anti-Christ

@divegeester said
No. I’ve given you my reasons why Suzianne is subject to delusional thinking and I’ve cited a professional website to back up my assertion.

You have said that it is your professional opinion that her “firmly believing” something which is ostensibly not true is NOT delusional thinking.

As I suggested, you really should get your money back from whatever Micky mouse mental health course it was you took.

"ostensibly not true"?

This is YOUR "diagnosis".

I believe what is true. End of.

@suzianne said
Don't you mean "What you are being asked is why you, a claimed mental health practitioner, cannot recognise delusional thinking (as diagnosed by me, who is NOT a mental health practitioner) when it’s in front of you."?

Do you believe that Ghost of a Duke is "a mental health practitioner" who can "diagnose" mental health issues?

@suzianne said
No, NOT "countless". I already told you many, many times that I rarely, if ever, use the word "countless". I prefer to say simply that "I can't remember" how many. Countless is your word. Clearly.

I remember exactly what you said Suzianne. If you now choose to walk it back then so be it.

@suzianne said
"ostensibly not true"?

This is YOUR "diagnosis".

I believe what is true. End of.

Ghost of a Duke acknowledged that you held a firm but incorrect belief that I was paying Russ to have people removed from the website. Your unshakable belief that Russ and I have brokered some sort of financial arrangement in this matter, which is obviously not true, is delusional thinking.

@divegeester said
This is exactly what Suzianne says when I catch her lying about something. It’s as though she thinks that by simply typing “I’m telling the truth” means it IS the truth and somehow I will magically believe her nonsense.

It IS the truth.

What nonsense you believe, "magically" or not, is your business.

And, of course, mine, when you claim I am a liar.

All I know is that you (and by extension, @FMF) have an ulterior motive in making me out to be a liar. This motive is to deflect the claims I have made on this site about you and @FMF.

I think you CAN "handle the truth". What you CAN'T handle is criticism. Ever. In any form. Criticism denies the narcissistic belief you (and by extension he) have in yourself.

Whether delusional or not.

@suzianne said
"ostensibly not true"?

This is YOUR "diagnosis".

I believe what is true. End of.

I’ll ask you again then.

Do you still hold to the belief that Russ takes financial inducements from myself for him to ban people I choose from this website?

@suzianne said
It IS the truth.

What nonsense you believe, "magically" or not, is your business.
And, of course, mine, when you claim I am a liar.

Your fantastical claims about yourself are simply not credible Suzianne.

@suzianne said

All I know is that you (and by extension, @FMF) have an ulterior motive in making me out to be a liar. This motive is to deflect the claims I have made on this site about you and @FMF.

What claims have you made about FMF and myself other than me paying Russ to ban people?

@suzianne said
I think you CAN "handle the truth". What you CAN'T handle is criticism. Ever. In any form. Criticism denies the narcissistic belief you (and by extension he) have in yourself.

This is pure projection by you.

@divegeester said
I’m happy either way. For me trusting someone or not trusting them only matters when they are part of your life.

Interesting statement from a "Christian".

More atheists on this site have a better grip of this than the "Christians" do.

@suzianne said
Interesting statement from a "Christian".

More atheists on this site have a better grip of this than the "Christians" do.

What has being a Christian got to do with what I wrote?

@suzianne said
Interesting statement from a "Christian".

Oh, the irony.

@divegeester said
I doubt he’ll be able to; I do have the links to that and the abduction claims, but the threads got deleted during the phase of gang-alerting threads to get that to happen.

Of course that little gimmick has been closed down now. And who is the person who bleats about it being changed to subscribers only… Suzianne. Now why would that be I wonder.

You KNOW why it is. I've been quite vocal about my opposition to your schemes here.

Most of this vocal activity by me was when I was a subscriber, fact-twister.

It was to oppose you shutting down well-earned and well-deserved criticism of you (see above post).

@divegeester said
No I haven’t.

Hey… maybe I’m a bit thick also.

“Thick” seems to be a word you don’t mind “throwing around”

If you don't like "thick", try "self-serving".

@divegeester said
I don’t think it does.
But even if it did, I am indifferent to how it reflects on me.

So "self-reflection" is useless to you as well.

How telling. How "Christian".