An Appeal to the Silent Majority Supporting S Grenard

[NoZed Avenger]

If you are invovled in the following threads, please do not vote.

This is a poll for the silent majority who have been cowed into non-activity by the nasty persons who do not find M. Keen's list of best cases too impressive. You may vote here anonymously without fear of retribution.

The question is simple: Is it him or is it me?

It's him, isn't it?

These two threads:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26882&perpage=40&highlight=keen&pagenumber=2

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870153486#post1870153486

Note the second thread was startyed after the first (on the same subject) was abandoned. Is it me, or are my question simply glossed over, ignored, rephrased into something entirely unlike them, ignored some more, then finally ignored again?

It's him, isn't it?

[renata]

:roll: :roll: NoZed!
Another suppression debate tactic from this skeptic board! Tsk Tsk.

I predict...4-5 votes saying you are avoiding debate, from the usual suspects. Maybe more, but it depends on how many people you got angry recently ;)

I have been following your moves on this with interest, and I am impressed. But- you are not getting another sig out of me for a long time.

[NoZed Avenger]

I am avoiding voting -- but I'll give it a gratuitous bump to keep it visiblke for a week or so for a tally.

Steve, despite being a participant, stated that he has voted for Luci -- put in only because I mistakenly hit enter with the default "4" options.

He probably voted that way because anonymous posters, like Luci, make him mad.

N/A

[SteveGrenard]

For a lawyer you are not very accurate in your reportage. I said I voted for Planet X. I said it was a tough call to decide between Planet and Luci. But I voted for Planet. Go back and ck.

Just more proof that people such as yourself see and repeat what suits their agendas with no regard for the truth.

[Ed]

Funny you mention that. I read a treatment recently where one of the characters uses "It's Psironic" as a tagline. It was very funny but largely ignored. In fact, it died a slow lingering death. The author must feel pretty bad, not that anyone cares, he having written it on his birthday and all. Fortunately I was not involved otherwise, you know, I guess I'd feel bad, having my work ignored and all, you know.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For a lawyer you are not very accurate in your reportage. I said I voted for Planet X. I said it was a tough call to decide between Planet and Luci. But I voted for Planet. Go back and ck.

Just more proof that people such as yourself see and repeat what suits their agendas with no regard for the truth.


Wow. You actually CAN answer one of my posts.

I was beginning to wonder, frankly.


N/A

PS Did anyone ever notice how quickly some people (who shall remain nameless) are so quick to allege dishonesty on the part of others -- like the accusation against Garrette in the threads referenced above, against Ed, Stumpy and Youens in the Jaqui Poole thread, and then here (among many others)?

Has it been everyone else's experience that people who routinely jump to call people dishonest are usually less than honest themselves -- and the quicker they resort to that tactic, the more guilty of it they are themselves?

[NoZed Avenger]

For the record, I believe that misremembered the throwaway line from the poster who shall not be named -- remembering that he stated that he did not vote for me and a mention of Luci.

Now that I have admitted an error, I am sure that that poster will feel free to leave a message stating that his posts, in which he stated that I labelled his message as defensive and/or derisive, was an error.

And that his insinuation that my request that he withdraw an accusation of lying by another poster was an attempt to stifle dissenting views was made in error.

And his direct accusation of dishonesty, above, for a simple error.

N/A

(Who is not holding his breath)

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

Has it been everyone else's experience that people who routinely jump to call people dishonest are usually less than honest themselves -- and the quicker they resort to that tactic, the more guilty of it they are themselves?
That has certainly been my experience, NoZed Avenger, having been unfairly labelled a "liar" here on numerous occasions myself.

Well put.

[Ed]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
a mention of Luci.



Funny you bring Luci up. I read a treatment recently where one of the characters uses "It's Psironic" as a tagline. It was very funny but largely ignored. In fact, it died a slow lingering death. The author must feel pretty bad, not that anyone cares, he having written it on his birthday and all. Fortunately I was not involved otherwise, you know, I guess I'd feel bad, having my work ignored and all, you know.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Clancie

That has certainly been my experience, NoZed Avenger, having been unfairly labelled a "liar" here on numerous occasions myself.

