Topic: Why I believe Father Merrin is not really a priest
+Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT — 6.7 years ago #54,166
There can be very little proof on an anonymous forum. Father Merrin can insist that she is indeed a priest in trillion threads, but that alone doesn't make it so and is not even convincing. In this paper I am arguing that not only can we take the neutral position, but go even further and based on the current information conclude that it is more likely that the TinyChan user Father Merrin is not a priest.
The calculation is as follows.
1. Imagine a population of priests and a population of non-priests. On that general level, with no additional information, the probability of an anonymous user being a priest is dramatically low: the vast majority of people are not priests.
2. We do have at least three pieces of additional info: this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
2.1 Father Merrin said something to the effect that priests are normal people, so it is entirely plausible that a priest would choose to hang out at a forum like this one. I think Father Merrin misses the point. Sure, a priest can in theory do that. But my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture. Someone like a software engineer, on the other hand, is much more likely to know what anon boards are, understand and roll with this kind of Internet humor. So, it is not impossible for a priest to be here, just much less likely.
2.2 What's more likely, that a priest chose to come to this forum and happened to pick a fictional priest handle, or that a non-priest came to the forum and, having chosen a priest persona, is now pushing it? I think the latter is far more likely: if Father Merrin is indeed a priest, why would she go to an anonymous board and actually give away some of the real info about herself? I find it more likely for a priest to come to an anonymous forum and not reveal that they are a priest.
All of the above does not mean that Father Merrin is not a priest. But, the way I see it, it strongly tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that Father Merrin is not a priest IRL.
The calculation is as follows.
1. Imagine a population of priests and a population of non-priests. On that general level, with no additional information, the probability of an anonymous user being a priest is dramatically low: the vast majority of people are not priests.
2. We do have at least three pieces of additional info: this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
2.1 Father Merrin said something to the effect that priests are normal people, so it is entirely plausible that a priest would choose to hang out at a forum like this one. I think Father Merrin misses the point. Sure, a priest can in theory do that. But my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture. Someone like a software engineer, on the other hand, is much more likely to know what anon boards are, understand and roll with this kind of Internet humor. So, it is not impossible for a priest to be here, just much less likely.
2.2 What's more likely, that a priest chose to come to this forum and happened to pick a fictional priest handle, or that a non-priest came to the forum and, having chosen a priest persona, is now pushing it? I think the latter is far more likely: if Father Merrin is indeed a priest, why would she go to an anonymous board and actually give away some of the real info about herself? I find it more likely for a priest to come to an anonymous forum and not reveal that they are a priest.
All of the above does not mean that Father Merrin is not a priest. But, the way I see it, it strongly tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that Father Merrin is not a priest IRL.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 26 minutes later[T] [B] #573,421
There are additional arguments, which are not as clean since they can be interpreted in different ways and the calculation then becomes way too complicated. But things that further hint towards Father Merrin not being a priest IRL would be these:
First of all, if you are that concerned about being religious, not seeing obscene pictures - why come to this forum? This makes little sense. Of course, people might be conflicted, etc. But I just find it implausible, less likely that a priest concerned with chastity would be hanging out day after day at a place like TinyChan.
Second, although he claims he has disabled images, he reliably knows what is on those images, every time. He says "people tell him", but this is difficult to prove on an anonymous board, and strange that each time someone who is here just to fool around DMs him to tell him "hey, there is this on that pic and a sign which says this and this". Again, not impossible, just kind of unlikely and, of course, very convenient for Father Merrin: that way he has his cake and eats it too.
Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious. Not only are we looking at a, basically, criminal conspiracy to hide child molesters from the consequences of their actions, this is undermining the whole fabric of Catholic morality, which hurts every priest. Even if you are conflicted about this and you are an actual priest, I think it's unlikely you will be treating this matter as non-seriously as Father Merrin is treating it. Of course, he might argue that he is actually very serious, but I don't buy it. And I have not seen any defense from him, only partaking in the jokes by constantly fueling them with jesting responses. This constant buffoonery seems off.
So, while these might be less straightforward, I still think they point in the direction of Father Merrin not being a priest. In fact, he might not be religious at all, but be engaged in this meta-trolling of the church.
- his insistence that he actually cares about religion and being pure, to the point that he has disabled images
- his cavalier attitude towards being accused of pedophilia
First of all, if you are that concerned about being religious, not seeing obscene pictures - why come to this forum? This makes little sense. Of course, people might be conflicted, etc. But I just find it implausible, less likely that a priest concerned with chastity would be hanging out day after day at a place like TinyChan.
Second, although he claims he has disabled images, he reliably knows what is on those images, every time. He says "people tell him", but this is difficult to prove on an anonymous board, and strange that each time someone who is here just to fool around DMs him to tell him "hey, there is this on that pic and a sign which says this and this". Again, not impossible, just kind of unlikely and, of course, very convenient for Father Merrin: that way he has his cake and eats it too.
Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious. Not only are we looking at a, basically, criminal conspiracy to hide child molesters from the consequences of their actions, this is undermining the whole fabric of Catholic morality, which hurts every priest. Even if you are conflicted about this and you are an actual priest, I think it's unlikely you will be treating this matter as non-seriously as Father Merrin is treating it. Of course, he might argue that he is actually very serious, but I don't buy it. And I have not seen any defense from him, only partaking in the jokes by constantly fueling them with jesting responses. This constant buffoonery seems off.
So, while these might be less straightforward, I still think they point in the direction of Father Merrin not being a priest. In fact, he might not be religious at all, but be engaged in this meta-trolling of the church.
+Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #573,425
Merrin is TG. TG is a known pedophile.
+Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #573,426
So much effort... and in the end, unfortunately a clumsy argument. Why do you let a waste of oxygen like TG get under your skin so much?
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,438
@previous (C)
I am having fun.
But who is TG? I've seen a couple of references to him, but I don't know the back story.
Also, why is my argument clumsy? What's clumsy about it?
I am having fun.
But who is TG? I've seen a couple of references to him, but I don't know the back story.
Also, why is my argument clumsy? What's clumsy about it?
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,439
@OP
> There can be very little proof on an anonymous forum. Father Merrin can insist that she is indeed a priest in trillion threads, but that alone doesn't make it so and is not even convincing. In this paper I am arguing that not only can we take the neutral position, but go even further and based on the current information conclude that it is more likely that the TinyChan user Father Merrin is not a priest.
>
> The calculation is as follows.
>
> 1. Imagine a population of priests and a population of non-priests. On that general level, with no additional information, the probability of an anonymous user being a priest is dramatically low: the vast majority of people are not priests.
>
> 2. We do have at least three pieces of additional info: this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
>
> 2.1 Father Merrin said something to the effect that priests are normal people, so it is entirely plausible that a priest would choose to hang out at a forum like this one. I think Father Merrin misses the point. Sure, a priest can in theory do that. But my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture. Someone like a software engineer, on the other hand, is much more likely to know what anon boards are, understand and roll with this kind of Internet humor. So, it is not impossible for a priest to be here, just much less likely.
>
> 2.2 What's more likely, that a priest chose to come to this forum and happened to pick a fictional priest handle, or that a non-priest came to the forum and, having chosen a priest persona, is now pushing it? I think the latter is far more likely: if Father Merrin is indeed a priest, why would she go to an anonymous board and actually give away some of the real info about herself? I find it more likely for a priest to come to an anonymous forum and not reveal that they are a priest.
