[js1138]

First, I have no problem declaring the specific examples you listed to be objectionable. But if they had been posted to me I would have ignored the insults and responded to the argument, if any. There are lots more lurkers than posters, and they can tell who is behaving well.

Second, we have agreed that dredging up long past history is stalking. But you, on this thread, referred to behavior on a thread that is still current. I pointed out that your post #14 on that thread is a prime example of one using language calculated to start a flame war. I'm pretty sure #14 is the first such post on that thread.

[gore3000]

But if they had been posted to me I would have ignored the insults and responded to the argument, if any.

Which is what I did in post# 1901 and it was deleted by someone who does not like to see the truth and have it proven.

Second of all, you are implying that I constantly respond in kind, which is false while ignoring completely the constant insults and baiting practiced by your friends. And you do not have to go far to look either, you can see it on this very thread.

Second, we have agreed that dredging up long past history is stalking.

Wrong. First of all you are changing the meaning of stalking. Stalking is going around digging dirt to assassinate the character of people from personal and places other than what is on the record here. Only the evolutionists have been guilty of that despicable practice - and they continue doing it.

Second of all I have not agreed to anything. Last time I agreed to something on these threads I was shown the fruitlessness of making agreements with people with no morals.

Third of all, the examples were completely relevant, they showed the despicable actions of the evo mediator in the discussions shortly after he had promised to be civil.