Well put.

For what its worth, while we have disagreed on several matters, I don't recall that you've been dishonest in any of the threads that I have seen, Clancie.



Edited because I cannot type.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ed


Funny you bring Luci up. I read a treatment recently where one of the characters uses "It's Psironic" as a tagline. It was very funny but largely ignored. In fact, it died a slow lingering death. The author must feel pretty bad, not that anyone cares, he having written it on his birthday and all. Fortunately I was not involved otherwise, you know, I guess I'd feel bad, having my work ignored and all, you know.


Trust me -- you get used to it.

[Clancie]

Posted by NoZed Avenger

For what its worth, while we have disagreed on several matters, but I don't think you've been dishonest in any of the threads that I have seen, Clancie.
Thank you very much for saying that, No Zed (but some people may make you pay! :) )

Seriously, I hope saying something nice on my behalf doesn't wind up derailing your thread. (Usually what I would predict is that one of the same three or four people would now show up to tell you "Yes, Clancie is a terrible liar"...and proceed to give you a list of things which I strongly take issue with. Let's see if I get the million with this prediction. Its worth it, though, if I'm wrong about it....for a change. :rolleyes: ).

I don't want to derail your thread, NA, but speaking of Keen, there's an interesting book out summarizing a lot of the "Best Evidence" (that's the title) on various paranormal topics. Its by Michael Schmicker and I recommend it to anyone who wants an overview of, well, "best evidence" in a readable way--getting at least more familiarity with "the other side of the debate" even if they are unlikely to go to the original documents that people like Keen recommend. It's not, as I can see so far, accurate in -every- respect (he's wrong, for example, about one thing re: Schwartz), but it's still a pretty good read.

[DrMatt]

Heh.
I've been avoiding the debate because frankly I don't even have time to find out what it's about. Vote for me!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Has it been everyone else's experience that people who routinely jump to call people dishonest are usually less than honest themselves -- and the quicker they resort to that tactic, the more guilty of it they are themselves?

You can tell who are dishonest themselves: They are the ones who never back up their claims of the other people being liars.

It is not dishonest to point out the dishonesty of others, if you only provide evidence. A Google-search or a vague reference is not sufficient as evidence, though.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For a lawyer you are not very accurate in your reportage. I said I voted for Planet X. I said it was a tough call to decide between Planet and Luci. But I voted for Planet.

So, in your opinion Luci avoids debate, yes?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Just more proof that people such as yourself see and repeat what suits their agendas with no regard for the truth.

Steve, truth is for philosophy; what we seek is facts.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Just more proof that people such as yourself see and repeat what suits their agendas with no regard for the truth.

Pot, kettle, black - Stevie G.! :nope:

And, no I didn't vote - and Stevie has yet to respond to even one of my posts.

Barkhorn.

[NoZed Avenger]

Voting is now arbitrarily closed at 50 votes.

[renata]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Voting is now arbitrarily closed at 50 votes.

I win! I win! Where is my prize?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by renata

I win! I win! Where is my prize?

Well, it sort of has to be given in person. . . .

N/A

[renata]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Well, it sort of has to be given in person. . . .

N/A

My keenly honed sense of skepticism makes me suspect this is a trap......

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by renata


My keenly honed sense of skepticism makes me suspect this is a trap......


(Drat! She's on to me. I need a distraction)

Hey, isn't that Carl Sagan's disembodied head over there?

N/A

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


For what its worth, while we have disagreed on several matters, I don't recall that you've been dishonest in any of the threads that I have seen, Clancie.



Edited because I cannot type.


Obviously you haven't seen all the threads :)

Clancie has accused me of being a liar, an accusation that she has never taken back when she was proven that she was wrong.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Obviously you haven't seen all the threads :)

Clancie has accused me of being a liar, an accusation that she has never taken back when she was proven that she was wrong.


Admittedly, I haven't seen all the threads -- or even most of them. I have actually engaged Clancie in conversation directly only in a few threads, and was unaware of that bit of history.

I will refrain from comment, except to say (from past contact) that I simply cannot and would not believe that you told an intentional lie.

