Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

General Discussion About the 1974 DeFeo Murders and related topics
jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 631

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 6:02 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:09 pm
I'm not dismissing Kaplan's claim, I simply do not care about it as it has NOTHING to do with the haunting.
Then don't paste a link and tell me to pay attention to the last paragraph. That last paragraph has a lot of content. If you wanted me to ignore the majority of the content of that last paragraph and only focus on the "virtually everything was fiction" line, then say so! I'm not a mind reader...

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:09 pm
REVEALS REVEALS REVEALS or PASSES ON or STATES of the Lutzes admission of TAH of being fiction. I guess in your world since he revealed that, he might have actually thought they were lying regardless of stating their claims of it being fiction?
The Lutzes did not "admit" that TAH was fiction. They admitted that Jay Anson included some fictional elements without their consent.

When you say "it was fiction," the connotation is that everything in the book was fictionalized. And that is not the case. Have some integrity. You don't need to twist words around in order to fit your agenda. Well, maybe you do, but it just shows how weak your argument is.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:09 pm
The same scenario of what you were doing with Rick here is the same thing you're doing now! And I just listened to that clip again and he did answer your questions! "But why didn't you bring out what Hoffman said"? "It would've been gold"! Once again, I guess he or I have to state the same points over and over to make them legit?
Wrong. Rick was not answering my question, he was avoiding my question. He did not give me one answer and then stick by it -- he kept giving me different answers -- none of which were the truth.

The first answer he gave me was "it was Paul's story to write."

This is bullsh*t. Rick and Peter were running around and doing all this research on the book TAH, compiling lists and "carefully comparing newspaper and magazine accounts" for possible discrepancies, interviewing all the local repairmen and locksmiths in Amityville to ask if they've done work at the house, interviewing neighbors and others familiar with the house, etc. All the while they had a close friend who allegedly claimed to have PROOF of the haunting being a hoax! They decided to go with the following circumstantial evidence for the article rather than mention the HARD PROOF they had (because that was "Paul's story, not theirs"):
  • Rick felt the book contained too many different kinds of psychic phenomenon to be a true story.
  • Rick found discrepancies between various newspaper and magazine articles about the Lutzes' story.
  • Rick found that the windows in the house (which supposedly opened on their own) did so due to faulty counterweights.
  • Rick states that Father Ray claims he never even stepped foot in the Amityville house (despite the priest appearing on "In Search Of" the following year and admitting it was real).
Who in their right mind ignores PROOF of a hoax in favor of weak evidence like that? Who in their right mind runs around town interviewing locksmiths and repairmen and neighbors, but decides NOT to interview their close friend WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE PROOF OF THE HOAX?!? That makes NO sense!!!



Okay that was the first excuse Rick gave me. But I kept pestering him about it because, as I just explained to you, I knew it was bullsh*t.

The second excuse Rick gives me was that he had a strict word count for the article. Fine. But that doesn't mean "oh, I can't reveal my best evidence of a hoax because I need space to write about how the windows have faulty counterweights or how the current owners are having problems with trespassers."

THAT makes absolutely no sense, either! If you have limited space, you cut out the unimportant items, not the most important ones! Duh!



The third excuse Rick gives me is that Paul's story (about him being hired to write the book and being a witness to Weber concocting the fake story with the Lutzes) was already published.

This is a flat-out lie.

The first time anyone heard of Weber's claim (that he and the Lutzes made up the story) was the following year -- in the summer of 1979 when William Weber tried to sue the Lutzes for a portion of the profits. A full year after Rick had his article published in FATE magazine!

Even afterwards, Paul Hoffman still hadn't written anything about him allegedly witnessing Weber and the Lutzes making-up fake stories for their book.



Still with me? Now let's continue to the fourth excuse Rick gave to me. He went back to it being "Paul's story to tell" and this time mentioned how it would be unethical for him to use it.

Now I didn't mention this to Rick at the time, but if you read his FATE magazine article, Rick actually DOES mention Paul Hoffman!
Similarly, in an article in the April 1977 issue of Good Housekeeping, journalist Paul Hoffman quotes George Lutz as saying that temperature changes in rooms did occur, black stains appeared on bathroom fixtures, and his wife slid across the bed one night "as if by levitation." Lutz says nothing about a horned creature, a marching band or the extensive damage supposedly done to the house.
So if it's okay to quote Paul Hoffman on this, why couldn't he quote Paul Hoffman's claims that he had actual proof (in the form of recorded audio tapes) that the Lutzes created this hoax with William Weber???

What, it's unethical to quote Paul on one thing but not the other?

The obvious answer was that Paul was not quoted about it because:
  • Rick Moran did not know Paul Hoffman at the time, or
  • The claim about Paul being a witness to the "story sessions" between Weber and the Lutzes was a lie,
  • Or both.
That is why I kept at him. I had him in a lie, and it ended with him hanging-up on me.

It wasn't a silly point. It was someone (like you) making a bullsh*t accusation regarding the haunting. And I proved him wrong. Maybe not in that phone call, but certainly in the article...
The article I put up did not mention Kaplan outside of the house during this "garage sale", you just threw it in. My point was about the Lutz/Hoffman admission.

Okay, you claim that Lutzes are saying that some of the book is fictionalized. You show me right now what is real in that book and what did or did not happen! The burden of proof lies on you to provide this info. In the past when we discussed this you were unable to provide even the most minute details of anything. I've asked you time and time again to provide what is truth in this book of deceit. I'm still waiting!

There is no evidence this "priest" ever stepped foot in that house! You have an unidentified man on some fake show claiming he was there. That whole segment is crap start to finish. If that is what you are basing your beliefs on to use against a hoax, you're in a world of hurt.

