Base lies that have been refuted elsewhere. You appear to not be cognizent of several things:
1) The Roman Catholic church had already condemned Servetus as a heretic, and had ordered his execution.
2) John Calvin was not the civil authority in Geneva, and did not condemn Servetus.
3) John Calvin argued that Servetus should not suffer death by burning, but was overruled.
4) In most places, heresy was a capital offense, and the death penalty was often given in many places. If Servetus is the worst you can offer, than Calvin was certainly ahead of his times.
5) Freedom of religion had its roots in Geneva, and we owe that to Calvin. Just think how bad things would be, even today, without this influence.
Nice try, but no reward. (Do you know how bad it makes you look to dredge this stuff up as if it is some awful revelation. Think about the spirit in which you do these things. I think you will discover that it isn't one looking for unity.)
Let's approach this from this standpoint:
Was John Calvin perfect? No, he was a sinner, saved by grace, just as Saul of Tarsus, complicit in the murder of Stephen, was a sinner, saved by grace.
Was John Wesley perfect? Well, he did argue for "complete sanctification, and wants us to believe he was pretty darn close to becoming perfect in his earthly life, but I would argue that he was also a sinner, saved by grace.
Just how much sin does it take to send a man to hell?
(Also, you keep insisting that you have been called "satanic". Very disingenuous of you, it has been stated that you might be subject to "satanic deception", and that is something completely different. The fact that you won't admit that you are susceptible to this deception is more troubling to me than anything you could post about John Calvin. Besides, when did any of us ever claim that "Calvinism" was anything other than a descriptive nickname for the truth of the Gospel?)