N/A

[Keneke]

Planet X. Who? What?

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

Clancie has accused me of being a liar, an accusation that she has never taken back when she was proven that she was wrong.
I let it go the first time, Cleopatra, but since you've repeated it, please post a link to the thread you're referring to.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



Admittedly, I haven't seen all the threads -- or even most of them. I have actually engaged Clancie in conversation directly only in a few threads, and was unaware of that bit of history.

I will refrain from comment, except to say (from past contact) that I simply cannot and would not believe that you told an intentional lie.

N/A

Even if I would like to lie to Clancie this would be impossible because I commented something that she had really posted in Renata's forum and it was just temporarily out of the public view.

I would be an idiot if I lied about something that was posted in a public forum and many people saw it.

Clancie said that I misquoted her only to be proven wrong a week later.

Since Clancie has spent a lot of time admonishing the youngsters of the forum about their behavior one should expect that she'd post an apology or something similar.

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

URL, please? Direct, to the thread & posts.

(Evidence, always :))

[Cleopatra]

Claus what do you mean, in which thread did this "beauty" take place?

It was in those threads about the "Yahweh scandal".

The reason why I am upset with Clancie is because she knows my sensitivity with the teenagers of the forum and I feel like she is taking advantage of it ( I am not saying that she is talking advantage of my sensitivity I am saying that I feel like she is doing that).

I didn't bump that thread when Renata put the threads back in the public view because I didn't want to hurt Yahweh's feelings by bringing the issue back since we all said that we'd leave the issue behind so I shutted my mouth up.

I don't regret about that but I cannot stand seeing Clancie continuing the same story. She did the same to Renata the other day, she questioned her about something obvious and now she brags about her honesty.

I do not call her dishonest but I do not know how can she feel comfortable with accepting compliments about her honesty while she hasn't apologized for an accusation that she knew that it was false since she knew that she has posted what I was claiming.

Enough!

[JamesM]

Refusal to answer simple questions based on the contents of their posts, inability to admit mistakes, accusations of dishonesty, accusations of trying to stifle debate...

... Cleopatra, is it just me or does this remind you of anyone else?

[Cleopatra]

Unfortunately those methods look familiar.

Plus the innuendos.

Tones of innuendos. This is what I call "Crimes that they will never be punished" and they are just sad. I am too old and tired for that. Too old.

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

Unfortunately those methods look familiar.

Plus the innuendos.

Tones of innuendos. This is what I call "Crimes that they will never be punished" and they are just sad. I
Speaking of innuendo, Cleopatra...

You've repeated and embellished your accusations here. Yet still, you've provided no evidence that I called you a liar or am guilty of all the terrible tactics that you're implying.

You say our argument was in reference to renata's board, and yet you also say that all the accusations you've made against me relate to a thread you claim is right here at JREF.

So...you've been asked twice for it now. Where's your link to the thread where you claim that all this occurred?

[Cleopatra]

Are you pulling my leg Clancie?

Haven't you denied in this forum that you posted Yahweh's real name in Renata's forum?

[Clancie]

Link it.

[Cleopatra]

Those who will click on the link they'd better read Renata's previous post


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28094&perpage=40&pagenumber=3



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by renata

I know it has been a while, but you did not quote Ken's original (JREF) post for him at mu.nu, you simply named Yahweh's real name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clancie

Could be. I thought I quoted more than that, but since I haven't been able to see the thread, I couldn't check it to see.

I am, however, very sure of the context--to tell Ken (again) that he had, indeed, posted a full name over here. Was it a real person's name? Yahweh's name? A classmate's name? Kenneth's real name? I had no way to know what it was, although Ken himself would have known that, of course, having posted the name here.

My point on your board was that he said again that he didn't think he had posted more than a first name here...but, as I'd said here to him earlier in the week--and pointed out more specifically the second time--yes, he had.


Could be? Right!

[Cleopatra]

And this ( bold face in the post is mine):


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870121157

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Cleopatra

Two weeks ago you posted in Renata's forum a list of reasons why you believed that Kenneth was lying regading Yahweh's identity.