There is nothing wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing the people they did to find out info. As for this person they claimed to have, well you have a point there!

Do you know for a fact that Weber never mentioned to anyone about his claim before the suing the Lutzes for profit, actually a countersuit. I don't know that. But okay?

And yeah, George never brought up that stuff you mentioned in these so-called original claims but rather played off that nonsense later on when the book & movie were hot to further that silliness. Then later on reneged on most of it.

And congrats on catching Moran in a lie. I didn't hear it in the phone call but just to give you some credit (I guess) you can have that. And btw even if Rick was lying about this Hoffman thing, it doesn't prove TAH was anymore real, does it?

Yeah, Hoffman never wrote about knowing of the Weber/Lutz lies. He didn't have to did he since he was involved with Weber from the get-go. That eventually got exposed didn't it. Not for one second do I not toss Hoffman & Weber in the same category as the Lutzes.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 631

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by jimmysmokes » Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:32 pm

http://www.amityvillefaq.com/intrmwn.html

This what you're referring to Dan?

Your first error (so to speak) is about Fr. Ray and his being George's friend, not Kathy's. Matter of fact that has been brought up in here before and exposed.

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1868

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by msmart112 » Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:17 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:32 pm
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/intrmwn.html

This what you're referring to Dan?
In this transcript...Rick Moran not only claims that he was at 112 Ocean Avenue on November 13, 1974...but he also claims that Paul Hoffman was there!

I call BS on both counts.
Image

User avatar
msmart112
Amityville_Member
Posts: 1868

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by msmart112 » Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:35 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:49 am
https://skepticalinquirer.org/newslette ... mityville/

Would you mind taking a look at this? Zone in on the last paragraph. You still have questions?
A transcript of the September 1979 trial of George and Kathy Lutz vs. Paul Hoffman—Hoffman being perhaps the first writer to publish an account of the Amityville happenings—reveals the Lutzes’ admission that virtually everything in The Amityville Horror was pure fiction (Stein 1993, 63).

Stein, Gordon, ed. 1993. Encyclopedia of Hoaxes, Detroit: Gale Research.


I've never heard of any trial transcript where George and Kathy admitted that virtually everything in The Amityville Horror was pure fiction.

Has anyone here ever heard of such a thing?

If such a transcript indeed exists...I would think that a LOT of people would have been all over it (e.g. Weber, Kaplan, Osuna, Katzenbach, Nickell, jimmysmokes, etc.).
Image

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by Dan the Damned » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:49 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
The article I put up did not mention Kaplan outside of the house during this "garage sale", you just threw it in. My point was about the Lutz/Hoffman admission.
But you didn't specify that your point "was only about the Lutz/Hoffman admission." You told me to pay attention to the last paragraph. And that last paragraph contained a lot more than just the Lutz/Hoffman thing. One of the things in that last paragraph was the erroneous quote from Ed Lowe. And silly me, I addressed it. I "threw in" Kaplan's book to debunk Ed Lowe's comment. Sorry if that got you all upset.

In the future, don't be a lazy prick and say "read this." If there is only one statement of an article you wish to discuss, then specify it for christ's sake. Don't say "read this paragraph" and then be all butt-hurt when I address everything in that paragraph which you just told me to read! Don't be an idiot...


jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
In the past when we discussed this you were unable to provide even the most minute details of anything. I've asked you time and time again to provide what is truth in this book of deceit. I'm still waiting!
You are a LIAR!

Here are some examples of me giving you details in the past:
jimmysmokes wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:05 pm
They abandoned that house on January 14, 1976, right? And didn't a "crew" arrive the next day to pick up some of their belongings?

Dan the Damned wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:33 pm
Not to my knowledge. George mentioned having some friends collect stuff on or around Easter Sunday (which would have been April 18).

from Magick Mind Radio podcast:
ED CRAFT: Just to clear up an issue, didn't you guys go back in and get some family pictures or something, was about the only thing? Or did you take that out with you?

GEORGE LUTZ: No, we didn't get the family pictures. What we did get is some personal records. My grandfather had given me a cedar chest that he had built. And on, this would be Easter Sunday, 1976. A couple of friends went back into the house and got the food and the clothes and gave those to the Salvation Army, and brought out the chest for us with some personal items. But that's the only things that we took from the house.

ED CRAFT: But you actually didn't – you didn't even go back in there and get these things.

GEORGE LUTZ: No, I gave them the key.
According to George, during those final days in the house, incidents were ramping-up. They were trying to contact Father Ray, and when he was finally reached, Father Ray advised them to simply leave the house temporarily and stay with a relative while they tried to sort this whole thing out.

So they packed up a few overnight bags (or whatever) and drove out to Kathy's Mom's place and stayed with her.

They didn't flee in terror, as what was depicted in the movie (although George said there was some unexplained things that happened during that final drive away from the house).

But what I'm getting at here is that when they drove away, they weren't planning on leaving forever -- it was supposed to be for just a short time. They were fully expecting to return to the house. The idea was to move out temporarily, have someone "fix" whatever was wrong with the house (have an exorcism or vigil or whatever), and then move right back in. They loved the house, and they didn't want to give it up.

So there was no reason for anyone to return to the house the very next day. It took them a while to decide what to do.

from a 2004 interview conducted by Tim Yancey:
GEORGE LUTZ: Actually I don't think we made that decision, ourselves. It didn't occur to me to go, give up my house. I became very concerned, very unsure of what steps to take – or not to take – next. We tried very hard to get Father Ray on the phone. It wasn't until he actually said to us – when I think back now about this – that we had to leave. We had to leave the house. It hadn't occurred to me that this was something we really should do, or must do. And as far... When we tried to explain some of the things that had gone on, then his words were, "Go stay at your Mom's and we'll try to figure this out." Words to that effect.

