AnnaAgainstAtheists confused - thinks this group is dedicated to her

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

This should not surprise those who have encountered Anna.

A YouTube friend of mine, busybusy123456, posted that this Google
Group was "dedicated" to Anna, which is not exactly the case, though
she does get most of the attention, for the time being.

This is how Anna responded: "Yes, by way of revenge for my online
exposure of the nonsense spouted and dishonest tactics used by
CAFoster58 and sock puppets nascentastheist, david something and maybe
busybusy and many more because you all sound just exactly the same and
talk the same mindless rubbish."

And this is my response:

Well, to be more precise, Anna, the Google Group, Debating YouTube
Theists, is *not* dedicated to you, though there are a couple of
threads there that deal with your silly arguments and show the
sequences of the destruction of your arguments better than what we can
expect in YouTube comment sections.

At the moment, Anna, you get the attention, at least from me because,
at the moment, your erstwhile allay, Josiah Avraham Ben Morgan HaNasi
II, also known as TurnerDiaries, various ExposingCondells, and other
sock puppets, has been relatively quiet, relegated to posting short
spamming comments in Pat Condell comment section as ConfederationSock
(s), another set of sock puppets.

It is Josiah's accusations of sock puppetry that prompt your own,
Anna, but I am not surprised that you ducked the question when I asked
you to provide your evidence.

Josiah wouldn't provide that evidence, either, Anna, and you are not
astute enough nor, really, smart enough, to understand that Josiah's
accusations are simple juvenile retaliation for being outed for using
a set of sock puppets, himself.

Of course, Anna, you have never exposed any "nonsense" or dishonest
tactics used by me, unless you'd care to be more specific. It's odd,
isn't it, that you make these kinds of general claims, but as soon as
I ask for specific examples, you don't seem to have any.

I have no need for revenge against you, Anna. You are doing a fine
job, showing the audience who blind and hateful religious people can
be. You despise atheists, you troll atheist videos, you post the same
incessant, poorly-considered arguments; and each time an atheist
exposes you for your fallacious thinking, you hate just a little bit
more.

But you always run from the challenges, as the Google Group
documents.

Even now, we can see that you would much rather get into the kinds of
arguments in which you can use innuendo and unproven accusations
against persons rather than dealing with their substantive and
relevant comments and arguments.

I am not a sock puppet, Anna, nor a puppeteer.

But even if it were true, Anna, how does it address the actual
substance of my rebuttals to your arguments, such as they have been?

The answer, Anna, is that it does not. You are simply invoking another
fallacy - one of many that you use. It's called the "ad hominem"
fallacy, Anna - against the man. It means that you attack a person
instead of his or her arguments. You use it as many commonly do, that
is, to avoid having to deal with a rational and objective examination
and refutation of your claims.

Now, Anna, that I have disposed of your silly claims and accusations,
I am reminded of several questions that I have put to you regarding
other statements that you have made. With respect to the idea that
the mind is immaterial, others, includling me, have asked how it can
be, then, that the mind can be influenced by material intervention,
such as the use of mind-altering drugs.

And, Anna, can people have UNreal experiences?

Those are two of many that remain unanswered.