It seems that you are not so good in assuming things Clancie, at least give Kenneth the benefit of the doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie

Well, I wouldn't mind reviewing Kenneth's full angry and accusatory thread (with only the name I had cut and pasted from here deleted). I'd like to see if I did what you claim--or only pointed out that, yes, Kenneth had posted something (the full first and last name of his classmate) that he denied doing.

Unfortunately, there's no way to see this, since renata removed that thread from view when this whole thing broke out at Kenneth's school.




So, since you knew what you have posted, why you denied it here?

[renata]

Threads at mu.nu (you have to register to view them)

Thread LK started (http://mu.nu/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1112)

Thread Yahweh started (http://mu.nu/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1141)

Both threads were removed from view 9/18 and returned 10/8 and locked the same day. I edited the Yahweh's name only and replaced it with First Name Last Name (edit-r) , everything else is the same.

[Yahweh]

I've tried to let the situation fade away on its own. I'll just make a few remarks...

First, in the instance of Clancie posting my name, I try to weigh the rightness or wrongness of acts based one a variety of things: Intention, means, and consequences. Clancie had no negative intentions (a few other things I've discussed privately), I'm unconcerned.

I've also silently (I guess not anymore) self-imposed my exile from the mu.nu boards.

I dont like to see fighting on these boards, renata, Cleopatra, and Clancie are all supernice people... I wouldnt want to see personal differences come between them and take away from that "superniceness" trait.

The "Yahweh Conspiracy", that was over and done with nearly a month ago, just let it die, kids.

(I voted "Planet X".)

[Clancie]

Cleopatra,

Where do I call you a liar?

And, while we're at it, I take exception to this as well....
Posted by Cleopatra

Since Clancie has spent a lot of time admonishing the youngsters of the forum about their behavior
I have, on occasion, taken issue with Kenneth's comments and behavior when I have found it objectionable. So what?

Please show support for your claim that I have "spent a lot of time admonishing the (other youngsters of the forum about their behavior".

[Yahweh]

Naughty naughty, Clancie, dont worry about it. Lets not try to (again) go through the circle of "she said, she said", dont worry about it. Put on your most "I'm content" smile, drop the situation, and dont worry about it.

Play nice. :)

[Clancie]

Sorry, Yahweh. No can do. :(

Cleopatra has said I've called her a liar, has said, basically, that I go around picking on people here just because they're young, and her posts certainly seem filled with very malicious innuendo about me in both those respects. No, I can't ignore it.

[renata]

As this involves posts about mu.nu, and since I was involved in moving the threads and returning them, and in attempting to settle this, and in correcting some things as they were happening here are some comments.

Cleopatra was correct in saying Clancie posted a list of 4 reasons why she believed that LK was lying regading Yahweh's identity at mu.nu. The 2 threads were removed at mu.nu as well as at JREF due to various potential legal problems dealing with minors- at the time they were yanked we had no idea who was telling the truth, all we knew is that Yahweh may have contacted the police. This issue came up as the thing was just breaking, and we were still investingating potential ramifications for us.

When I offered to post the post in question to resolve the matter here, with the name excised, with the hope of settling this, Clancie declined.

Clancie also referred to LK's thread about Yahweh as "angry and accusatory". Although I did not think it was a love note, I thought of the two, Yahweh's was certainly more angry, and given subsequent revelations more worthy of condemnation- as LK was telling the truth, and Yahweh was lying.

In addition, in Yahweh - Should he Stay or Should he Go? thread, there are some comments by Clancie that cropped up- not for the first time. For example, Clancie mentioned, again that LK, revealed Yahweh's identity out of vindictiveness because Yahweh deleted a surrogate post. However, as Cleopatra pointed out before to Clancie (twice), that is incorrect, as LK was posting about Yahweh's identity since April.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870121121&highlight=Conspiracy+april#post1870121121
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870121082&highlight=Conspiracy+april#post1870121082

So I wanted to mention it to Clancie again, as she seems to have forgotten.

I corrected a few other things on that thread, that she probably forgot- how many threads LK started about Yahweh at mu.nu, whether they were angry or not, and, as Cleopatra posted above, whether Clancie just mentioned Yahweh's name, or as Clancie said, quoted his post at mu.nu, and mentioned his name thus.