It was my house. I wasn't looking to leave it – all my stuff was there. The idea of going off to live to Kathy's Mom's, and retreat to there in some manner, was just, was such a foreign idea. I certainly would have taken more stuff if I had known that we wouldn't be coming back. So many personal things, let alone the valuables. But I may not have left if he had said, "You're going and you'll never, you know, return." It took us so long to get out of the house that day. It took so much of that day to actually leave. And then the car wouldn't start – which is classic movie stuff, and all it was was I had the same ignition system on my boat – and it was transistorized – you just pushed a button and then it went back to normal ignition. And for some reason the transistorized ignition wouldn't work, and I just got out and pushed the button and closed the hood and got back in the van, it started right up.

There was a banging on the van all the way out of Amityville, from the outside. And I remember being pretty much thrown around on the road a couple of times. It was a frightening trip, but it was frighten— We were frightened. Its a flash of memory with that stuff. There were towels from the boat that were in the van. I still have the towels, but... We use them for car towels. We had so few things. We had, I think, a couple of changes of clothes each. It was just "grab and go." It just had never occurred to any of us that we wouldn't be back. You don't leave your kids' toys and motorcycles and so many different things.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:15 am
Upon reading this, I'm more confused? George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back. And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them? I did read somewhere in an article it was the next day but I don't know. What's interesting is that when these people did go into the house, nothing happened or was reported.

"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?

This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 am
George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back.
I think it was more like he didn't want to return until the house was "fixed." But as time went on, it wasn't getting fixed, and at some point they just decided to get rid of it.
And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them?
Yes, a few things were recovered, plus the items they took with them when they first left for Kathy's Mom's house. So technically, no, they didn't leave everything behind. But they did leave behind their cars, motorcycles, boats, toys, family photos, clothes, books, records, furniture, TVs, radios, etc.
"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?
The night before they left was the worst night. George rarely talked about it, but I believe he mentions some of it in those interviews. So yes, they were kinda freaking out, and they were trying to reach Father Ray.

When they finally got hold of Father Ray, he suggested that they leave and go stay with a relative while they figured out what to do next. George said his head was so messed-up (my terminology, not his) that the simple act of leaving and spending the night somewhere else just didn't even occur to him.

So they left the house at the suggestion of Father Ray. I mentioned that in my last post.
This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.
Click on the "Interview Transcripts" link at the very, very bottom of this page (at the bottom of every page on this forum). That will help a lot with weeding out a lot of the fiction from what George Lutz claimed actually happened.

The trouble with newspaper articles and TV reports is that a story about a haunted house is never going to be taken seriously by reporters. It is a fluff piece -- a human interest story. And just as Jay Anson did, a lot of reporters don't really give a crap about accuracy when it comes to human interest stories. People get misquoted, facts get twisted, and that leaves you with a bunch of discrepancies. And that's the problem with Kaplan's book. He was noting discrepancies in the various newspaper stories, and attributing those discrepancies directly against the Lutzes instead of the reporters.

Kaplan even got misquoted, himself, which should have clued him in on what was happening.

The interviews are different. When the Lutzes are shown on film speaking, or when their voices are recorded, you know that the words are coming from them (not translated from a reporter's quickly-scribbled notes).
Image . . Image . . Image . . Image

Examples of me giving you details in the past
.

.

.

.

.



.

.

.


Now let's get back to the present:
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
There is no evidence this "priest" ever stepped foot in that house! You have an unidentified man on some fake show claiming he was there. That whole segment is crap start to finish. If that is what you are basing your beliefs on to use against a hoax, you're in a world of hurt.
You use the word "evidence" but you probably mean the word "proof." Two very different words. Maybe google can help you.

Evidence of Father Ray visiting and blessing the house:
  • George Lutz witnessed him entering and exiting the house that day.
  • Kathy Lutz witnessed him entering and exiting the house that day.
  • As it was "moving day" and the family was moving their stuff inside, I imagine the 3 kids witnessed Father Ray at the house that day as well.
  • Father Ray told Jay Anson about his experiences at the house that day.
  • Father Ray went on the TV show "In Search Of" and told of his experiences that day.
  • George Lutz has verified that it was Father Ray appearing in silhouette on "In Search Of."
And I imagine the producers of "In Search Of" have done their best to make sure he was the real guy.

That is all evidence. Up to you if you don't want to believe it or not.

But you can't say "there is no evidence" just because you do not understand the definition of the word. That's not how it works.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
There is nothing wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing the people they did to find out info.
Read my post again. I didn't say there was anything wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing all those people. I was saying "why bother spending all that time and running around town interviewing countless people when you allegedly have a close personal friend sitting right next to you who allegedly has CONCRETE PROOF of the hoax?!?"



jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Do you know for a fact that Weber never mentioned to anyone about his claim before the suing the Lutzes for profit, actually a countersuit. I don't know that. But okay?
You're overlooking the word "published" there.

I repeat: one of the excuses Rick Moran gave me (for not mentioning Hoffman and his proof) was that Hoffman had already published this info in an article.

Once again -- Rick Moran claimed that Hoffman had published this info prior to May of 1978. And that is not accurate. Hoffman's two articles were for the NY Daily News and Good Housekeeping. Neither of which mentioned Weber's claim of creating the ghost story with the Lutzes.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
And yeah, George never brought up that stuff you mentioned in these so-called original claims but rather played off that nonsense later on when the book & movie were hot to further that silliness. Then later on reneged on most of it.
Sorry, you are wrong once again. Please show me an instance of George "playing-off" on the nonsense that he later "reneged on."

