As you may know, Rosa Rubicondior has declared war on me. She is constantly asking her friends to report me. Why?
BECAUSE MY DEBATE AGAINST HER EMBARRASSED HER GREATLY.
One can see the tone of her tweets and blog posts go from a calm pretentious intellectual, to a rabid paranoid neurotic individual. I feel bad for her. The once confident "atheist" is now a bitter defeated pathetic sight to see on twitter and blogger.
In an attempt to save face, she is trying to somehow claim that I denied debating her. Denial anyone?
She relies on her writing to provide evidence of this while I provide her actual tweets. Who is more credible? I'm not writing for the sake of writing. I am actually showing her own tweets.
Look at all the documentation in each of these blog posts:
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/09/rosa-rubicondior-has-lost-it.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/09/rosa-rubicondior-sinks-deeper.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosarubicondior-turns-chicken-again.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/proof-rosa-accepted-debate.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-disingenuity.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosarubicondior-sore-loser.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosas-original-posting.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosa-rubicondior-epicfail.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosarubicondior-forfeits-lol.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/rosarubicondior-no-show.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-games.html
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/08/blind-lead-blind.html
Within each blog post and the video, Rosa Rubicondior's epic failure is shown with evidence, while her blog merely shows her version in her words. Which is more reliable, my blogs and video with evidence or her blog with her take on the debate without evidence?
We can see why she is livid and launching an attack on my twitter accounts in attempt to censor me. She is afraid of me. When something is a threat, we naturally want to eliminate it.
Apparently, I am not the only person she has done this too. One can find on Google others describing her lame tactics. Here is two such examples:
http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/12/rosa-rubicondior-unsuccessfully-tries-to-save-face/
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/05/response-to-new-atheist-rosa.html
As you can see, she is a dishonest debater with everyone. It is her view or no view. Moreover, I do not understand why she needs a "neutral ground" or referee. Does she not trust in her abilities to debate? I do not need a third or fourth party to engage anyone in a debate. I just bring my brain and wits to the table.
I feel bad for her. She has lost it completely. I shattered her ego and she is down on the floor picking up the pieces. She is now linking me to some kid she found on the internet and even updated her blog post with all kinds of incoherent nonsense, take a look:
(NOTE: I removed the minor's name and replaced it with =)
***[Further Update]
As a rather sad footnote, it seems my challenge to @Sacerdotus and his laughably infantile attempts to make excuses for running away from it seem to have pushed him over the edge psychologically. I'm not a psychiatrist so I don't pretend to understand the processes involved but I suspect I undermined his one remaining claim to a degree of importance in the fantasy persona he believed he had constructed on social network sites like Twitter and Blogger. With that gone he now has to come to terms with just being ordinary again. It's a shame he sees no value in that.
The last few weeks, when @Sacerdotus, who turns out to have been a failed trainee Catholic priest who left the St Joseph's Franciscan seminary, New York in mysterious circumstances some time after entering it in 2000, became increasingly bizarre in his claims and behaviour, have culminated in some of his many Twitter accounts being suspended. His increasing bizarre and irrational claims have included claims that I am a Paranoid Schizophrenic, a child abuser and a terrorist in whom the FBI have an interest. His blog now includes a picture of a typical modern English house which he claims is mine provided by his 'contacts' and a claim that 'the authorities' have been passed a file he's compiled on me. I assume his 'contacts' are as fictitious as his other claims of multiple degrees, impending priesthood, etc.
Needless to say, the house bears no resemblance to mine and his claims are pure fiction, the product, so it would seem, of a deranged and psychotic or immature mind.
And all because I challenged him to substantiate his claim to have scientific proof of the Christian god. I obviously blew his cover in a big way with that simple challenge.
Perhaps the biggest lesson here is the rather obvious one; that those who profess piety and identify with religious belief often do so as a cover. There can be little doubt from his blog, his tweets and his actions, that Manuel no more believes in a watching god of truth who requires it's followers to be honest and to behave well towards others, than I do. The difference being that I don't believe Atheism frees me from responsibility to be honest and to behave with integrity and respect towards others.
On the other hand, ======, whose upbringing has been steeped in the belief that one has to behave well to avoid eternal suffering, and for no other reason, seems to have concluded that Atheism for him means freedom to abuse and take out his anger for his failure on others. It's a shame that loss of 'faith' for so many former Christians seems to mean loss of the control that fear once had on their latent psychopathy. This control may be one of the few benefits of religion but it surely can only be needed for those damaged by religion in childhood in the first place.
I wish ====== well and hope he gains the self-esteem he so obviously lacks at the moment. Maybe just trying to be a decent person rather than trying to get away with pretending to be something he so obviously isn't, would help.***
If you compare this to the links I posted, you will see that she uses the same words and phrases that I used for her. She even mentions all these things about "trainee priest" and a seminary which does not even exist. There is no such thing as a St. Joseph's Franciscan seminary in New York.
In 2000, I was not even legal enough to drive! How could I even be in seminary at that age? Moreover, I was a practicing atheist then.
She fabricated all this up to attempt to defame me - how pitiful of her.
As you can see, all she offers is ad hominem. The entire blog post reeks of it. There is no logical coherence. No points, only anger, frustration and a sense of defeat masked by a false air of confidence.
Rosa has really lost it. Poor thing. The debate really got to her. I never intended for her to go mad. My only wish was for us to have a fun intellectual debate that all could benefit from.
Instead of a debate, she set up a circus tent and began juggling while balancing on a ball - we all watched and laughed at her. Poor thing...
I'm glad this kid reported her to officials from the United Kingdom. Hopefully they will get this person who goes by the name "Rosa Rubicondior" some help.
PS: In reality, "Rosa" is a HE, not She.
