we might agree on some things and God forbid, you might learn something. When I do, you will all most definitely be invited.
LikeLike
Bless you ,Hewho.
I shall mark my dance card and although I cannot promise renewing my subscription to the Liars For Jesus Club I shall await your Call To Enlightenment with baited breath, the gods help me.
You go for it, Hewho…give ’em Hell!
LikeLike
What are you baiting that with, anchovies? Oh wait, you’re a Brit – KIPPERS!
LikeLike
No, truly, the world really needs another tightly-focused, ultra right-wing conservative Christian blogger. There are always more sinners around…..like you, for instance.
LikeLike
Why that’s the nicest think you’ve ever said about me!
BTW, you DID mean, “tightly-puckered,” didn’t you?
LikeLike
You’re going to attract the rage of Hewho for not paying attention to how important he is. He claims not to be a Christian. He seems to think he supports the right-wing Christian agenda because it’s logical. Go figure …
LikeLike
Kippers can be amazing… just saying…
LikeLike
No worries, I’m not selling subscriptions to said rag. By the way, Ænima, get it.
LikeLike
Have you considered why she registered a website and paid extra to keep ‘her’ details private? That does cost extra, which is why I’ve never felt the need to do it, as I have nothing to hide. People who check my IP will find three websites… all of them unashamedly me.
LikeLike
She doesn’t come out to play very often or for very long, but she does comment on other people’s posts. I checked the two IPs her comments have come from (mobile and home) – neither match the dodgy repeated one you found.
LikeLike
Old religious tactic. I thought you’d be familiar with it! First people conflate their religion/god with love and if you don’t partake, you’re then guilty of hate. It’s puerile, but they’ve been doing it for so long, I think they don’t even notice.
This is reinforced with non-sequitur-ish stereotyping. The phrase “A good Christian”, is designed to imply morality, despite the fact that Christians are just as ethical and unethical as the rest of society.
It’s clever in that they associate anything deemed good to themselves and the reverse to the rest of society, and in doing so create a (false) aura of superiority to their position/existence.
LikeLike
It was Hewho’s suggestion, and I thought I’d oblige. I’m sure they can dig up a ‘random person’ to come by and give an opinion at some point. 🙂
LikeLike
You better be nasty. You are, after all, the tithe taker for our cult
LikeLike
Well, obviously when it comes to convincing people to cough up for your Great One-ness, I lose the velvet gloves …
LikeLike
Atta’ girl!
LikeLike
You are always nasty to me. Well…mostly always. If you weren’t I would worry that you were not well.
😉
LikeLike
Thank you, that means a lot to me! Are you tipsy?
LikeLike
NO. I donlt hardly drink ashtoll tihs dayyyas
LikeLike
Just on your special day.
LikeLike
Not even then, to tell the truth. I don’t enjoy alcohol that much. The occasional beer or glass of wine is about it.
LikeLike
I don’t drink anymore either – of course, I don’t drink any LESS —
(pa-dump-pump! Kshhh!)
LikeLike
But serially folks, i don’t drink because I LIKE the stuff, i only drink to relax – sometimes, I get so relaxed, I can’t move!
LikeLike
I’ll be here all week —
(You’ve tried to get rid of me before, Ark, you know how THAT worked out –)
OK, OK, now hit me with the “snarky” remark!
LikeLike
It’s just that you’re easy to be nasty to, it feels so natural, so right —
LikeLike
Interesting, is it the same for you?
LikeLike
Oh no, I’m the GOOD one, that’s already been confirmed of the Fluid Theology website! What, YOU’re the only one who can take potshots at him?
LikeLike
Violet, I don’t think you are full of hate. I think you are following your conscience. You have a strong opinion and razor sharp wit, but this is not hate. As far as I can see, your attacks are focused on positions, not people. You have been very gracious to me on here despite our differences. So there. I talked about you.
LikeLike
Oh yes, apparently I’m narcissistic too, hence the focus on talking about me. Thanks for your thoroughly objective viewpoint. 🙂
LikeLike
But enough about you, let’s talk about me – I look pretty good, for a 150-million year old proto-bird, don’t I? Kinda like 50-year old Russel Crowe, playing 600-year old Noah —
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
Just so you know, Mrs. Faust emailed me today privately. Just thought that was an interesting addition to the disucssion as she’s making accusations in that regard. Ask her about it.
LikeLike