May I make a suggestion and lock this thread for good, it has unfortunately turned into vindictive vitriol gibberish.
I actually expected this days ago.
250,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have died refusing blood
by nicolaou 739 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Simon
Yeah, I originally thought better of it and decided not to encourage an escalation although I am perfactly happy for all to know I said it to you.
Kind of telling isn't it that you feel you have to behave like this. I don't know what you think you're trying to prove.
People who don't like me or the forum already don't like me. The people that know me and trust me are probably aware of all the stunts you've already pulled and anyone else can easily see from how you behave.
-
Simon
May I make a suggestion and lock this thread for good , it has unfortunately turned into vindictive vitriol gibberish.
No, I'll clean it up as it would be sad to lose an otherwise valuable and interesting discussion which I think is what Cedars is after.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Is there something you needed to disclose a long time ago about your relationship with Beliaev?”
No.
For multiple reasons I have not asked Beliaev what he thinks of my extrapolations or whether he agrees, disagrees or thinks it at all possible to extrapolate as I have. Primarily I’ve refrained from these questions to avoid putting him into a potential quagmire that could occur in doctor-patient relationships he has or might have with current or future JW patients.
In the end either Beliaev and colleagues stand by their conclusions as published or they does not. If they stand by their conclusions then that is for them to answer for to their readers and those readers to decide as they will.
Whether my use of Beliaev’s conclusions is valid is for me to answer for to my readers and for those readers to decide as they will. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Beliaev and company (except whether these readers agree with Beliaev’s data presentation). Beliaev should not be put into a position of having to agree or disagree with work that is not his own, unless he chooses to make it his business.
Marvin Shilmer
-
cedars
The people that know me and trust me are probably aware of all the stunts you've already pulled and anyone else can easily see from how you behave.
Your dwindling fans are aware of YOUR version of the "stunts" I've pulled, most notoriously your continued insinuation that I manipulated Lee into locking a thread. By the way, you owe both Lee and myself an apology for this - me because I would never manipulate someone to do something like that, and Lee because she is not so easily manipulated.
You know I have evidence to settle what happened once and for all - namely that Lee was under the assumption that threads could be locked by whoever started them, and that she suggested to both me and Barb that the thread be locked. You just don't want to discuss it because you prefer me to be big bad Cedars so that you can continue to play the victim card.
All well and good. At least I have the measure of the sort of man you are now - even though it's taken me a couple of years to piece things together.
Cedars
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“The people that know me and trust me are probably aware of all the stunts you've already pulled and anyone else can easily see from how you behave.”
As an aside, my observation and opinion is that those who know you are probably aware of your good behavior and your bad behavior, including stunts you’ve pulled. I’d say the same is true of me too.
I’d say the same of everyone here who’s been around here for any serious length of time. Everyone here has their warts.
Now can we please keep the discussion point? Cedars? Simon? Everyone else?
I can’t believe I’m wasting one of my (now) few allotted posts to share this opinion.
Marvin Shilmer
-
cedars
Sorry Marvin, you and others have been doing a great job in thrashing out these important statistics - some more constructively than others.
I had every intention of leaving you to it, but I don't take kindly to being goaded by Simon even in my absense. The man has issues.
Cedars
-
Simon
Cedars: You're like the energizer bunny with a machete arent' you?!
Your dwindling fans are aware of YOUR version of the "stunts" I've pulled, most notoriously your continued insinuation that I manipulated Lee into locking a thread. By the way, you owe both Lee and myself an apology for this - me because I would never manipulate someone to do something like that, and Lee because she is not so easily manipulated.
The forum just had it's highest-traffic month ever (correction: 3rd highest by a small margin) thank you very much. . I don't care whether anyone is my fan or not or even likes me although it's nice to be appreciated. What I do care about is keeping the forum running on track and I do not appreciate your efforts and your pals efforts to sabotage that.
You know I have evidence to settle what happened once and for all - namely that Lee was under the assumption that threads could be locked by whoever started them, and that she suggested to both me and Barb that the thread be locked. You just don't want to discuss it because you prefer me to be big bad Cedars so that you can continue to play the victim card.
No, you think you have evidence but as I've said already, you just have evidence that makes Lady Lee look bad. But you don't mind doing that do you. Like you just forwarded her emails to me as though I care or don't believe she said what she said?
You obviously won't be happy until you've had your moment of glory so feel free to post your "damning evidence". I'll be sat cowering under the table weeping and gnashing my teeth crying "oh no, Cedars has declared his wrath upon me and wreaks his vengence".
All well and good. At least I have the measure of the sort of man you are now - even though it's taken me a couple of years to piece things together.
You must be pretty slow then, I think I'm fairly obvious and I figured you out a long long time ago.
The man has issues.
Yes, you're right here!
-
-
Simon
Just to clarify: does it have to be our own head or can we use someonse else's? Not that I have anyone in mind, I just wanted to know ...
The forum just had it's highest-traffic month ever (correction: 3rd highest by a small margin)
And also to clear up my own confusion: I thought Google Analytics was lying to me as the numbers on my tablet were different to the desktop. Turns out the tablet default view is the last 30 days (rolling) which has been the highest number of visitors but when viewed by month the split between Sep and Oct means neither is as high as a few months ago (although Oct isn't over yet).
Carry on.