Here is a video clip of the Lutzes on Good Morning America in 1979. It's a short appearance -- they're not given a whole lot of time -- and they are pretty limited to simply answering whatever the host is asking. But they still manage to let everyone know that things were different in real life than in the book and movie. George clears up the slime oozing from the walls (explaining that it didn't happen that way in real life, but was most likely based on an incident they had finding a gelatinous substance on the carpets a couple of times) and he clears up the black gunk in the toilets (explaining that it wasn't the water, like you see in the film, but the discoloration was limited to the porcelain of the toilet bowl, itself).

And they speak about other incidents that weren't mentioned in the book or movie as well.



They were always upfront about the book having some differences. But such questions didn't necessarily come up during each and every interview.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
And btw even if Rick was lying about this Hoffman thing, it doesn't prove TAH was anymore real, does it?
Once again, dear boy, my goal isn't to prove TAH was real. My goal is to dig for the truth, wherever that leads me. I am so tempted to search this board and quote every single time that I have told this to you...

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9584
Contact:

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:28 am

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:48 pm
sherbetbizarre wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:28 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:16 pm
I showed you what Hoffman said about this haunting.
Can you remind us?
Hmm, it's listed in this article I put up that they did?
Skeptical Inquirer-
A transcript of the September 1979 trial of George and Kathy Lutz vs. Paul Hoffman—Hoffman being perhaps the first writer to publish an account of the Amityville happenings—reveals the Lutzes’ admission that virtually everything in The Amityville Horror was pure fiction (Stein 1993, 63).


That isn't saying Paul Hoffman revealed it as "pure fiction", it's Joe Nickell's biased take on what he thinks the Lutz Vs Hoffman trial transcripts say.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9584
Contact:

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:29 am

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:49 pm
  • As it was "moving day" and the family was moving their stuff inside, I imagine the 3 kids witnessed Father Ray at the house that day as well.
Yes, Danny talks about him in My Amityville Horror.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 631

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by jimmysmokes » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:27 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:32 pm
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/intrmwn.html

This what you're referring to Dan?

Your first error (so to speak) is about Fr. Ray and his being George's friend, not Kathy's. Matter of fact that has been brought up in here before and exposed.
You see this Dan or skip over it? I called you out on here. First one lying here is you. :naughty:

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 631

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by jimmysmokes » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:49 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
The article I put up did not mention Kaplan outside of the house during this "garage sale", you just threw it in. My point was about the Lutz/Hoffman admission.
But you didn't specify that your point "was only about the Lutz/Hoffman admission." You told me to pay attention to the last paragraph. And that last paragraph contained a lot more than just the Lutz/Hoffman thing. One of the things in that last paragraph was the erroneous quote from Ed Lowe. And silly me, I addressed it. I "threw in" Kaplan's book to debunk Ed Lowe's comment. Sorry if that got you all upset.

In the future, don't be a lazy prick and say "read this." If there is only one statement of an article you wish to discuss, then specify it for christ's sake. Don't say "read this paragraph" and then be all butt-hurt when I address everything in that paragraph which you just told me to read! Don't be an idiot...


jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
In the past when we discussed this you were unable to provide even the most minute details of anything. I've asked you time and time again to provide what is truth in this book of deceit. I'm still waiting!
You are a LIAR!

Here are some examples of me giving you details in the past:
jimmysmokes wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:05 pm
They abandoned that house on January 14, 1976, right? And didn't a "crew" arrive the next day to pick up some of their belongings?

Dan the Damned wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:33 pm
Not to my knowledge. George mentioned having some friends collect stuff on or around Easter Sunday (which would have been April 18).

from Magick Mind Radio podcast:
ED CRAFT: Just to clear up an issue, didn't you guys go back in and get some family pictures or something, was about the only thing? Or did you take that out with you?

GEORGE LUTZ: No, we didn't get the family pictures. What we did get is some personal records. My grandfather had given me a cedar chest that he had built. And on, this would be Easter Sunday, 1976. A couple of friends went back into the house and got the food and the clothes and gave those to the Salvation Army, and brought out the chest for us with some personal items. But that's the only things that we took from the house.

ED CRAFT: But you actually didn't – you didn't even go back in there and get these things.

GEORGE LUTZ: No, I gave them the key.
According to George, during those final days in the house, incidents were ramping-up. They were trying to contact Father Ray, and when he was finally reached, Father Ray advised them to simply leave the house temporarily and stay with a relative while they tried to sort this whole thing out.

So they packed up a few overnight bags (or whatever) and drove out to Kathy's Mom's place and stayed with her.

They didn't flee in terror, as what was depicted in the movie (although George said there was some unexplained things that happened during that final drive away from the house).

But what I'm getting at here is that when they drove away, they weren't planning on leaving forever -- it was supposed to be for just a short time. They were fully expecting to return to the house. The idea was to move out temporarily, have someone "fix" whatever was wrong with the house (have an exorcism or vigil or whatever), and then move right back in. They loved the house, and they didn't want to give it up.

So there was no reason for anyone to return to the house the very next day. It took them a while to decide what to do.

from a 2004 interview conducted by Tim Yancey:
GEORGE LUTZ: Actually I don't think we made that decision, ourselves. It didn't occur to me to go, give up my house. I became very concerned, very unsure of what steps to take – or not to take – next. We tried very hard to get Father Ray on the phone. It wasn't until he actually said to us – when I think back now about this – that we had to leave. We had to leave the house. It hadn't occurred to me that this was something we really should do, or must do. And as far... When we tried to explain some of the things that had gone on, then his words were, "Go stay at your Mom's and we'll try to figure this out." Words to that effect.