>
> All of the above does not mean that Father Merrin is not a priest. But, the way I see it, it strongly tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that Father Merrin is not a priest IRL.
@573,421 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> There are additional arguments, which are not as clean since they can be interpreted in different ways and the calculation then becomes way too complicated. But things that further hint towards Father Merrin not being a priest IRL would be these:
>
> his insistence that he actually cares about religion and being pure, to the point that he has disabled images
>
> his cavalier attitude towards being accused of pedophilia
>
>
>
> First of all, if you are that concerned about being religious, not seeing obscene pictures - why come to this forum? This makes little sense. Of course, people might be conflicted, etc. But I just find it implausible, less likely that a priest concerned with chastity would be hanging out day after day at a place like TinyChan.
>
> Second, although he claims he has disabled images, he reliably knows what is on those images, every time. He says "people tell him", but this is difficult to prove on an anonymous board, and strange that each time someone who is here just to fool around DMs him to tell him "hey, there is this on that pic and a sign which says this and this". Again, not impossible, just kind of unlikely and, of course, very convenient for Father Merrin: that way he has his cake and eats it too.
>
> Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious. Not only are we looking at a, basically, criminal conspiracy to hide child molesters from the consequences of their actions, this is undermining the whole fabric of Catholic morality, which hurts every priest. Even if you are conflicted about this and you are an actual priest, I think it's unlikely you will be treating this matter as non-seriously as Father Merrin is treating it. Of course, he might argue that he is actually very serious, but I don't buy it. And I have not seen any defense from him, only partaking in the jokes by constantly fueling them with jesting responses. This constant buffoonery seems off.
>
> So, while these might be less straightforward, I still think they point in the direction of Father Merrin not being a priest. In fact, he might not be religious at all, but be engaged in this meta-trolling of the church.
Dear Lord, I didn't think it was possible for you to put together a weaker and less logically sound argument than you did when I massacred your points in the "Does God exist?" thread, but congratulations, you've surpassed yourself! :)
And by the way, I am a priest.
> There can be very little proof on an anonymous forum. Father Merrin can insist that she is indeed a priest in trillion threads, but that alone doesn't make it so and is not even convincing. In this paper I am arguing that not only can we take the neutral position, but go even further and based on the current information conclude that it is more likely that the TinyChan user Father Merrin is not a priest.
>
> The calculation is as follows.
>
> 1. Imagine a population of priests and a population of non-priests. On that general level, with no additional information, the probability of an anonymous user being a priest is dramatically low: the vast majority of people are not priests.
>
> 2. We do have at least three pieces of additional info: this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
>
> 2.1 Father Merrin said something to the effect that priests are normal people, so it is entirely plausible that a priest would choose to hang out at a forum like this one. I think Father Merrin misses the point. Sure, a priest can in theory do that. But my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture. Someone like a software engineer, on the other hand, is much more likely to know what anon boards are, understand and roll with this kind of Internet humor. So, it is not impossible for a priest to be here, just much less likely.
>
> 2.2 What's more likely, that a priest chose to come to this forum and happened to pick a fictional priest handle, or that a non-priest came to the forum and, having chosen a priest persona, is now pushing it? I think the latter is far more likely: if Father Merrin is indeed a priest, why would she go to an anonymous board and actually give away some of the real info about herself? I find it more likely for a priest to come to an anonymous forum and not reveal that they are a priest.
>
> All of the above does not mean that Father Merrin is not a priest. But, the way I see it, it strongly tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that Father Merrin is not a priest IRL.
@573,421 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> There are additional arguments, which are not as clean since they can be interpreted in different ways and the calculation then becomes way too complicated. But things that further hint towards Father Merrin not being a priest IRL would be these:
>
> his insistence that he actually cares about religion and being pure, to the point that he has disabled images
>
> his cavalier attitude towards being accused of pedophilia
>
>
>
> First of all, if you are that concerned about being religious, not seeing obscene pictures - why come to this forum? This makes little sense. Of course, people might be conflicted, etc. But I just find it implausible, less likely that a priest concerned with chastity would be hanging out day after day at a place like TinyChan.
>
> Second, although he claims he has disabled images, he reliably knows what is on those images, every time. He says "people tell him", but this is difficult to prove on an anonymous board, and strange that each time someone who is here just to fool around DMs him to tell him "hey, there is this on that pic and a sign which says this and this". Again, not impossible, just kind of unlikely and, of course, very convenient for Father Merrin: that way he has his cake and eats it too.
>
> Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious. Not only are we looking at a, basically, criminal conspiracy to hide child molesters from the consequences of their actions, this is undermining the whole fabric of Catholic morality, which hurts every priest. Even if you are conflicted about this and you are an actual priest, I think it's unlikely you will be treating this matter as non-seriously as Father Merrin is treating it. Of course, he might argue that he is actually very serious, but I don't buy it. And I have not seen any defense from him, only partaking in the jokes by constantly fueling them with jesting responses. This constant buffoonery seems off.
>
> So, while these might be less straightforward, I still think they point in the direction of Father Merrin not being a priest. In fact, he might not be religious at all, but be engaged in this meta-trolling of the church.
Dear Lord, I didn't think it was possible for you to put together a weaker and less logically sound argument than you did when I massacred your points in the "Does God exist?" thread, but congratulations, you've surpassed yourself! :)
And by the way, I am a priest.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,440
@573,426 (C)
> So much effort... and in the end, unfortunately a clumsy argument.
Piecing together a strong argument is not his strong suit unfortunately :)
> Why do you let TG get under your skin so much?
I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
> So much effort... and in the end, unfortunately a clumsy argument.
Piecing together a strong argument is not his strong suit unfortunately :)
> Why do you let TG get under your skin so much?
I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,441
+Anonymous E — 6.7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,444
Attention pedo Merrin.
That 12 year old boy you married. Does he lick the shit off of your dick or do you lick the shit off of his dick.
That 12 year old boy you married. Does he lick the shit off of your dick or do you lick the shit off of his dick.
+Anonymous F — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,445
Father Merrin is just a character from the exorcist and the user shitposting as Merrin is larping. Now take your domestos.
+Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,446
@573,444 (E)
> Attention pedo Merrin.
> That 12 year old boy you married. Does he lick the shit off of your dick or do you lick the shit off of his dick.
And to think, people say Merrin's M.O here is to provoke pedophiles into spamming up the forum with kiddie sex posts.
> Attention pedo Merrin.
> That 12 year old boy you married. Does he lick the shit off of your dick or do you lick the shit off of his dick.
And to think, people say Merrin's M.O here is to provoke pedophiles into spamming up the forum with kiddie sex posts.
+Anonymous H — 6.7 years ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,447
@573,445 (F)
Yes just shtick. Back on scatchan when he used Josh as his handle, he was open about how he shared his love in intimate terms, in the bedroom with male children.
Yes just shtick. Back on scatchan when he used Josh as his handle, he was open about how he shared his love in intimate terms, in the bedroom with male children.
+Anonymous I — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,448
@573,446 (G)
Nice try TGCOMIXMERRIN as Anon
No one ever supports you here. You had to vote five times for yourself, in the recent poll.
Nice try TGCOMIXMERRIN as Anon
No one ever supports you here. You had to vote five times for yourself, in the recent poll.
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,450
·Anonymous F — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,451
@573,447 (H)
I didn’t post there often apart to harass the mods and users. Wasn’t he a mod? I vaguely remember his meltdowns and creepy doodles. Glad SC is gone, but I wish he’d have left with it.
