Fat pronouns (with or without parentheses) = who's speaking, Italics = my editorial comments between the things written,
Blockquotes = first of them my quoting myself from link, all others requoting parts of "Grima Wormtongue's" statement.
What I wrote the unpleasant man after contacting our mutual friends:
Following was sent to our mutual friends:
You are a common friend with me and Such and Such. On this blog post I have anonymised him (before the general public), but he is the man who most often opposes my arguments [meaning, in context, on the debate in link below] and, in my view, does so in a very unpleasant way on this debate. I quit it and I quit the group where it was held. Now, here is the debate, you ought to know as a previous to now friend of us both, and then you do what you like:
And if you think my anger back then or this time is anywhere like unreasonable, look at St John Chrysostomus quote here (btw my text might be relevant too, it is from September 2009):
He: Do not contact me again. Thanks.
I: Do not insult me like you did on the board or say similar things behind my back to common friends again. Thanks.
He: Just for the record, I've never said anything about you to anyone else I haven't said to you in public and the reason I don't want any more contact with you is that it's almost impossible to have a coherent discussion with you where you don't misrepresent or completely ignore what I say.
AND HE CAME BACK
He: Wow, you totally devastated my friends list. I feel so all alone.
I (quoting his stats): "Friends, 3,904"
I ASSUMED HE MEANT SOMETHING. So I tried to act as if his comment bore the bitter undertone I seemed to find in it.
I (reproaching what he has been doing to me):
"I have recently been defending you in the double attack launched as a petition to EWTN. Both on account of finding the layman Perry Lorenzo saintly - no doubt not meaning cohabiting with another man is good example as such, but I think you meant he gave lots of good example apart from that, including to his partner - and on account of being a layman, blogger and making money from that. It is a thing I do myself, namely be a layman and a blogger but except so far make money (unless you count the 3000 and some more € from granny last year as from my writing) and that is anyway what I intend if I am not remaining stopped and stumped. As has the case been so far. But I agree, the way of livelihood is honest as such and who is such and such petitioner to block someone from it. And finding one man saintly, whom afterwards one sees was homosexual, but general evaluation still stands to one, and then being confirmed he lived chastely is not a disqualification from that calling. Nor is being homeless (before making the money) such a disqualification."
from first of my two responses to Mark Shea:
Still feel like judging laymen bloggers who touch on theology? Or, for that matter, misrepresent the story of Perry Lorenzo or the "canonising" implications of Mark Shea's words about him?
He: I'm sure he'll love that.
I mean I don't know if you're really a bum, but I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem. Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid? I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections as a result of sleeping on the street. You probably haven't accounted for how the inflammation itself damages your ability to think either.
Hence, why your writing and ability to interact meaningfully with others is shit?
I: I think your supposed loneliness comes more from your attitude than from mine.
He (forgot about his feeling so lonely an hour ago): Wtf are you talking about?
I, commenting on most pieces of his second to last:
"Maybe if you found regular lodging in a secure facility with regular warm meals, you would be more lucid?"
Another repetation of the accusation against my Creator, that He did not give me lucidity enough.
"I'd say that your illogical rumblings are your biggest problem."
If they are so "illogical" why are you so afraid of denouncing openly such and such a lack of logic in debate before others.
"I'm guessing the lack of regular sleep has given you a low capacity to heal inflammation and possible infections ..."
Somewhat irregular sleep, some inflammations and infections.
"as a result of sleeping on the street."
I avoid as much as possible sleeping ON the street.
"You probably haven't accounted for how the inflammation itself damages your ability to think either."
I am not inflammated that often and though a pain from an inflammatory state may momentarily disrupt my thought, I am certainly not damaged in my ability to think.
Your very denigrating guesses about me - barely disguising disdain with commiseration - are exactly the kind of attitudes which may have landed you with impaired communication with some of your friends. According to what you stated yourself above.
So, you think I rumble illogically, do you? Get on, my essays are on the internet, refute a particularly "illogical one", if you find such a thing. And, as you requested from me earlier: leave this inbox alone. Thank you.
DID HE leave it alone?
He: I dunno Hans, you don't even bother to read what I write and distort my words. You're probably overconfident about you Engl comprehension as well.
I: Oh, one more thing:
"I mean I don't know if you're really a bum ..."
I am quite often begging on the street, I am quite seldom any evening knowing beforehand where I will sleep. And my English comprehension is very fine too thank you. It seems some guys find their words "distorted" whenever they are refuted. And you are one of them.
He: It sucks actually because you misrepresent me all the time.