It was my house. I wasn't looking to leave it – all my stuff was there. The idea of going off to live to Kathy's Mom's, and retreat to there in some manner, was just, was such a foreign idea. I certainly would have taken more stuff if I had known that we wouldn't be coming back. So many personal things, let alone the valuables. But I may not have left if he had said, "You're going and you'll never, you know, return." It took us so long to get out of the house that day. It took so much of that day to actually leave. And then the car wouldn't start – which is classic movie stuff, and all it was was I had the same ignition system on my boat – and it was transistorized – you just pushed a button and then it went back to normal ignition. And for some reason the transistorized ignition wouldn't work, and I just got out and pushed the button and closed the hood and got back in the van, it started right up.

There was a banging on the van all the way out of Amityville, from the outside. And I remember being pretty much thrown around on the road a couple of times. It was a frightening trip, but it was frighten— We were frightened. Its a flash of memory with that stuff. There were towels from the boat that were in the van. I still have the towels, but... We use them for car towels. We had so few things. We had, I think, a couple of changes of clothes each. It was just "grab and go." It just had never occurred to any of us that we wouldn't be back. You don't leave your kids' toys and motorcycles and so many different things.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:15 am
Upon reading this, I'm more confused? George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back. And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them? I did read somewhere in an article it was the next day but I don't know. What's interesting is that when these people did go into the house, nothing happened or was reported.

"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?

This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.

Dan the Damned wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 am
George never entered the house again, reportedly, so I think he had already made his mind up then they weren't going back.
I think it was more like he didn't want to return until the house was "fixed." But as time went on, it wasn't getting fixed, and at some point they just decided to get rid of it.
And the other post (interview) he stated that they left all their stuff there, but obviously they didn't. At some point certain things were picked up by whoever he sent to fetch them?
Yes, a few things were recovered, plus the items they took with them when they first left for Kathy's Mom's house. So technically, no, they didn't leave everything behind. But they did leave behind their cars, motorcycles, boats, toys, family photos, clothes, books, records, furniture, TVs, radios, etc.
"They didn't flee in terror"? Well, what happened? What caused them to leave right then? I'm guessing that the hooded figure at the top of the stairs didn't happen when they left? We're they fearing for their lives? Just decided it was getting to be too much?
The night before they left was the worst night. George rarely talked about it, but I believe he mentions some of it in those interviews. So yes, they were kinda freaking out, and they were trying to reach Father Ray.

When they finally got hold of Father Ray, he suggested that they leave and go stay with a relative while they figured out what to do next. George said his head was so messed-up (my terminology, not his) that the simple act of leaving and spending the night somewhere else just didn't even occur to him.

So they left the house at the suggestion of Father Ray. I mentioned that in my last post.
This has always been the problem for me. I still don't know what actually happened to them? Certain details always change or are omitted or exaggerated. Too many holes for me.
Click on the "Interview Transcripts" link at the very, very bottom of this page (at the bottom of every page on this forum). That will help a lot with weeding out a lot of the fiction from what George Lutz claimed actually happened.

The trouble with newspaper articles and TV reports is that a story about a haunted house is never going to be taken seriously by reporters. It is a fluff piece -- a human interest story. And just as Jay Anson did, a lot of reporters don't really give a crap about accuracy when it comes to human interest stories. People get misquoted, facts get twisted, and that leaves you with a bunch of discrepancies. And that's the problem with Kaplan's book. He was noting discrepancies in the various newspaper stories, and attributing those discrepancies directly against the Lutzes instead of the reporters.

Kaplan even got misquoted, himself, which should have clued him in on what was happening.

The interviews are different. When the Lutzes are shown on film speaking, or when their voices are recorded, you know that the words are coming from them (not translated from a reporter's quickly-scribbled notes).
Image . . Image . . Image . . Image

Examples of me giving you details in the past
.

.

.

.

.



.

.

.


Now let's get back to the present:
jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
There is no evidence this "priest" ever stepped foot in that house! You have an unidentified man on some fake show claiming he was there. That whole segment is crap start to finish. If that is what you are basing your beliefs on to use against a hoax, you're in a world of hurt.
You use the word "evidence" but you probably mean the word "proof." Two very different words. Maybe google can help you.

Evidence of Father Ray visiting and blessing the house:
  • George Lutz witnessed him entering and exiting the house that day.
  • Kathy Lutz witnessed him entering and exiting the house that day.
  • As it was "moving day" and the family was moving their stuff inside, I imagine the 3 kids witnessed Father Ray at the house that day as well.
  • Father Ray told Jay Anson about his experiences at the house that day.
  • Father Ray went on the TV show "In Search Of" and told of his experiences that day.
  • George Lutz has verified that it was Father Ray appearing in silhouette on "In Search Of."
And I imagine the producers of "In Search Of" have done their best to make sure he was the real guy.

That is all evidence. Up to you if you don't want to believe it or not.

But you can't say "there is no evidence" just because you do not understand the definition of the word. That's not how it works.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
There is nothing wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing the people they did to find out info.
Read my post again. I didn't say there was anything wrong with Rick and Peter interviewing all those people. I was saying "why bother spending all that time and running around town interviewing countless people when you allegedly have a close personal friend sitting right next to you who allegedly has CONCRETE PROOF of the hoax?!?"



jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Do you know for a fact that Weber never mentioned to anyone about his claim before the suing the Lutzes for profit, actually a countersuit. I don't know that. But okay?
You're overlooking the word "published" there.

I repeat: one of the excuses Rick Moran gave me (for not mentioning Hoffman and his proof) was that Hoffman had already published this info in an article.