I didn’t post there often apart to harass the mods and users. Wasn’t he a mod? I vaguely remember his meltdowns and creepy doodles. Glad SC is gone, but I wish he’d have left with it.
+Anonymous J — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,452
·Anonymous H — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,453
@573,451 (F)
Yes he was a mod on SC. I used it mostly to harass Matt, and it had a PM open to anyone. Used that about twice a week.
Yes he was a mod on SC. I used it mostly to harass Matt, and it had a PM open to anyone. Used that about twice a week.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,454
@573,439 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Saying that an argument is weak is different from actually showing it to be weak. You say you are a priest. You say my argument is weak. But you demonstrate the veracity of neither of those statements.
Show me where my argument fails.
Saying that an argument is weak is different from actually showing it to be weak. You say you are a priest. You say my argument is weak. But you demonstrate the veracity of neither of those statements.
Show me where my argument fails.
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,455
@573,441 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > TG is a known pedophile.
>
> Can you prove this?
Can you prove you're not?
> > TG is a known pedophile.
>
> Can you prove this?
Can you prove you're not?
+ !ZWIJTmuzAk — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,456
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,458
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,459
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,460
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,461
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 31 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,462
+Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,463
I WILL STAB EVERYOHNE IN THE CHAT ROOM!!!!
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,464
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,465
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,466
> Also, why is my argument clumsy? What's clumsy about it?
For one thing you have not included two vital pieces of a priori information we "know":
1. He claims specifically to be a Catholic priest. I'm not sure if you're using the pronoun "she" just to virtue signal that you're being gender inclusive, but it makes no sense to do this, given that there are precisely zero female Catholic priests. If he's a Catholic priest then he's a man.
2. He's married. This is the one fact you should be picking out which "dramatically" reduces the odds that he's telling the truth. Instead of going into why, here's a link to an LA Times article: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-married-priests-2017-story.html
> this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
These three pieces of additional info. amount to precisely bugger all if you think about it.
> my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture.
Based on what statistical evidence? You could make a strong argument that it's actually more, not less, likely that a priest might stumble across weird and wonderful places like this in their search for the metaphysical.
> 2.2 What's more likely...
I agree, clearly the latter, however not via the arguments you propose.
> his insistence that he actually cares about religion and being pure, to the point that he has disabled images
There are any number of reasons why somebody would want to do this. If he really has images disabled, then it's most likely because he accesses this site from work, or from somewhere open where he doesn't want friends and family walking in on him scrolling through endless negidick pictures.
> Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious...
For somebody who is apparently an advocate of Bayes' theorem, you should be able to glimpse the flaw in this all too popular trope. Start by doing an honest examination and comparison of the population of various groups of people, apply Bayesian inference, and you'll see what I mean.
For one thing you have not included two vital pieces of a priori information we "know":
1. He claims specifically to be a Catholic priest. I'm not sure if you're using the pronoun "she" just to virtue signal that you're being gender inclusive, but it makes no sense to do this, given that there are precisely zero female Catholic priests. If he's a Catholic priest then he's a man.
2. He's married. This is the one fact you should be picking out which "dramatically" reduces the odds that he's telling the truth. Instead of going into why, here's a link to an LA Times article: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-married-priests-2017-story.html
> this particular user is hanging out on an obscure anonymous board; chose the username "Father Merrin", a fictional priest character from a popular film; and also keeps actively insisting that she is a priest in real life.
These three pieces of additional info. amount to precisely bugger all if you think about it.
> my argument is not that priests are not normal people, but that they are less likely to be exposed to this area of the Internet culture.
Based on what statistical evidence? You could make a strong argument that it's actually more, not less, likely that a priest might stumble across weird and wonderful places like this in their search for the metaphysical.
> 2.2 What's more likely...
I agree, clearly the latter, however not via the arguments you propose.
> his insistence that he actually cares about religion and being pure, to the point that he has disabled images
There are any number of reasons why somebody would want to do this. If he really has images disabled, then it's most likely because he accesses this site from work, or from somewhere open where he doesn't want friends and family walking in on him scrolling through endless negidick pictures.
> Third, pedophilia accusations towards the Catholic church are very very serious...
For somebody who is apparently an advocate of Bayes' theorem, you should be able to glimpse the flaw in this all too popular trope. Start by doing an honest examination and comparison of the population of various groups of people, apply Bayesian inference, and you'll see what I mean.
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,470
@573,464 (B)
> I proved it by saying yes.
So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> I proved it by saying yes.
So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,471
@previous (G)
> > I proved it by saying yes.
>
> So you admit that yes you're not a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
Precisely!
> > I proved it by saying yes.
>
> So you admit that yes you're not a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
Precisely!
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,472
@previous (B)
> > > I proved it by saying yes.
> >
> > So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
>
>
> Precisely!
Thanks again, that'll be all.
> > > I proved it by saying yes.
> >
> > So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
>
>
> Precisely!
Thanks again, that'll be all.
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 35 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,473
@previous (G)
> > > > I proved it by saying yes.
> > >
> > > So you admit that yes you're not a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> >
> >
> > Precisely!
>
> Thanks again, that'll be all.
You're welcome!
> > > > I proved it by saying yes.
> > >
> > > So you admit that yes you're not a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> >
> >
> > Precisely!
>
> Thanks again, that'll be all.
You're welcome!
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,474
@previous (B)
> > > > > I proved it by saying yes.
> > > >
> > > > So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> > >
> > >
> > > Precisely!
> >
> > Thanks again, that'll be all.
>
> You're welcome!
> > > > > I proved it by saying yes.
> > > >
> > > > So you admit that yes you're a pedophile. Ok thanks, that'll be all.
> > >
> > >
> > > Precisely!
> >
> > Thanks again, that'll be all.
>
> You're welcome!
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,475
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,476
@573,444 (E)
> pedo
> 12 year old boy...lick the sh*t off of your d*ck...lick the sh*t off of his d*ck.
Oh look, an utterly disgusting child sex post written by a closet pedophile who is very easily goaded into posted them. I really hope Tinychan doesn't become synonymous with things like this.
> pedo
> 12 year old boy...lick the sh*t off of your d*ck...lick the sh*t off of his d*ck.
Oh look, an utterly disgusting child sex post written by a closet pedophile who is very easily goaded into posted them. I really hope Tinychan doesn't become synonymous with things like this.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 47 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,477
@573,447 (H)
> Back on scatchan when he used Josh as his handle, he was open about how he shared his love in intimate terms, in the bedroom with male children.
Citation needed.
> Back on scatchan when he used Josh as his handle, he was open about how he shared his love in intimate terms, in the bedroom with male children.
Citation needed.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,478
@573,454 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> Saying that an argument is weak is different from actually showing it to be weak. You say you are a priest. You say my argument is weak. But you demonstrate the veracity of neither of those statements.
>
> Show me where my argument fails.
My good friend Mr Fabulous Life Compulsive Madspammer has already addressed yur concerns here:
@573,466 (C)
> Saying that an argument is weak is different from actually showing it to be weak. You say you are a priest. You say my argument is weak. But you demonstrate the veracity of neither of those statements.
>
> Show me where my argument fails.
My good friend Mr Fabulous Life Compulsive Madspammer has already addressed yur concerns here:
@573,466 (C)
+Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,480
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 9 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[T] [B] #573,506
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,612
@573,466 (C)
Hey! Thank you for the comments.
1. I used the pronoun "she" to underline the fact that we have no reason to believe that Father Merrin is even a "he", although it seems more likely. I do no virtue signalling on this forum.
