The ascension

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I am categorical this is not your first account on this site. You arrived under a deception and that cloud has never gone away.

Hey Sam?

This is my first account on here and you have been falsely accusing me of being another poster for weeks (if not months) with zero evidence.

Your “impeccable morality” is a joke.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
The same way I knew FetchMyJunk was you.

Was I wrong about that deception?

Do you ever post anything substantive?

It seems like all of your posts involve false accusations, lies and self-righteous judgmentalism.

Are you capable of discussing substance? We saw what happened when you tried that yesterday, but don’t let that scare you off. Just do some preparation and research beforehand.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
The same way I knew FetchMyJunk was you.

Was I wrong about that deception?

You only knew because I told you so. It would have been impossible for you to know for sure otherwise. You are wrong about this one.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You only knew because I told you so. It would have been impossible for you to know for sure otherwise. You are wrong about this one.

Again, 'admitting' (once busted) is not the same as 'telling people.'

Do you think not admitting you were deceiving people would have negated the deception or compounded it?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Again, 'admitting' (once busted) is not the same as 'telling people.'

Do you think not admitting you were deceiving people would have negated the deception or compounded it?

If I hadn't told you how would you have known for sure? You seemed pretty sure that I am Romans but you were wrong. Also if my intention was to deceive people I wouldn't have told you and there would have been no way for you to prove anything.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If I hadn't told you how would you have known for sure? You seemed pretty sure that I am Romans but you were wrong. Also if my intention was to deceive people I wouldn't have told you and there would have been no way for you to prove anything.

What's the moral content, to your way of thinking, of these assertions and your observations about what you did and the fact that you were exposed?

Originally posted by @fmf
What's the moral content, to your way of thinking, of these assertions and your observations about what you did and the fact that you were exposed?

The fact is that unless someone admits to using two accounts there is no way to expose them. I am merely stating this fact and making an observation that it is inaccurate to say someone was exposed and then they admitted to it because without admission there is no proof of exposure. And even if someone were to admit to it they could still be lying and there is no way you could verify or prove it either way.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact is that unless someone admits to using two accounts there is no way to expose them. I am merely stating this fact and making an observation that it is inaccurate to say someone was exposed and then they admitted to it because without admission there is no proof of exposure. And even if someone were to admit to it they could still be lying and there is no way you could verify or prove it either way.

You were unable to disguise your deception. You were correctly called on it by several people. You were exposed.

Once again, what do you think the moral dimension is of what happened and of what you're saying about it now?

Originally posted by @fmf
You were unable to disguise your deception. You were correctly called on it by several people. You were exposed.

Once again, what do you think the moral dimension is of what happened and of what you're saying about it now?

If as you say I was unable to disguise it, why were people who previously supposedly didnt talk to me, responding to my posts? It seems you are using the word 'exposed' incorrectly. I think the correct word would be suspected.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If as you say I was unable to disguise it, why were people who previously supposedly didnt talk to me, responding to my posts? It seems you are using the word 'exposed' incorrectly. I think the correct word would be suspected.

You were exposed. People realized it was you and said so. The were right. The little deceitful episode was brought to and end.

And what's the moral content of what you said about what happened at the time and what you are saying about it now?

Originally posted by @fmf
You were exposed. People realized it was you and said so. The were right. The little deceitful episode was brought to and end.

And what's the moral content of what you said about what happened at the time and what you are saying about it now?

Do you ever post anything of substance, or are your posts all rapid-fire, OCD-fueled questions about nonsense?

Originally posted by @fmf
You were unable to disguise your deception. You were correctly called on it by several people. You were exposed.

Once again, what do you think the moral dimension is of what happened and of what you're saying about it now?

Do you ever post anything of substance, or are your posts all rapid-fire, OCD-fueled questions about nonsense?

Originally posted by @fmf
You were exposed. People realized it was you and said so. The were right. The little deceitful episode was brought to and end.

And what's the moral content of what you said about what happened at the time and what you are saying about it now?

People claimed I was Romans, people claimed I was Fetch. Would I still have been exposed if I didn’t own up to being Fetch? Am I exposed as being Romans simply because people are suspicious?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact is that unless someone admits to using two accounts there is no way to expose them. I am merely stating this fact and making an observation that it is inaccurate to say someone was exposed and then they admitted to it because without admission there is no proof of exposure. And even if someone were to admit to it they could still be lying and there is no way you could verify or prove it either way.

You made the mistake of coughing up to your deception once you came under scrutiny due to being piss-poor at hiding it. the only reason you coughed up was because you were under pressure when lying about it.

We in this forum all know you were lying and I know you have lied about other things too. Like Romans1009, you are a poor example of a human, let alone a Christian.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact is that unless someone admits to using two accounts there is no way to expose them. I am merely stating this fact and making an observation that it is inaccurate to say someone was exposed and then they admitted to it because without admission there is no proof of exposure. And even if someone were to admit to it they could still be lying and there is no way you could verify or prove it either way.

Looking back, what was your motivation for deliberately misleading people?

Although you apologized for your deliberate deception, you never did explain what motivated you to behave in such a misleading fashion.