Truth4Satan.com

Its obvious from your link post your Sitardass you of all people damn well know you turned this place into an insane dumpster fire with your drug problem and key board. You deserve to be banned your a worthless crackhead, pathological liar and general loser. Your argument in your link post is everyone you don't like for not worshipping Nick is jooish in all caps rage posting. That's not debating that is slander and trolling. That's all you did for years. Maybe after decades on crack that's the best you can offer but its still trolling.

1488 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:04 pm

Don Danko333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:46 pmThey are free to debate here

blatant lie
you know were not free to debate here
this account of mine will be banned soon and you know it will
so stop lying

Don Danko333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:27 pm Its obvious from your link post your Sitardass you of all people damn well know you turned this place into an insane dumpster fire with your drug problem and key board. You deserve to be banned your a worthless crackhead, pathological liar and general loser. Your argument in your link post is everyone you don't like for not worshipping Nick is jooish in all caps rage posting. That's not debating that is slander and trolling. That's all you did for years. Maybe after decades on crack that's the best you can offer but its still trolling.

1488 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:04 pm

Don Danko333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:46 pmThey are free to debate here

blatant lie
you know were not free to debate here
this account of mine will be banned soon and you know it will
so stop lying

Lmao sure thing he is a crackhead. Should've expected the idiot to return. After all, when someone who was a little bit schizo by the way criticized the JoS and did a PDF with the JoS case, Sitardass immediately came in and criticized.

Guess that is what Sitardass a 23 year old young adult can do as he sees that the fakery he puts up on the JoS comes to an end.

Don Danko333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:48 pm The question is to honor Maxine's legacy will this 1488 forum have KFC adds placed all over it?

Probably has, who knows.

Yes he certainly did. And yes, he is banned. He is banned for very good reasons. And when I see him, he will be removed. This isn't the wild west anymore.

Calling Don magestein or myself a jew is an ad hominem attack. I will explain what this means for the people who don't understand:

"It means Instead of addressing someone's argument or position the attacker irrelevantly attacks the person or some aspect of the person making the argument. It can also mean several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. Like calling Don magestein or myself a jew - when I have a DNA test result that proves conclusively I'm not jewish.

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent."

viewtopic.php?t=2

Exactly. "Why do you talk that you are *minority here*" since they have no arguments.

HPSZolaLuckyStar wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:51 pm Yes he certainly did. And yes, he is banned. He is banned for very good reasons. And when I see him, he will be removed. This isn't the wild west anymore.

Calling Don magestein or myself a jew is an ad hominem attack. I will explain what this means for the people who don't understand:

"It means Instead of addressing someone's argument or position the attacker irrelevantly attacks the person or some aspect of the person making the argument. It can also mean several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. Like calling Don magestein or myself a jew - when I have a DNA test result that proves conclusively I'm not jewish.

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent."

viewtopic.php?t=2

True indeed. I sensed out that it is an ad hominekbattack.

I see and I am glad that T4S forums aren't the wild west anymore, though I don't know if it has ever been like this, there was always good moderation.

I felt to respond in this situation to the 1488 user in a brutal way because he has been harassing me for a long time as you already know.

The reason Saxon launched the invite to rpc forums is because he is in connections with FancyMancy, a JoSer who is frequently posting his J/News threads on the JoS forums.

The RPCDebate forums are the forums FancyMancy owns.

And chances are that Fancy was also in the forums as I know him based on the quoting style, quoting text by text fragment like fragment.

When we had ShitposterInquisitor for a lot of time on the forums, we in fact had FancyMancy who was posing as a benefactor of our forums, only to give information to Cobra.

And as proof, I suggest you take a look at the quoting style of ShitposterInquisitor and FancyMancy quoting style on the JoS forums, it is the same style in all its aspects.

Links:
viewtopic.php?p=21740#p21740 - (T4S forum post from ShitPosterInquisitor)

https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopi ... 603#p24603 [FancyMancy post]

Celeste AikoGal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:06 pm Exactly. "Why do you talk that you are *minority here*" since they have no arguments.

Kindergarten nonsense of the people from JoS has been always their speciality.

They can't do anything nor they have proof of the existentialism of certain things. They just cry about it in hope Nick or whoever is in a higher position in the JoS will give them social aid.

The best thing is to ignore them and if there are other posts, simply report them by pressing the button marked by an exclamation sign "!". There you will select the reason you will report the post, fill in the information in the blank box about why are you reporting the box and you can select if you want to be notified upon solving your report or not.

of course it was banned. And yes, calling someone a jew is definitely an attack.
And speaking for myself, its slander and a LIE, told to hurt me. Its abusive. I have paid a lot of money for a legitimate DNA test, which confirms I'm 100% gentile caucasian.

And while you're going around calling random strangers kikes, where's your DNA test?


your argument that Don claiming we are free to debate here is a blatant lie is fallacious.

“synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, faulty, flawed, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, mistaken, misinformed, misguided, misleading, deceptive, delusive, delusory, illusory, sophistic, specious, fictitious, spurious, fabricated, distorted, made up, trumped up, baseless, groundless, unfounded, foundationless, unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, ill-founded, without basis, without foundation, bogus, phoney, iffy, dicey, full of holes, (way) off beam, dodgy”

You deliberately break the forum rules, over and over and over and then whine like a baby: muh freez speechs! When you get yourself banned. It's very disingenuous:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

synonyms: dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious, not candid, not frank, not entirely truthful, artful, cunning, crafty, wily, sly, sneaky, tricky, scheming, calculating, designing, devious, unscrupulous, shifty, foxy, economical with the truth, terminologically inexact, subtle, hollow-hearted, false-hearted, double-faced, truthless, unveracious

previous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:26 pm

HPSZolaLuckyStar wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:51 pm Yes he certainly did. And yes, he is banned. He is banned for very good reasons. And when I see him, he will be removed. This isn't the wild west anymore.

Calling Don magestein or myself a jew is an ad hominem attack. I will explain what this means for the people who don't understand:

"It means Instead of addressing someone's argument or position the attacker irrelevantly attacks the person or some aspect of the person making the argument. It can also mean several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. Like calling Don magestein or myself a jew - when I have a DNA test result that proves conclusively I'm not jewish.

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent."

viewtopic.php?t=2

calling someone a jew is an attack? ok
either way the account was banned, as said
so don claiming we are free to debate here is, as said, a blatant lie

Don't twist it up, we are talking about calling someone a Jew without proof like a DNA test to prove ir.

We are free to debate here but we have to respect rules of common sense which you JOs people unfortunately seem to lack.

I will not quote the rest of the misery, you have already shown up who you are Sitardass.

Quoting by fragments - that actually reminds me of someone

You have revealed yourself Fancy, and just when I thought you were neutral.

But green force steel you can't do anything about the Truth being told on T4S, be a crybaby with your news posting on ancient forums.