2. He says he is a Catholic priest, good point. This is one more piece of info, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
3. I am relatively new to this forum, although I have been following it on and off for years. I have never heard him claim he is married, so I did not have this data point when making the original post. You are right, if we take this claim at face value, it makes it less likely that he is a priest. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true. Whereas I tried to base my analysis on what we really know. Like, we know that he calls himself Father Merrin, this is just a fact.
4. You say you disagree with my arguments in 2.2. Why? I feel this is a very strong argument.
5. "There are any number of reasons why somebody would want to do this. If he really has images disabled, then it's most likely because he accesses this site from work, or from somewhere open where he doesn't want friends and family walking in on him scrolling through endless negidick pictures."
Agreed, but that's not the argument I am making. My argument is that
a. it's more likely he has images enabled
b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
6. "For somebody who is apparently an advocate of Bayes' theorem, you should be able to glimpse the flaw in this all too popular trope. Start by doing an honest examination and comparison of the population of various groups of people, apply Bayesian inference, and you'll see what I mean."
I am sorry, I don't understand. What is a too popular trope? Comparison of which groups of people?
Hey! Thank you for the comments.
1. I used the pronoun "she" to underline the fact that we have no reason to believe that Father Merrin is even a "he", although it seems more likely. I do no virtue signalling on this forum.
2. He says he is a Catholic priest, good point. This is one more piece of info, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
3. I am relatively new to this forum, although I have been following it on and off for years. I have never heard him claim he is married, so I did not have this data point when making the original post. You are right, if we take this claim at face value, it makes it less likely that he is a priest. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true. Whereas I tried to base my analysis on what we really know. Like, we know that he calls himself Father Merrin, this is just a fact.
4. You say you disagree with my arguments in 2.2. Why? I feel this is a very strong argument.
5. "There are any number of reasons why somebody would want to do this. If he really has images disabled, then it's most likely because he accesses this site from work, or from somewhere open where he doesn't want friends and family walking in on him scrolling through endless negidick pictures."
Agreed, but that's not the argument I am making. My argument is that
a. it's more likely he has images enabled
b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
6. "For somebody who is apparently an advocate of Bayes' theorem, you should be able to glimpse the flaw in this all too popular trope. Start by doing an honest examination and comparison of the population of various groups of people, apply Bayesian inference, and you'll see what I mean."
I am sorry, I don't understand. What is a too popular trope? Comparison of which groups of people?
· !OxChoCuRGg — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,614
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
You're wasting your time. Merrin Comix has two outlets. One is for his cock to penetrate young boys. Two is for his need to pay shtick them up.
Don't continue to be a victim of the pedophile known as Merrin.
You're wasting your time. Merrin Comix has two outlets. One is for his cock to penetrate young boys. Two is for his need to pay shtick them up.
Don't continue to be a victim of the pedophile known as Merrin.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,615
@573,440 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
Let's be serious for a moment here.
I actually really enjoy a debate, as you can see. I was also conscious of your efforts to derail the conversation by constantly saying that you embarrassed me or that you are going to teach me or something like that. I purposefully ignored these jabs.
But to get the record straight, I do not feel embarrassed if I am shown to be wrong. I am fine with losing an argument. Even if it feels bad at the time, I look at it from a long-term perspective of having improved my worldview.
In our discussion on religion, which anyone can dig up and examine for themselves, you have definitely not won any argument. Your take on it is really divorced from the actual conversation we had.
First, I am very well versed in Christianity. We might have a different take on it, but I don't see anything in that thread that would demonstrate "stunning ignorance". Unlike many believers I have actually read the whole Bible, studied religious philosophy, later, as an atheist debated many-many believers and am aware of many theological arguments.
Second, you provided absolutely no argument for God. The conversation was you giving me tasks: first, telling me I need to read the whole Bible before we proceed, then explain my epistemological framework, then provide you with list of various things. At the end I got tired and stopped engaging with you.
I could have also stopped it earlier and said that regardless of who read what, you can make your best argument for the existence of God without this preamble conversation and let us judge how convincing it is. And maybe make a decision to read up on additional material if it is not clear.
So, nobody is afraid to debate you. It's just that you fail to provide any argument and seem to be set on wasting time. Feel free to make an argument for the existence of God at any moment, and I will be ready to engage with it. What I am not ready to do is go into a conversation where 90% of it is me providing you with information exposing my worldview but never hearing anything about yours.
> I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
Let's be serious for a moment here.
I actually really enjoy a debate, as you can see. I was also conscious of your efforts to derail the conversation by constantly saying that you embarrassed me or that you are going to teach me or something like that. I purposefully ignored these jabs.
But to get the record straight, I do not feel embarrassed if I am shown to be wrong. I am fine with losing an argument. Even if it feels bad at the time, I look at it from a long-term perspective of having improved my worldview.
In our discussion on religion, which anyone can dig up and examine for themselves, you have definitely not won any argument. Your take on it is really divorced from the actual conversation we had.
First, I am very well versed in Christianity. We might have a different take on it, but I don't see anything in that thread that would demonstrate "stunning ignorance". Unlike many believers I have actually read the whole Bible, studied religious philosophy, later, as an atheist debated many-many believers and am aware of many theological arguments.
Second, you provided absolutely no argument for God. The conversation was you giving me tasks: first, telling me I need to read the whole Bible before we proceed, then explain my epistemological framework, then provide you with list of various things. At the end I got tired and stopped engaging with you.
I could have also stopped it earlier and said that regardless of who read what, you can make your best argument for the existence of God without this preamble conversation and let us judge how convincing it is. And maybe make a decision to read up on additional material if it is not clear.
So, nobody is afraid to debate you. It's just that you fail to provide any argument and seem to be set on wasting time. Feel free to make an argument for the existence of God at any moment, and I will be ready to engage with it. What I am not ready to do is go into a conversation where 90% of it is me providing you with information exposing my worldview but never hearing anything about yours.
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,616
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story about why he needs all this info from you.
Well put bud!
NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story about why he needs all this info from you.
Well put bud!
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,617
@573,612 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> 1. we have no reason to believe that Father Merrin is even a "he", although it seems more likely
We do. For example, he has described certain dick pictures as "gay porn". Also, pedophiles (assuming that Merrin is TGcomix, which is very likely) are statistically much more likely to be male than female.
> 2. He says he is a Catholic priest, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
There are major differences between Catholic and say C of E or Presbyterian practices. This means we can expect certain beliefs and behaviours from him, and we can also expect him to be classically educated. He has already slipped up on several occasions, e.g. claiming to have given a particular biblical reading during mass on a certain date, when all over the Catholic world, the prescribed reading for that week was different. He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin.
> 3. I am relatively new to this forum
Then you should lurk more before attempting an argument like this.
> 3. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true.
This information is based on a photograph of his hand which he posted on MC. When it was pointed out that he was wearing a wedding ring, the conversation became awkward. He could have got out of it by claiming that some priests wear wedding bands in order to symbolize their devotion to the church, but he apparently didn't know about this oddity, and chose to admit to being married instead, before he converted to Catholicism. While this is plausible, it is extremely rare.
> He calls himself Father Merrin, this is just a fact.
Yes but it contributes nothing to the argument, and can be very reasonably explained away as simply being a pseudonym... because why on earth would he use his real name if he wishes to remain anonymous? If he called himself Father Banana, would you be able to infer anything from that? No.
> 4. You say you disagree with my arguments in 2.2. Why? I feel this is a very strong argument.
