I've read your posts on Free Republic. You said some really vile, terrible things. You've stated that homosexuals shouldn't be in positions of trust around children. I think that was really despicable of you. You mentioned that St. Paul has a "multi ethnicity" problem. That's extremely racist. You made fun of Muslims. In short, you acted exactly like Freepers act--in a reprehensible, racist, and bigoted manner.
This is a group that values logic and rationality above all, yes? You say you were a plant on Free Republic, trying to win hearts and minds for years. You had 26K posts there. You have something like 43K here...I recall because you mentioned this. So let's take what we know and see what we can come up with, in a logical construction: You've falsely represented who you are and what you're about. But you'll agree that it's only logical for people who aren't you, people who aren't inside your head (to wit: everyone else) to conclude that you're either misrepresenting yourself here, or there, or both. From the outside, it's impossible to tell one way or another. You've said you misrepresented to Free Republic who you are and what you're about...and it shows. As I said, you made some really hateful and base posts in your several-year tenure at that site. What do we have to go on, then? Your word? Is there some rational reason that your word should be accepted, since you've admitted falsehoods about who you are and what you're about? Should the 43K vs 26K posts make a difference, tip the scales? If so, what's your rationale for making this case? Or should we go with content of posts? If you do that, well, you look just like a freeper who hates gay people, Muslims, and the always-scary "multi-ethnics", at least on that side.
Let's be clear--I'm not making accusations, but I am happy to find that we're discussing this in the Skepticism forum, under the parent header of science. As such, I've just created a construct that has no obvious answer. Given the information available, it's impossible to tell who you were running the game on: them, or us. Is that not completely rational? And if so, why are you expressing frustration to me? I thought you'd be really happy that I was using something akin to scientific inquiry to parse your posts there, and your history here? I think you're letting your emotions get in the way of seeing that this indeterminate conclusion is the only one that can be reached.
Thank you.
Oh, and it occurs to me that you may want to get this post deleted. If so, you may be successful. But I'll know that you wanted to minimize exposure to all your rational and science-minded friends here, and some of them will see this for what it is too.
= new reply since forum marked as read