Once again -- Rick Moran claimed that Hoffman had published this info prior to May of 1978. And that is not accurate. Hoffman's two articles were for the NY Daily News and Good Housekeeping. Neither of which mentioned Weber's claim of creating the ghost story with the Lutzes.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
And yeah, George never brought up that stuff you mentioned in these so-called original claims but rather played off that nonsense later on when the book & movie were hot to further that silliness. Then later on reneged on most of it.
Sorry, you are wrong once again. Please show me an instance of George "playing-off" on the nonsense that he later "reneged on."

Here is a video clip of the Lutzes on Good Morning America in 1979. It's a short appearance -- they're not given a whole lot of time -- and they are pretty limited to simply answering whatever the host is asking. But they still manage to let everyone know that things were different in real life than in the book and movie. George clears up the slime oozing from the walls (explaining that it didn't happen that way in real life, but was most likely based on an incident they had finding a gelatinous substance on the carpets a couple of times) and he clears up the black gunk in the toilets (explaining that it wasn't the water, like you see in the film, but the discoloration was limited to the porcelain of the toilet bowl, itself).

And they speak about other incidents that weren't mentioned in the book or movie as well.



They were always upfront about the book having some differences. But such questions didn't necessarily come up during each and every interview.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:07 pm
And btw even if Rick was lying about this Hoffman thing, it doesn't prove TAH was anymore real, does it?
e that I have told this to you...
Wow dude! You get enough covered here in your scatter-gun rebuttal? Just checking.

Naw it didn't upset me you mentioned Kaplan being at the garage sale. George could've been at the house also? Maybe inside or saw Kaplan pull up and hid? That possible? Not butthurt at all or lazy prick, speak at will.

The addressing the original claims with the lengthy convo we had is basically about them leaving the house. I was wanting claims made while they were in the home basically. And George's responses here are from 2004 and not quite original claims to me, but add-ons to the story to toss in for kicks. I am glad that with all that they suffered in the last week in the house, they finally got through to Fr. Ray whom advised them to leave. Seems they were too ignorant to come to this obvious conclusion on their own so Fr. Ray had to decide it for them. Yep, they had to get out then only to be attacked when leaving in the van. And then we had some more levitation at Kathy's mom's house the very night they went to stay with her. Great idea huh? Tell me, did Fr. Ray hear of this and did he suggest that Kathy's mom's house had to be cleansed too? BTW which leaving story do I go with here? Danny or George's?

Yeah there was evidence of a man on the In Search of Show. It could've been Colonel Sanders for all I know.

The Good Morning America clip I've seen. The clearing up of certain incidents such as the gelatin and the flies, once again this came from Weber! They're not even original claims of theirs but mostly lifted from Weber. Do I have to bring up the trial and Weinstein again to settle this matter for you? Yeah they make other claims not in the book or movie. Since most of the other claims were exposed as fiction, I see no good reason to believe any of the rest. But if you do come up with that list of "original" claims again, I'd like to go over.

Finally, I'm glad that you're not trying to convince me of TAH being true. You're unable to convince yourself of that so yeah, it would be illogical to try and convince me of it! Safe to say that with all your digging on here for years you're still unable to come to a conclusion, with all that's been presented, I doubt you'll ever find out the truth? The hole must be a black one? Good luck....

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:07 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Wow dude! You get enough covered here in your scatter-gun rebuttal? Just checking.
You are so close to being banned. I'm sick of your bullsh*t. If I don't respond to EVERYTHING you address, you call me out and whine like a baby about how I am "unable to provide even the most minute details of anything."

But if I go ahead and address every stupid thing you bring up in your post, then I am guilty of making a "scatter-gun rebuttal"!

There's no pleasing you. And that's because you aren't here to discuss the issues. You are here as a troll. This is all just a game to you -- to see how you can maybe set people off or whatever.

I'm just warning you that I'm not gonna put up with it for very much longer. So quit lying about people. Quit misquoting people. And stop your trollish behavior.

If you don't want a long response to your post, then don't put 50 questions in your post! Isn't that simple enough? Don't put 50 questions in your post and then mock the person who attempts to answer them all for you.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
The addressing the original claims with the lengthy convo we had is basically about them leaving the house. I was wanting claims made while they were in the home basically.
You said you wanted claims made in the book. The family leaving the house was part of the book. Too late to change your story now.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Seems they were too ignorant to come to this obvious conclusion on their own so Fr. Ray had to decide it for them.
Actually it seems you are too ignorant to read what George said in regards to that incident, and what their mindset was. So you feel you have to make the situation sound false by making the Lutzes sound like idiots. Just another tactic you use in your attempt to win points.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Tell me, did Fr. Ray hear of this and did he suggest that Kathy's mom's house had to be cleansed too?
Don't know. But he did visit with the family at Kathy's mom's house.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
BTW which leaving story do I go with here? Danny or George's?
I forget what Danny said about leaving the house. I'd ask you to refresh my memory, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong like you normally do.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Yeah there was evidence of a man on the In Search of Show. It could've been Colonel Sanders for all I know.
And yet Rick Moran comes along claiming Father Ray was Kathy's friend instead of George's, and you jump up and down and climax over it.

You said there was no evidence. I gave you a list of evidence (proving you wrong (again)). Now you admit that there was evidence (you admit you were wrong). It's getting pretty boring proving you wrong about everything. But kinda funny when you claim it's the other way 'round. It's like arguing with Trump. Showing Trump photographic proof that his inauguration had far fewer people in attendance than Obama's. And Trump denying it, despite the photographs clearly showing that he's wrong. That's you. You're Trump.