Because it forces you make assumptions about human psychology. This TGMerrin character is a very strange individual to start with, and has displayed schizotypal behaviour, bordering on sociopathic. This makes it difficult to predict what he would or wouldn't do on a board like this.
> 5. My argument is that
> a. it's more likely he has images enabled
Why? I think it's more likely he has them disabled but is able to turn them on at any time he chooses. The reason I think this is because he named the mod who created the CSS for him. This makes the story far more credible, because this is precisely how one would go about disabling images. If he didn't know about this method then he might have tried to claim that there's some sort of hidden switch for images (which there isn't).
> b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
Again, why? Priests lead very public lives. If I'm walking around with my phone where people might be able to see my screen, or I'm on my computer in my office, I don't go anywhere near this website, because of the extremely high chance that negidick will pop up.
> What is a too popular trope? Comparison of which groups of people?
The tired old theme that all Catholic priests are pedophiles and are the very worst. You should compare population groups, such as:
- all men
- all pedophiles
- Catholic priests
- Catholic priests convicted of pedophilia
- men in other professions which involve coming into contact with children, such as teachers
- teachers convicted of pedophilia
- other groups you hardly ever hear about, such as Pakistani Islmaic schools, Nigerians who believe in the virgin cleansing myth and so on.
> 1. we have no reason to believe that Father Merrin is even a "he", although it seems more likely
We do. For example, he has described certain dick pictures as "gay porn". Also, pedophiles (assuming that Merrin is TGcomix, which is very likely) are statistically much more likely to be male than female.
> 2. He says he is a Catholic priest, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
There are major differences between Catholic and say C of E or Presbyterian practices. This means we can expect certain beliefs and behaviours from him, and we can also expect him to be classically educated. He has already slipped up on several occasions, e.g. claiming to have given a particular biblical reading during mass on a certain date, when all over the Catholic world, the prescribed reading for that week was different. He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin.
> 3. I am relatively new to this forum
Then you should lurk more before attempting an argument like this.
> 3. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true.
This information is based on a photograph of his hand which he posted on MC. When it was pointed out that he was wearing a wedding ring, the conversation became awkward. He could have got out of it by claiming that some priests wear wedding bands in order to symbolize their devotion to the church, but he apparently didn't know about this oddity, and chose to admit to being married instead, before he converted to Catholicism. While this is plausible, it is extremely rare.
> He calls himself Father Merrin, this is just a fact.
Yes but it contributes nothing to the argument, and can be very reasonably explained away as simply being a pseudonym... because why on earth would he use his real name if he wishes to remain anonymous? If he called himself Father Banana, would you be able to infer anything from that? No.
> 4. You say you disagree with my arguments in 2.2. Why? I feel this is a very strong argument.
Because it forces you make assumptions about human psychology. This TGMerrin character is a very strange individual to start with, and has displayed schizotypal behaviour, bordering on sociopathic. This makes it difficult to predict what he would or wouldn't do on a board like this.
> 5. My argument is that
> a. it's more likely he has images enabled
Why? I think it's more likely he has them disabled but is able to turn them on at any time he chooses. The reason I think this is because he named the mod who created the CSS for him. This makes the story far more credible, because this is precisely how one would go about disabling images. If he didn't know about this method then he might have tried to claim that there's some sort of hidden switch for images (which there isn't).
> b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
Again, why? Priests lead very public lives. If I'm walking around with my phone where people might be able to see my screen, or I'm on my computer in my office, I don't go anywhere near this website, because of the extremely high chance that negidick will pop up.
> What is a too popular trope? Comparison of which groups of people?
The tired old theme that all Catholic priests are pedophiles and are the very worst. You should compare population groups, such as:
- all men
- all pedophiles
- Catholic priests
- Catholic priests convicted of pedophilia
- men in other professions which involve coming into contact with children, such as teachers
- teachers convicted of pedophilia
- other groups you hardly ever hear about, such as Pakistani Islmaic schools, Nigerians who believe in the virgin cleansing myth and so on.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #573,618
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,627
@573,617 (C)
> > 2. He says he is a Catholic priest, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
> There are major differences between Catholic and say C of E or Presbyterian practices. This means we can expect certain beliefs and behaviours from him, and we can also expect him to be classically educated. He has already slipped up on several occasions, e.g. claiming to have given a particular biblical reading during mass on a certain date
Oh, you're that guy who had no idea the difference between a sermon and a reading. I remember you well, you made quite a fool of yourself :)
> He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin.
My university dissertation was on the Latin poets of the Augustan era. Latin is my area of expertise if we're talking 'ancient' languages. Point to a single mistake I have ever made either here or on Minichan in Latin. I shall wait.
I have never claimed to be fluent in Ancient Greek. Matthew Miller (using a 'priest' persona) made a thread 'challenging' me to a contest in Greek and Hebrew because he claimed every Catholic priest is fluent in all 3 languages, which is of course patent nonsense.
> > 3. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true.
> This information is based on a photograph of his hand which he posted on MC. When it was pointed out that he was wearing a wedding ring, the conversation became awkward. He could have got out of it by claiming that some priests wear wedding bands in order to symbolize their devotion to the church, but he apparently didn't know about this oddity, and chose to admit to being married instead, before he converted to Catholicism.
I'm assuming you're banking on people not knowing what the actual exchange was, hence your utter nonsense here about "the conversation became awkward". Here is the thread and post you are referring to:
http://minichan.org/topic/87213#reply_1033041
Point out where the conversation becomes "awkward" please. I shall wait. Also, that is very far from the first time I have mentioned that I am married on Minichan.
> this is plausible
Thank you.
> > 5. My argument is that
> > a. it's more likely he has images enabled
> Why? I think it's more likely he has them disabled but is able to turn them on at any time he chooses. The reason I think this is because he named the mod who created the CSS for him. This makes the story far more credible, because this is precisely how one would go about disabling images. If he didn't know about this method then he might have tried to claim that there's some sort of hidden switch for images (which there isn't).
What in God's holy name are you talking about? What on earth is a 'CSS'?? I've never asked any mod to do anything for me, much less named the one who apparently created this 'CSS' thing for me. Disabling images on here is a simple process that anyone can do and it takes less than 5 seconds. Click on 'stuff', click on 'dashboard', click on 'disable images', and as you Brits would say, Bob's your uncle (we have a similar idiom in Polish, it translates literally to "Wojciech is your grandfather").
> > b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
> Again, why? Priests lead very public lives. If I'm walking around with my phone where people might be able to see my screen, or I'm on my computer in my office, I don't go anywhere near this website, because of the extremely high chance that negid*ck will pop up.
Precisely. Quite honestly I'm fairly sure the only people who have images enabled on this site are those who live in basements and are never around any other human beings, because how else would you explain visiting this site when friends and colleagues can see you and being confronted with the doctor's pathological 'negi penis' fixation a thousand times in every thread (but it isn't spam is it mods, oh no, God forbid your pedo pet should ever be guilty of spamming this place and driving away all the users)?
Bless you for the input my British friend!
> > 2. He says he is a Catholic priest, although I am not sure how much we can derive from this.
> There are major differences between Catholic and say C of E or Presbyterian practices. This means we can expect certain beliefs and behaviours from him, and we can also expect him to be classically educated. He has already slipped up on several occasions, e.g. claiming to have given a particular biblical reading during mass on a certain date
Oh, you're that guy who had no idea the difference between a sermon and a reading. I remember you well, you made quite a fool of yourself :)
> He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin.