Now I understand that through the whole matter, I had special privilege regarding the hidden threads, being able to see the threads the entire time, whereas Clancie had to rely on her memory of what she herself wrote. Hence, it is possible she may have had some difficulty recalling the tone of LK's threads, or how many threads he started at mu.nu. I suppose she may have forgotten she wrote the lengthy post with the list of reasons why LK was lying, as Cleopatra said, or that she did not in fact quote LK's post for him at mu.nu as she claimed, but simply named Yahweh's name, as I said. But I do not understand why she would decline my offer to settle this much earlier by reposting her post, or why this needed to be started by questioning Cleopatra's comment in the first place.

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

When I offered to post the post in question to resolve the matter here, with the name excised, with the hope of settling this, Clancie declined.
Yes, because you offered to quote one POST, not to open the entire THREAD to see the post in context. I asked for that instead, and you declined.

Yes, I believed Yahweh when I first weighed in about this at mu.nu and, yes, I thought Kenneth's threads about both Yahweh and Hal (LK had been suspended here for the Billiefan post) were waaayyyy over the top in insulting tone. Yes, when Kenneth said his action was being investigated by the school and you locked the thread from view, I had only my memory to go on for the following days. (All the related threads here were also very quickly taken to administration viewing only, and I believe they remain there still).

Yes, as I agreed, I requoted at your board the name Kenneth had already posted here, since he continued to say he hadn't posted a first and last name (even though I'd already pointed out earlier to him here, without mentioning the name, that he had.

Nevertheless, I agree with Yahweh that much of this is now, rightly, water under the bridge.

HOWEVER, regarding this board, I still have not seen a post where I called Cleopatra a liar, as she is claiming I have done.. And, while I agree that some of LK's ideas rub me the wrong way and I've responded to them at those times, that's what people do around here--argue about issues raised by posts--and I have no intention of treating him like a baby.

I find Cleopatra's allegation that I pick on "young people" in general at this board very unfounded, very malicious, and deeply offensive.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, because you offered to quote one POST, not to open the entire THREAD to see the post in context. I asked for that instead, and you declined.

As I explained above, and at the time, Clancie, the original dispute involved Cleopatra's recollection of a single post- your list of reasons for why LK was lying- I would have thought posting it would have been sufficient. I also explained that at the time you requested the threads, I could not return them, as we were still investigating some things. However, on 10/5 I posted a reply to you and said they would be back soon. They were returned on 10/8, and on 10/19 Cleopatra reminded you in this thread http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php? s=&threadid=23269&perpage=40&highlight=mystery&pagenumber=2 that I returned them and asked for your reaction- and you did not reply or acknowledge her comment.



Yes, I believed Yahweh when I first weighed in about this at mu.nu and, yes, I thought Kenneth's threads about both Yahweh and Hal (LK had been suspended here for the Billiefan post) were waaayyyy over the top in insulting tone. Yes, when Kenneth said his action was being investigated by the school and you locked the thread from view, I had only my memory to go on for the following days. (All the related threads here were also very quickly taken to administration viewing only, and I believe they remain there still).

I agree that LK's thread about Hal was highly inappropriate, angry and insulting. Indeed LK himself realized that, and apologized to Hal, and I believe Hal accepted that apology.

However, your comment said
"couple of very angry anti-Yahweh threads at renata's forum". That is factually incorrect. It was one anti Yahweh thread, and, I think, objectively it was neither "very angry" nor, as you refered to it previously "angry and accusatory". It was rather simple, actually- it just opened the hoax, said Yahweh was a kid he went to school with. Yahweh's post, however, was extraordinarily angry and filled with obscenities. At the time, it was understandable, as a man was fed up with false allegations. Now- well, it puts our Yahweh in a tad of a different light, doesn't it?


Yes, as I agreed, I requoted at your board the name Kenneth had already posted here, since he continued to say he hadn't posted a first and last name (even though I'd already pointed out earlier to him here, without mentioning the name, that he had.


Are we getting into the definition of what quote is?