BTW, regarding Father Ray being a friend of Kathy's (instead of the priest who helped George through the annulment of his first marriage), what evidence do you have other than that claim from Rick Moran? Or is that it?






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
The Good Morning America clip I've seen. The clearing up of certain incidents such as the gelatin and the flies, once again this came from Weber! They're not even original claims of theirs but mostly lifted from Weber. Do I have to bring up the trial and Weinstein again to settle this matter for you?
Again, you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts. More of your blatant dishonesty. More evidence of you being a troll, which I will not continue to let you get away with!

Here's what Weber said about the slime/gelatin:
William Weber (on the Joel Martin Show): Slime in the walls is a very interesting story, because if that doesn't show that the Lutzes are frauds then nothing else does. See, when I was sitting down with the Lutzes explaining or exchanging information and helping them to create the epilogue to the Ronnie DeFeo story, they were shown certain crime photographs, crime scene photographs by me, and many of the crime scene photographs had this blackish, green substance on the doors and on the walls throughout the house. And just looking at the photographs, if one wasn't used to seeing and knowledgeable about that, they would describe it as green slime coming out of the walls and out of keyholes. But anyone knowledgeable with the police investigation would tell you that it's just fingerprint dust, the powder used to obtain fingerprints. That's all it was. Well, looking at that picture, the Lutzes and I dreamed up the story about slime coming out of keyholes.
Compare that with what the Lutzes said about the slime/gelatin:
DAVID HARTMAN: Okay. There’s something about green slime. What was that? On the wall in the movie, there’s green slime [that] comes out of the walls? Right? George, did that happen?

GEORGE LUTZ: As the movie did it, not exactly. No. It was more of a gelatin kind of substance that we thought the children had somehow mixed something up and spilled it around the house. The next time it happened, the kids were at school, and there was just no way to explain how it got there.
Despite your false claim that this is the same thing Weber was claiming, you can clearly see that it is not.






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Yeah they make other claims not in the book or movie. Since most of the other claims were exposed as fiction, I see no good reason to believe any of the rest. But if you do come up with that list of "original" claims again, I'd like to go over.
I never claimed that I had such a list. You were crying and pounding your feet and demanding that I compile such a list. It would be easier making a list of the fictional items and the items that were exaggerated. But I believe all of those things have been discussed on this very forum. Maybe if you weren't such a jerk I might take the time to compile such a list. But making up blatant lies about me, misquoting people, mischaracterizing evidence to suit your needs and generally acting like a troll -- that's not the way to get people to do favors for you.

Why don't you create a list of all the paranormal claims, and Sherb, myself and others can mark off which ones are allegedly true, which ones are fiction, and which ones we don't know about either way.

If you are too lazy to do this, then guess what, I'm too lazy to run around in circles for your entertainment...






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Finally, I'm glad that you're not trying to convince me of TAH being true.
I've been telling you this over and over again. You just refuse to listen.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
You're unable to convince yourself of that so yeah, it would be illogical to try and convince me of it!
No, I'm not trying to convince myself of it. Again, you are lying! That is a blatant lie!

JIMMYSMOKES IS A LIAR!

I just told you in my last post that "my goal isn't to prove TAH was real -- my goal is to dig for the truth, wherever that leads me."

I see that you just happened to conveniently edit that out when you quoted my last post (it was at the very end). But I've told you this time and again. Still, this doesn't stop you from lying about me and claiming that my agenda is to get people to believe in the haunting (or even to convince myself that the haunting was real).

I'm flat-out warning you to stop with the troll behavior, or you will be banned.

User avatar
sherbetbizarre
Administrator
Posts: 9584
Contact:

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by sherbetbizarre » Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:15 pm

jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
The clearing up of certain incidents such as the gelatin and the flies, once again this came from Weber! They're not even original claims of theirs but mostly lifted from Weber.
Weber's version came well after the book came out.

So it could be a case of him retro-fitting the facts to help him win the case.

jimmysmokes
Amityville Addict
Posts: 631

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by jimmysmokes » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:01 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:07 pm
jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Wow dude! You get enough covered here in your scatter-gun rebuttal? Just checking.
You are so close to being banned. I'm sick of your bullsh*t. If I don't respond to EVERYTHING you address, you call me out and whine like a baby about how I am "unable to provide even the most minute details of anything."

But if I go ahead and address every stupid thing you bring up in your post, then I am guilty of making a "scatter-gun rebuttal"!

There's no pleasing you. And that's because you aren't here to discuss the issues. You are here as a troll. This is all just a game to you -- to see how you can maybe set people off or whatever.

I'm just warning you that I'm not gonna put up with it for very much longer. So quit lying about people. Quit misquoting people. And stop your trollish behavior.

If you don't want a long response to your post, then don't put 50 questions in your post! Isn't that simple enough? Don't put 50 questions in your post and then mock the person who attempts to answer them all for you.

jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
The addressing the original claims with the lengthy convo we had is basically about them leaving the house. I was wanting claims made while they were in the home basically.
You said you wanted claims made in the book. The family leaving the house was part of the book. Too late to change your story now.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Seems they were too ignorant to come to this obvious conclusion on their own so Fr. Ray had to decide it for them.
Actually it seems you are too ignorant to read what George said in regards to that incident, and what their mindset was. So you feel you have to make the situation sound false by making the Lutzes sound like idiots. Just another tactic you use in your attempt to win points.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Tell me, did Fr. Ray hear of this and did he suggest that Kathy's mom's house had to be cleansed too?
Don't know. But he did visit with the family at Kathy's mom's house.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
BTW which leaving story do I go with here? Danny or George's?
I forget what Danny said about leaving the house. I'd ask you to refresh my memory, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong like you normally do.





jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Yeah there was evidence of a man on the In Search of Show. It could've been Colonel Sanders for all I know.
And yet Rick Moran comes along claiming Father Ray was Kathy's friend instead of George's, and you jump up and down and climax over it.