My university dissertation was on the Latin poets of the Augustan era. Latin is my area of expertise if we're talking 'ancient' languages. Point to a single mistake I have ever made either here or on Minichan in Latin. I shall wait.
I have never claimed to be fluent in Ancient Greek. Matthew Miller (using a 'priest' persona) made a thread 'challenging' me to a contest in Greek and Hebrew because he claimed every Catholic priest is fluent in all 3 languages, which is of course patent nonsense.
> > 3. However, the weakness of taking this point on board would be that we have little reason to assume this is true.
> This information is based on a photograph of his hand which he posted on MC. When it was pointed out that he was wearing a wedding ring, the conversation became awkward. He could have got out of it by claiming that some priests wear wedding bands in order to symbolize their devotion to the church, but he apparently didn't know about this oddity, and chose to admit to being married instead, before he converted to Catholicism.
I'm assuming you're banking on people not knowing what the actual exchange was, hence your utter nonsense here about "the conversation became awkward". Here is the thread and post you are referring to:
http://minichan.org/topic/87213#reply_1033041
Point out where the conversation becomes "awkward" please. I shall wait. Also, that is very far from the first time I have mentioned that I am married on Minichan.
> this is plausible
Thank you.
> > 5. My argument is that
> > a. it's more likely he has images enabled
> Why? I think it's more likely he has them disabled but is able to turn them on at any time he chooses. The reason I think this is because he named the mod who created the CSS for him. This makes the story far more credible, because this is precisely how one would go about disabling images. If he didn't know about this method then he might have tried to claim that there's some sort of hidden switch for images (which there isn't).
What in God's holy name are you talking about? What on earth is a 'CSS'?? I've never asked any mod to do anything for me, much less named the one who apparently created this 'CSS' thing for me. Disabling images on here is a simple process that anyone can do and it takes less than 5 seconds. Click on 'stuff', click on 'dashboard', click on 'disable images', and as you Brits would say, Bob's your uncle (we have a similar idiom in Polish, it translates literally to "Wojciech is your grandfather").
> > b. the fact that he claims that he disables them for religious reasons weakens his claim to be a real priest
> Again, why? Priests lead very public lives. If I'm walking around with my phone where people might be able to see my screen, or I'm on my computer in my office, I don't go anywhere near this website, because of the extremely high chance that negid*ck will pop up.
Precisely. Quite honestly I'm fairly sure the only people who have images enabled on this site are those who live in basements and are never around any other human beings, because how else would you explain visiting this site when friends and colleagues can see you and being confronted with the doctor's pathological 'negi penis' fixation a thousand times in every thread (but it isn't spam is it mods, oh no, God forbid your pedo pet should ever be guilty of spamming this place and driving away all the users)?
Bless you for the input my British friend!
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,629
@573,615 (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
> > I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
> to get the record straight, I do not feel embarrassed if I am shown to be wrong.
Your behavior in the other thread suggests otherwise. You exhibited irritability and shame when you were shown to be wrong and out of your depth.
> I am fine with losing an argument. Even if it feels bad at the time, I look at it from a long-term perspective of having improved my worldview.
Again, that's not the impression you gave when you were embarrassed in the God's existence thread, but fair enough, I'm prepared to accept that you are working on handling failure better in the future. Bless you my child.
> > I embarrassed him in a thread a while back. He posted a stunningly ignorant series of posts about God and religion and I knocked them down one after the other. He's evidently still salty about it.
> to get the record straight, I do not feel embarrassed if I am shown to be wrong.
Your behavior in the other thread suggests otherwise. You exhibited irritability and shame when you were shown to be wrong and out of your depth.
> I am fine with losing an argument. Even if it feels bad at the time, I look at it from a long-term perspective of having improved my worldview.
Again, that's not the impression you gave when you were embarrassed in the God's existence thread, but fair enough, I'm prepared to accept that you are working on handling failure better in the future. Bless you my child.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,630
@573,616 (B)
> NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
How ironic in a thread where you (hi OP!) wrote an epic wall of text twice in a row ;)
> NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
How ironic in a thread where you (hi OP!) wrote an epic wall of text twice in a row ;)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 10 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,631
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,634
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,636
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,638
@573,630 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
>
> How ironic in a thread where you (hi OP!) wrote an epic wall of text twice in a row ;)
That's odd. Show me my epic wall of text in this thread. I shall wait.
> > NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
>
> How ironic in a thread where you (hi OP!) wrote an epic wall of text twice in a row ;)
That's odd. Show me my epic wall of text in this thread. I shall wait.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,641
@previous (B)
> > > NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
> >
> > (hi OP!)
>
> That's odd. Show me my epic wall of text in this thread. I shall wait.
You're not very bright are you? :)
> > > NB4 TG gives a long rambling boring story
> >
> > (hi OP!)
>
> That's odd. Show me my epic wall of text in this thread. I shall wait.
You're not very bright are you? :)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 58 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,642
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,643
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,644
@573,641 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You call that an epic wall of text?
And you think I'm OP. I had no idea until this moment how stupid you really are.
You call that an epic wall of text?
And you think I'm OP. I had no idea until this moment how stupid you really are.
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,645
@573,627 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Oh, you're that guy who had no idea the difference between a sermon and a reading. I remember you well, you made quite a fool of yourself :)
Er, no. I didn't comment in that thread. I merely observed you struggling along. Now I see you're changing your tune again: so now it was a sermon, not a reading? Oh, OK then.
> > Why are you wearing a wedding ring?
> For my own curious interest, if you were to offer two possible answers to your own question, what would they be?
> (Edited 22 seconds later.)
Awkward.
> What on earth is a 'CSS'??
https://www.w3schools.com/css/
If it wasn't you then it must have been another MC poster who named the creator of the stylesheet, because I know who implemented it (though I don't know who made the dashboard tool).
> Oh, you're that guy who had no idea the difference between a sermon and a reading. I remember you well, you made quite a fool of yourself :)
Er, no. I didn't comment in that thread. I merely observed you struggling along. Now I see you're changing your tune again: so now it was a sermon, not a reading? Oh, OK then.
> > Why are you wearing a wedding ring?
> For my own curious interest, if you were to offer two possible answers to your own question, what would they be?
> (Edited 22 seconds later.)
Awkward.
> What on earth is a 'CSS'??
https://www.w3schools.com/css/
If it wasn't you then it must have been another MC poster who named the creator of the stylesheet, because I know who implemented it (though I don't know who made the dashboard tool).
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,646
@previous (C)
> > > Why are you wearing a wedding ring?
> > For my own curious interest, if you were to offer two possible answers to your own question, what would they be?
> > (Edited 22 seconds later.)
> Awkward.
You seem confused. I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward. Someone asked why I'm wearing a wedding ring. I asked a sarcastic question about why someone would wear a (wait for it, the clue's in the name) "wedding" ring. Sorry it seems to have gone over your head.
If you're referring to the 'edit' (which you quoted for some reason), the fact it came "22 seconds" later tells you it was to correct a typo. So try again: where is the "awkward" conversation? If you can't find it, no problem, you are after all quickly gaining a reputation for making mistakes. As in...
> > What on earth is a 'CSS'??
> https://www.w3schools.com/css/
> If it wasn't you then it must have been another MC poster who named the creator of the stylesheet, because I know who implemented it (though I don't know who made the dashboard tool).
And by the way I still have no idea what gibberish language you're using here, but I've gathered it's one of those things basement-dwelling nerds care about.
