Saturday, January 7, 2012

Conversations between a 'Thug' and a 'Trainee Priest'

I hadn't had the pleasure of having a hatchet piece written solely about me until December 28th, 2011(This date is suspect to me for 2 reasons. 1st my blog about his antics came out on December 30th 2011, although he explicitly states in his own piece about me that I attacked him in a blog earlier. I'm thinking he fudged his own date to make me appear badly. It makes no sense for him to know what I said about him before I said it.). I am not surprised due to the source and I knew it would happen. In my last blog post, I mentioned annoying trolls I've dealt with in the past and one took special exception to my words about his tactics. His comments about me are mentioned here http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/01/rev-surrenders.html Allow me to provide some background here. Late one evening I had grown tired of his antics and issued a challenge. I told him if he commented on any of my blog posts of his choosing, I'd reply to one of his own. Most notably he wants atheists to respond to a fallaciously driven blog called "Atheist Dilemma". He chose to respond to a post I'd written about atheism not being a religion and he cited a court case  http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895   
to make his point that atheism is a religion. In fact his own source mocks the courts ruling. The courts as well as dictionaries(he cited merriam webster) has gotten the definition of atheism wrong as well. I liken it to the colloquial and often wrong definitions of biological evolution. Here's where I began to mess with the priest in training. I purposely held(and I still have his comment) his remark in my moderator cue. I knew by doing that, it would send him into a frenzy. I replied to the good priest on Twitter in a very long public Ubersocial comment before I took a final exam. The reply was between 7:45 and 7:56am Eastern Standard Time and within the reply I told him why I would not comment on his blog(I cited intellectual dishonesty, nastiness in many conversations as 2 reasons). Then I blocked him knowing that would piss him off even more. He hopped around on Twitter bothering other atheists about me and calling me a coward and whatever else his little heart desired. About a week or so ago I wrote a post about annoying trolls on Twitter and he is one of them (http://thereverendxavier.blogspot.com/2011/12/trolls-fuckwits-and-stalkers.html). The post was circulated and he even replied to that post claiming I'm paranoid. He unknowingly proved my point with his hatchet job on me which was not my intended goal but it was better than I had hoped. This priest in training has a very nasty habit of being intellectually dishonest in debate and when backed into a corner he throws all sorts of insults, fallacious claims, and smugness toward those in which he disagrees. He took special aim at someone I care about, so I decided to grind his gears a bit and it worked better than I had originally planned.

I'm not sure when we began to interact with one another so I'll accept his Summer 2011 timetable. The discussions were not fruitful and in many cases I ended up cursing at him but only after substantive replies were given and I burned a number of his fallacious strawmen. I think he has a narrow view of intelligence. He believes and wrongly so that cussing is the mark of a weak mind. He also links cussing and blackness in such a way that if you did not know any better you'd think only Black people cuss. I refer him to Vice President Biden's comments in front of an open mic calling the Health Care law a "big fucking deal". Is Joe Biden ghetto? The critique is no more than a whine for if he had cogent arguments and responses, the manner in which I reply to him is irrelevant. I retweet for 2 reasons. First, the discussion keeps both people honest. Second, wrongness and ignorance can be rooted out. It's not a sign of fear but a call to open and honest discussion. When a tweet is retweeted it cannot be deleted and I'm reasonably sure the future priest is not thrilled about it.

I will take credit for the tweets he posted. Those are mine through and through but he omits the context in which the replies were given which is not unexpected. He did choose a very nice big picture of me though. In the circulation of his own hit job on me, he tagged it "the rev has a crush on me". Given the size of the picture I beg to differ. I'm sure it screams of a thug, ghetto and whatever race baiting nonsense he tossed out. He made sure to take out the gang signs and the neck tattoos which leads me to believe he knows his way around photoshop. He writes an entire blog post about ME, includes a picture of me, makes tons of racist comments, and then has the temerity to claim I am the immature person. Perhaps he wants to taste the Rev's chocolate but I'll never know and he doesn't have a chance. I'll leave it to you to decide which one of us needs to grow up. His post brought me nothing but laughter because the source of the smear seems to be oblivious to one fundamental truth about his antics; his reputation precedes him. Clearly I was able to get under his skin and for that I'm happy. I was able to make @Sacerdotus and his alter ego @Bronxbomber777 angry and he affirmed everything many others have remarked about him.

5 comments:

  1. yeah the fact that he said "some black guy" really turned me off. Like why did he have to point that out? I don't get it. I notice he uses the term "ghetto" often. What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's part of his race baiting game. It's interesting that he calls me immature(which to some degree is true) but he writes an entire hit piece about me and includes a photo. I think he has some sort of crush on me or I exposed his debating tactics so succinctly and rightly, he decided to offer that as a reply.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OMI, obviously you never heard of a narrative. I wrote, "a young black guy." If you are going to quote my writings, do so correctly. The post was in response to Xavier's immature behavior on twitter.

    Xavier, it has nothing to do with race baiting. You are just paranoid. Some minorities are trained by the likes of Sharpton to throw the race card when questioned. Be proud of your race and don't make yourself a victim because of it.

    My blog post was written to expose your silly tactics so that others who you engage will know how to respond to you. To date you have not given any logical coherent argument. Instead you resort to ad hominem to make your case. That is why I posted your very own texts so others can see for themselves.

    I have done the same with others: a caricature account from the UK, pro abortion advocates, and a opportunistic self proclaimed lesbian minister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claiming consistency in the way you portray your detractors does not get you off the hook for race baiting in your original post. Not only did you mention the color of my skin, 11 times by my count, but you included a photo of me. If you were just trying to alert people of my existence, why not just provide my Twitter name? The color deal was just another smoke screen. Of course you only showed the tweets wherein I either cussed at you or said something that did not contain an argument. What you conveniently left out where the tweets which corrected your understanding of science or pointed out the logical fallacy contained in your argument. Doing so would actually paint a more accurate picture but that was not your purpose when you wrote the original blog post. Your objective is to portray me as some kind of victim(it's why keep harping on my skin color, along with Sharpton references) who's afraid of intellectual debate but your exercise failed and you provided the evidence for the failure with your silly blog post. When you produce logical, coherent arguments and not your usual straw men, then we can talk.

      Delete
  4. Hey Sacerdotus, again you are race baiting. Because I am a person of color you assume i like Rev. Al. I don't and I don't ever recall any one of his members of NAN (I know quite a few) who were "trained" in the manner in which you speak.

    Dude, stop that.

    ReplyDelete