Let me remind you what you first said:
Claim 1
Ken initially denied that he had ever posted Yahweh's full name (even after I had referenced it earlier for him here. I did so again for him, quoting the original post for him at renata's board).


I said

I know it has been a while, but you did not quote Ken's original post for him at mu.nu, you simply named Yahweh's real name.

You replied

Claim 2


Could be. I thought I quoted more than that, but since I haven't been able to see the thread, I couldn't check it to see.

I am, however, very sure of the context--to tell Ken (again) that he had, indeed, posted a full name over here. Was it a real person's name? Yahweh's name? A classmate's name? Kenneth's real name? I had no way to know what it was, although Ken himself would have known that, of course, having posted the name here.

My point on your board was that he said again that he didn't think he had posted more than a first name here...but, as I'd said here to him earlier in the week--and pointed out more specifically the second time--yes, he had.

Now you say

Claim 3

Yes, as I agreed, I requoted at your board the name Kenneth had already posted here, since he continued to say he hadn't posted a first and last name (even though I'd already pointed out earlier to him here, without mentioning the name, that he had.


Well, it could be semantics, because it seems to me you said three different things
Claim 1
Clancie quoted LK's original post at mu.nu
Claim 2
Clancie pointed out specifically to LK that he posted Yahweh's name, to tell Ken that he had indeed posted Yahweh's name here.
Claim 3
Clancie requoted the name LK already posted at JREF since he said he had not mentioned it

How did the name actually come up in your post at mu.nu?


Yahweh,

I just went back to look at that thread where Kenneth implies you're his friend, First Name Last Name (edit-r), the one who idolizes him. No one could possibly take Kenneth's repeated claim that you are his friend Stephen seriously. Not if they're the slightest bit familiar with Kenneth and his posts--or with yours.


I am sorry, but I do not see LK's quote (claim 1), or any comment that you are posting it because LK has denied mentioning it(claims 1 &2). Indeed I do not recall LK denying mentioning it at mu.nu, but I suppose it is possible, I do not see every post.



Nevertheless, I agree with Yahweh that much of this is now, rightly, water under the bridge.


I am sure Yahweh thinks so and would like to put it past us, as do we all. However, it seems there are some unresolved issues. Now that the threads are back, perhaps it is a good time to acknowledge your errors, listed in prior posts.

[Clancie]

renata,

I don't see why Cleopatra's accusations toward me have anything to do with what happened between LK/Yahweh. Cleopatra has not said anything like, "Clancie disagreed with me about LK/Yahweh, I feel I showed that she was wrong and I was right, and she never apologized." Or anything like that. Instead she said this:

(1) that I called Cleopatra a liar

(2) that I "spend a lot of time admonishing the young posters" here (not just raising legitimate issues with LK).

I still don't see where these two claims have been supported in any way by your quotes. And, for the record, I strongly dispute them.

I want the "liar" quote. And I want links to where I spend time "admonishing" anyone other than Kenneth, on the occasion when I disagree with him (and it's hardly a one-way street).

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

I don't see why Cleopatra's accusations toward me have anything to do with what happened between LK/Yahweh. Cleopatra has not said anything like, "Clancie disagreed with me about LK/Yahweh, I feel I showed that she was wrong and I was right, and she never apologized." Or anything like that.



There were several comments on this thread, Clancie. Among others, that you question people about obvious things, that you are unable to admit mistakes, that you refuse to answer simple questions, that you accuse others of dishonesty....many things.

I will let Cleopatra deal with the specifics of her accusations. I merely elaborated on background of the one Cleopatra gave having to do with me, and explained the background having to do with mu.nu threads. Those things managed to happen in the course of the LK/ Yahweh situation, that is the way it happened- nothing personal against Yahweh and LK.