> > > Why are you wearing a wedding ring?
> > For my own curious interest, if you were to offer two possible answers to your own question, what would they be?
> > (Edited 22 seconds later.)
> Awkward.
You seem confused. I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward. Someone asked why I'm wearing a wedding ring. I asked a sarcastic question about why someone would wear a (wait for it, the clue's in the name) "wedding" ring. Sorry it seems to have gone over your head.
If you're referring to the 'edit' (which you quoted for some reason), the fact it came "22 seconds" later tells you it was to correct a typo. So try again: where is the "awkward" conversation? If you can't find it, no problem, you are after all quickly gaining a reputation for making mistakes. As in...
> > What on earth is a 'CSS'??
> https://www.w3schools.com/css/
> If it wasn't you then it must have been another MC poster who named the creator of the stylesheet, because I know who implemented it (though I don't know who made the dashboard tool).
And by the way I still have no idea what gibberish language you're using here, but I've gathered it's one of those things basement-dwelling nerds care about.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,647
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,648
@573,646 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward.
I did. You literally asked the poster for answers to the question, which seems to have flustered you since you had to edit your post (whether it was owing to a typo or not is moot). This kind of response - asking for answers which you can then test out - reminds me of when Gerry McCann asked, "Well when did she have the accident and died? How could we have disposed - hidden her body?"
> And by the way I still have no idea what gibberish language you're using here, but I've gathered it's one of those things basement-dwelling nerds care about.
Yeah, only somebody as foolishly arrogant as you, TG, would floccinaucinihilipilificate on the likes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Håkon Wium Lie. "Basement-dwelling nerds" indeed!
> I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward.
I did. You literally asked the poster for answers to the question, which seems to have flustered you since you had to edit your post (whether it was owing to a typo or not is moot). This kind of response - asking for answers which you can then test out - reminds me of when Gerry McCann asked, "Well when did she have the accident and died? How could we have disposed - hidden her body?"
> And by the way I still have no idea what gibberish language you're using here, but I've gathered it's one of those things basement-dwelling nerds care about.
Yeah, only somebody as foolishly arrogant as you, TG, would floccinaucinihilipilificate on the likes of Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Håkon Wium Lie. "Basement-dwelling nerds" indeed!
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,649
@573,645 (C)
I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin, as you claimed. I notice you avoided doing so in your previous post so consider this a friendly reminder. Otherwise that will have been a clean sweep of 3 false assertions out of 3.
I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin, as you claimed. I notice you avoided doing so in your previous post so consider this a friendly reminder. Otherwise that will have been a clean sweep of 3 false assertions out of 3.
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,650
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin
Please direct me to all the posts you have made in Latin, either here or on Minichan, so I can make my analysis.
> I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin
Please direct me to all the posts you have made in Latin, either here or on Minichan, so I can make my analysis.
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,651
@573,649 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Otherwise that will have been a clean sweep of 3 false assertions out of 3.
Oh you. What an outrageous thing to say. :)
> Otherwise that will have been a clean sweep of 3 false assertions out of 3.
Oh you. What an outrageous thing to say. :)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,652
@573,648 (C)
> > I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward.
> I did. You literally asked the poster for answers to the question, which seems to have flustered you since you had to edit your post (whether it was owing to a typo or not is moot).
Oh dear lord, it's still sailing over your head isn't it? Let me walk you through it one more time. You ready? I'll break it down into separate paragraphs for you this time:
1. Somebody asked me: "Why are you wearing a wedding ring?"
2. I immediately thought: "How many reasons does this guy think there are for wearing a WEDDING ring?". And so I made a sarcastic response asking him what possible 2 answers he could expect to receive (since "you are married" seems to be the only logical one). And sure enough, he did not reply. He recognized the joke, which I had assumed (until meeting you, that is) was blindingly obvious.
Do you get it now? It's called sarcasm, something I believe autistic folk are terrible with because everything for them is literal and humor is wasted on them.
> > I asked you to point out where the conversation became awkward.
> I did. You literally asked the poster for answers to the question, which seems to have flustered you since you had to edit your post (whether it was owing to a typo or not is moot).
Oh dear lord, it's still sailing over your head isn't it? Let me walk you through it one more time. You ready? I'll break it down into separate paragraphs for you this time:
1. Somebody asked me: "Why are you wearing a wedding ring?"
2. I immediately thought: "How many reasons does this guy think there are for wearing a WEDDING ring?". And so I made a sarcastic response asking him what possible 2 answers he could expect to receive (since "you are married" seems to be the only logical one). And sure enough, he did not reply. He recognized the joke, which I had assumed (until meeting you, that is) was blindingly obvious.
Do you get it now? It's called sarcasm, something I believe autistic folk are terrible with because everything for them is literal and humor is wasted on them.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,653
@573,650 (C)
> > I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin
> Please direct me to all the posts you have made in Latin, either here or on Minichan, so I can make my analysis.
LOL so you don't even have any examples? When you wrote: "He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin", you were once again hoping that nobody would realize you were making stuff up? That's the clean sweep of demonstrably false statement, 3 from 3! Your credibility has been wrecked, thanks for playing :)
> > I am still waiting for you to point out a single instance of my making a mistake in Latin
> Please direct me to all the posts you have made in Latin, either here or on Minichan, so I can make my analysis.
LOL so you don't even have any examples? When you wrote: "He has also demonstrated that he has a very poor knowledge of Ancient Greek & Latin", you were once again hoping that nobody would realize you were making stuff up? That's the clean sweep of demonstrably false statement, 3 from 3! Your credibility has been wrecked, thanks for playing :)
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,654
@573,650 (C)
Actually, never mind, I found one: I think it was Matt who pointed out that the preposition 'ad' means 'to' or 'towards', whereas you had translated it as 'of'.
Actually, never mind, I found one: I think it was Matt who pointed out that the preposition 'ad' means 'to' or 'towards', whereas you had translated it as 'of'.
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,656
@573,653 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I was referring to the fact that you had bungled Ancient Greek translations which Matt had trolled you with, and had chickened out of that Latin competition you were invited to. Surely that would have been a walk in the park for somebody with the level of knowledge you claim to have.
I was referring to the fact that you had bungled Ancient Greek translations which Matt had trolled you with, and had chickened out of that Latin competition you were invited to. Surely that would have been a walk in the park for somebody with the level of knowledge you claim to have.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 24 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,657
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,658
@573,652 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Do you get it now? It's called sarcasm, something I believe autistic folk are terrible with because everything for them is literal and humor is wasted on them.
You seem frustrated.
> Do you get it now? It's called sarcasm, something I believe autistic folk are terrible with because everything for them is literal and humor is wasted on them.
You seem frustrated.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,661
@573,656 (C)
> I was referring to the fact that you had bungled Ancient Greek translations which Matt had trolled you with
Ah, a Matt lapdog eh? Interesting, so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now. Anyway, I already said that Greek is not my language and my response to him was (here we go again with that thing you struggle with) a joke.
> and had chickened out of that Latin competition you were invited to.
Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did. After making 3 (THREE) separate threads, all of which challenged me to a Latin contest (but he never responded to my question about what the contest was) the mods started locking his threads and told him to keep it to just one of them. So congrats, you're now 4 from 4 for false statement.
> Surely that would have been a walk in the park for somebody with the level of knowledge you claim to have.
Yes, it would have been, hence my asking him to name the task and my disappointment when he just kept on doing what Matt does, which is making endless repetitive threads about the same topic without ever responding to any of them himself.