You said there was no evidence. I gave you a list of evidence (proving you wrong (again)). Now you admit that there was evidence (you admit you were wrong). It's getting pretty boring proving you wrong about everything. But kinda funny when you claim it's the other way 'round. It's like arguing with Trump. Showing Trump photographic proof that his inauguration had far fewer people in attendance than Obama's. And Trump denying it, despite the photographs clearly showing that he's wrong. That's you. You're Trump.

BTW, regarding Father Ray being a friend of Kathy's (instead of the priest who helped George through the annulment of his first marriage), what evidence do you have other than that claim from Rick Moran? Or is that it?






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
The Good Morning America clip I've seen. The clearing up of certain incidents such as the gelatin and the flies, once again this came from Weber! They're not even original claims of theirs but mostly lifted from Weber. Do I have to bring up the trial and Weinstein again to settle this matter for you?
Again, you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts. More of your blatant dishonesty. More evidence of you being a troll, which I will not continue to let you get away with!

Here's what Weber said about the slime/gelatin:
William Weber (on the Joel Martin Show): Slime in the walls is a very interesting story, because if that doesn't show that the Lutzes are frauds then nothing else does. See, when I was sitting down with the Lutzes explaining or exchanging information and helping them to create the epilogue to the Ronnie DeFeo story, they were shown certain crime photographs, crime scene photographs by me, and many of the crime scene photographs had this blackish, green substance on the doors and on the walls throughout the house. And just looking at the photographs, if one wasn't used to seeing and knowledgeable about that, they would describe it as green slime coming out of the walls and out of keyholes. But anyone knowledgeable with the police investigation would tell you that it's just fingerprint dust, the powder used to obtain fingerprints. That's all it was. Well, looking at that picture, the Lutzes and I dreamed up the story about slime coming out of keyholes.
Compare that with what the Lutzes said about the slime/gelatin:
DAVID HARTMAN: Okay. There’s something about green slime. What was that? On the wall in the movie, there’s green slime [that] comes out of the walls? Right? George, did that happen?

GEORGE LUTZ: As the movie did it, not exactly. No. It was more of a gelatin kind of substance that we thought the children had somehow mixed something up and spilled it around the house. The next time it happened, the kids were at school, and there was just no way to explain how it got there.
Despite your false claim that this is the same thing Weber was claiming, you can clearly see that it is not.






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Yeah they make other claims not in the book or movie. Since most of the other claims were exposed as fiction, I see no good reason to believe any of the rest. But if you do come up with that list of "original" claims again, I'd like to go over.
I never claimed that I had such a list. You were crying and pounding your feet and demanding that I compile such a list. It would be easier making a list of the fictional items and the items that were exaggerated. But I believe all of those things have been discussed on this very forum. Maybe if you weren't such a jerk I might take the time to compile such a list. But making up blatant lies about me, misquoting people, mischaracterizing evidence to suit your needs and generally acting like a troll -- that's not the way to get people to do favors for you.

Why don't you create a list of all the paranormal claims, and Sherb, myself and others can mark off which ones are allegedly true, which ones are fiction, and which ones we don't know about either way.

If you are too lazy to do this, then guess what, I'm too lazy to run around in circles for your entertainment...






jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
Finally, I'm glad that you're not trying to convince me of TAH being true.
I've been telling you this over and over again. You just refuse to listen.




jimmysmokes wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:01 pm
You're unable to convince yourself of that so yeah, it would be illogical to try and convince me of it!
No, I'm not trying to convince myself of it. Again, you are lying! That is a blatant lie!

JIMMYSMOKES IS A LIAR!

I just told you in my last post that "my goal isn't to prove TAH was real -- my goal is to dig for the truth, wherever that leads me."

I see that you just happened to conveniently edit that out when you quoted my last post (it was at the very end). But I've told you this time and again. Still, this doesn't stop you from lying about me and claiming that my agenda is to get people to believe in the haunting (or even to convince myself that the haunting was real).

I'm flat-out warning you to stop with the troll behavior, or you will be banned.
That's fine Dan. As you see I'm not trolling everything you post on here and this now is the first time I've opened this up and read what you wrote here. The other threads in the Amityville discussion I've responded to, you seem to want to carry on a conversation so I keep it going.

But whatever man. I'll leave you alone and not respond to any of this. Take it easy.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: Rick Moran: Beating a Dead Source

Post by Dan the Damned » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:58 pm

And again we play the "pretending not to understand what's being said in order for me to frame the argument in a different manner" game.

The issue is not "I don't want you commenting on certain subject matters." Obviously you know that, or you would be creaming your jeans, yelling about censorship and such.

The issue is not about this single thread -- it's about your behavior on this entire forum.

I can handle you being a snarky spotty-faced attention-seeking twirp (to an extent), but I'm not gonna let you continue with certain tactics (flat-out lying, misquoting people, posting your foggy (often incorrect) recollections of reading an article some years back as "the truth," pretending the person you are debating has made a different argument so that you can re-frame the discussion in a way that makes you appear to have won, etc). It is trollish behavior, and one day you're gonna be banned. Probably should have done it already, to be honest. Especially after your admission that your mind has been made up, set in stone, and that there is absolutely no mystery here for you (begging the question: then why are you here?).

And not for one minute do I believe that you haven't read this thread since I made this post. There has been a change in your posts since Monday. Quite the coincidence. :think:

Post Reply