So far, you have not withdrawn any of your mistaken claims that I listed above, I am not sure why- even though some of them I suppose could be a matter of opinion, some where rather clear factual errors. To summarize:


Clancie repeatedly said that LK, revealed Yahweh's identity out of vindictiveness because Yahweh deleted a surrogate post in September. According to Yahweh LK posted about his identity since April and did so continually. Corrected 3 times, I do not believe it was acknowledged or withdrawn.
LK started one thread about Yahweh at mu.nu, not several
The single thread LK started about Yahweh at mu.nu was arguably neither "very angry" nor "angry and accusatory", especially compared with the particularly angry, obscenity filled and as we now know deceptive thread Yahweh started about LK. However, this may be matter of opinion and perception, so it may not be a genuine "error".
How did Yahweh's name actually come up in Clancie's post at mu.nu? So far there three versions, version 3 being the one after Clancie had the chance to refresh her memory. The quotes are in the posts above, I summarized my own understanding. Version 1. Clancie quoted LK's original post at mu.nu, with Yahweh's name (incorrect). Version 2. Clancie pointed out specifically to LK that he posted Yahweh's name, to tell Ken that he had indeed posted Yahweh's name here. She is very sure of the context (Incorrect) Version 3. Clancie requoted the name LK already posted at JREF since he said he had not mentioned it, as she said previously. Well, if Clancie says this is similar to what she said previously, then she says it is like her Version 2, which as we see is incorrect. In addition, I do not recall LK denying posting Yahweh's full name at mu.nu- it appears to me, from what she did post at mu.nu , it seems to me, Version 3 is also incorrect.
Finally, Cleopatra was correct in saying that Clancie posted a specific list of 4 reasons why she believed that LK was lying regarding Yahweh's identity at mu.nu, which Clancie seemed to question, and not "only pointed out that, yes, Kenneth had posted something (the full first and last name of his classmate) that he denied doing". I have yet to see Clancie acknowledge that Cleopatra was correct. In fact, not only was Cleopatra correct, but Clancie was wholly incorrect, because she specifically, did not post a comment about LK posting Yahweh's name at mu.nu, she just posted the name.

[Cleopatra]

Clancie

Do you seriously think that you will get away with what you are doing in this forum?

You "sketched" me as a liar, you "painted" me as a liar, your "portrayed" me as a liar and you come here to claim that you never accused me of lying just because you didn't give the title " Liar" to the portrait?

To whom you think that you are talking Clancie, to your students at school?

I have been observing you for months now although I was defending your right to have your opinion and defend it with dignity, I was observing what you were doing in threads and how you handled matters.

You paint a person's portrait by using little dirty innuendos because youdon't have the guts to call on the others about something and then when you are proven wrong ( we are talking about a 100% score here) you start whining that you didn't make any accusation.

Of course I should have known it since the day you dared to post your dirty little comments to the appreciation thread of a 16 years old child who has just returned from a personal adventure.

I should have known it when you implied that Ian Rowland is a womenizer but you never took your comments back when he pointed to you that you made a mistake.

I should have known it when you chased Ken around the forum for the stupidity he has done to post Yahweh's real name after you have done exactly the same things in Renata's forum.

I should have known it when I saw the list of reasons why you thought that Yahweh's wasn't lying ( because he has always been polite to you).

It seems Clancie that when your posts are misinterpreted we have to believe you ,when you twist other people's posts and when you question their sincerity we have to believe you again.

There is a dogma in Martial Arts: Don't play dirty because you never know how high one can lift his leg and kick you straight on the face.

You chose to cheat in debating now you will have to see if we are able to kick you on your face.

Suggested readings apart from what Renata has listed:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870132478#post1870132478

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23269&perpage=40&highlight=mystery&pagenumber=2

[Clancie]

So then I didn't call you a liar as you have claimed (and, imo, I don't think I portrayed you as a liar either, although we disagreed on numerous points of the LK/Yahweh thing).

Also you have absolutely no examples at all of me "admonishing the young posters" in general at this board other than--on occasion and I feel for good reason--Kenneth.

For that last statement you can have your wish then. I will go on record and call you a liar for saying that I "spend a lot of time admonishing the young posters" at this board--anyone, that is, other than (when he posts things I disagree with--and it really doesn't take a lot of time), LK. Not only is your statement a lie, Cleopatra, its a very malicious one at that.

[Cleopatra]

Clancie

Answer to the question Renata and I posed you and stop underestimating our intelligence.

[Cleopatra]

Also, stop calling me a liar.