> I was referring to the fact that you had bungled Ancient Greek translations which Matt had trolled you with
Ah, a Matt lapdog eh? Interesting, so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now. Anyway, I already said that Greek is not my language and my response to him was (here we go again with that thing you struggle with) a joke.
> and had chickened out of that Latin competition you were invited to.
Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did. After making 3 (THREE) separate threads, all of which challenged me to a Latin contest (but he never responded to my question about what the contest was) the mods started locking his threads and told him to keep it to just one of them. So congrats, you're now 4 from 4 for false statement.
> Surely that would have been a walk in the park for somebody with the level of knowledge you claim to have.
Yes, it would have been, hence my asking him to name the task and my disappointment when he just kept on doing what Matt does, which is making endless repetitive threads about the same topic without ever responding to any of them himself.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,665
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,671
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,672
@573,661 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now.
You do? Gee whiz, your sleuthing abilities rival even those of Syntax!
> LOL so you don't even have any examples?
That's because there are none (bar the mistranslation of a simple preposition).
> Greek is not my language
You don't say. Neither is Latin, apparently. I don't know where you went to school, but zero percent at my college was a "very poor" score indeed.
> Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did.
Oh, now who's telling porky pies! Not only did you dodge rounds 1 & 2, the tasks for which were very clearly stated, but you were invited to dictate the terms of the third. You never did. Instead you continued to bleat about how infra dig it was for you to join in a conversation consisting of three or four word statements. Again, childishly simple is better than zero.
> so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now.
You do? Gee whiz, your sleuthing abilities rival even those of Syntax!
> LOL so you don't even have any examples?
That's because there are none (bar the mistranslation of a simple preposition).
> Greek is not my language
You don't say. Neither is Latin, apparently. I don't know where you went to school, but zero percent at my college was a "very poor" score indeed.
> Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did.
Oh, now who's telling porky pies! Not only did you dodge rounds 1 & 2, the tasks for which were very clearly stated, but you were invited to dictate the terms of the third. You never did. Instead you continued to bleat about how infra dig it was for you to join in a conversation consisting of three or four word statements. Again, childishly simple is better than zero.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,673
@previous (C)
> > so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now.
> You do? Gee whiz, your sleuthing abilities rival even those of Syntax!
Dear lord, so that's why latched onto Matthew :)
> > LOL so you don't even have any examples?
> That's because there are none
Thanks for admitting it.
> > Greek is not my language
> You don't say.
I did say. Multiple times.
> Neither is Latin, apparently.
Yes it is.
> I don't know where you went to school, but zero percent at my college was a "very poor" score indeed.
I'll take your word for it, and thanks for the insight into why you struggle with basic language. I hope those "very poor" scores didn't knock your confidence too much.
> > Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did.
> Oh, now who's telling porky pies! Not only did you dodge rounds 1 & 2, the tasks for which were very clearly stated
Citations need. Come on, let's shoot for 5 instantly disproven statements out of 5!
> > so that plus your "bugger all" phrase earlier means I know exactly who you are now.
> You do? Gee whiz, your sleuthing abilities rival even those of Syntax!
Dear lord, so that's why latched onto Matthew :)
> > LOL so you don't even have any examples?
> That's because there are none
Thanks for admitting it.
> > Greek is not my language
> You don't say.
I did say. Multiple times.
> Neither is Latin, apparently.
Yes it is.
> I don't know where you went to school, but zero percent at my college was a "very poor" score indeed.
I'll take your word for it, and thanks for the insight into why you struggle with basic language. I hope those "very poor" scores didn't knock your confidence too much.
> > Chickened out? I asked him to name the task. He never did.
> Oh, now who's telling porky pies! Not only did you dodge rounds 1 & 2, the tasks for which were very clearly stated
Citations need. Come on, let's shoot for 5 instantly disproven statements out of 5!
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,674
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Dear lord, so that's why latched onto Matthew :)
> you struggle with basic language
Yes, you do.
> > > LOL so you don't even have any examples?
> > That's because there are none
> Thanks for admitting it.
So, proud of your score of zero then? You're a strange fellow.
> > Neither is Latin, apparently.
> Yes it is.
No it isn't.
> I hope those "very poor" scores didn't knock your confidence too much.
Not at all, since unlike you I never received scores with such a rating, and always did rather well. In fact I received a summa cum laude for my masters degree. (by the way, that's Latin for "with highest distinction")
> Citations need.
They do need?
> Dear lord, so that's why latched onto Matthew :)
> you struggle with basic language
Yes, you do.
> > > LOL so you don't even have any examples?
> > That's because there are none
> Thanks for admitting it.
So, proud of your score of zero then? You're a strange fellow.
> > Neither is Latin, apparently.
> Yes it is.
No it isn't.
> I hope those "very poor" scores didn't knock your confidence too much.
Not at all, since unlike you I never received scores with such a rating, and always did rather well. In fact I received a summa cum laude for my masters degree. (by the way, that's Latin for "with highest distinction")
> Citations need.
They do need?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,675
·Anonymous C — 6.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,676
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> You've been wrecked.
All right, if it makes you feel better, in your bizarre little world.
> Thanks, that'll be all :)
OK then. Thanks for the chat, father.
> You've been wrecked.
All right, if it makes you feel better, in your bizarre little world.
> Thanks, that'll be all :)
OK then. Thanks for the chat, father.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,687
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,703
@573,617 (C)
I think you have misunderstood my argument. I never said that all Catholic priests are rapists or anything like that. On the contrary, I said that because the Catholic church is known to protect those of the priests that are pedophiles, all other priests are probably taking this issue seriously, not brushing it off and posting emojis as a response.
I think you have misunderstood my argument. I never said that all Catholic priests are rapists or anything like that. On the contrary, I said that because the Catholic church is known to protect those of the priests that are pedophiles, all other priests are probably taking this issue seriously, not brushing it off and posting emojis as a response.
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,704
In general, I still stand by my reasoning and don't see any convincing objections to it. I do acknowledge some helpful additions from Anonymous C. (Who might be the same user as Father Merrin, btw)
I think so far the conclusion is the same - the user who calls himself Father Merrin is unlikely to be a priest (although, it is not impossible).
I think so far the conclusion is the same - the user who calls himself Father Merrin is unlikely to be a priest (although, it is not impossible).
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 12 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #573,850
·Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT (OP) — 5.4 years ago, 1.3 year later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,522
Remember this?
+Anonymous O — 5.4 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,524
@previous (Cook My Own Breakfast !!IpftyHSqdT)
Yep, and your theory was correct. I knew from the get go he was not a priest.
Yep, and your theory was correct. I knew from the get go he was not a priest.
+Anonymous P — 5.4 years ago, 5 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,530
He is pleased that that the Catholic Church is run by pedo priests. He is what he is.
+Anonymous Q — 5.4 years ago, 5 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,539
+Anonymous R — 5.4 years ago, 2 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,546
I knew from the get go Anonymous O was not Sherlock.
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 5.4 years ago, 3 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,555
@593,524 (O)
> I knew from the get go he was not a priest.
What was it that tipped you off, Hercule?
> I knew from the get go he was not a priest.
What was it that tipped you off, Hercule?
+Anonymous T — 5.4 years ago, 22 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,611
Father merrin is the doctor, the fact that you stupid fucks haven't figured it out yet is a testament to how dumb you are
·Anonymous Q — 5.4 years ago, 6 hours later, 1.3 year after the original post[T] [B] #593,618
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.