Look up his name, johnnyjohnson

First thing I told him was that he was barking up the wrong tree...

@ghettophilosopher I know, I was there. He actually made one response to my initial post, and then, no more haha

Ok, I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what you mean. The best I could come up with was something akin to getting the last laugh... Am I on the right path here? Can you please enlighten me?

@ghettophilosopher oh honey no. Its a southern colloquialism. It's literal meaning is taking the best inch out of middle of a penis. Figuratively, it means you are going to leave the target a sobbing, incoherent puddle without a will to live.

@SallyInStitches I got you. Oh man, I gotta say, that's a good one. And a new one for me. I think I'll add it to the repertoire.

I very intentionally did not block him. He was literally harassing everyone he could in as little time as was possible. I took it upon myself to personally give him hell for it. A little self righteous? Maybe. But I believe "an eye for an eye" was their idea of I'm not mistaken.

@ghettophilosopher I don't fault you for it. I just am not sure it should have been so easy for him to totally escape you

One of the people who blocked me is a bafflement to me. He's a fellow atheist, and we had some substantive and respectful discussions, although we tend to disagree on some things (he's a bit of an apologist for religion). One time he went just a little too far and made a genuinely and, to that point for him, uncharacteristically unkind remark. And I pushed back pretty firmly. And the next morning he had vanished, and doubtless, has by now forgotten the exchange and probably me as well. But also evaded the interaction. And the chance to grow from the interaction. It's always unfortunate when that happens, and in real life, it's not always possible to evade conflict with zero responsibility or consequence. Somehow, I think the blocking mechanism here should be more reflective of real life, where you can't just throw a switch and make people not exist so far as you're concerned ... or at least not so easily.

On most sites the blocking function doesn't allow you to pretend the person you're blocking is not on the site at all. There are usually "You have this user blocked" placeholders for their messages in public threads, always beckoning you to re-engagement and discouraging blocking except as a last resort.

On the other hand, most other sites I'm on don't have a dating function to them and there is the matter of stalking and harassment to consider, so I can understand how this abstraction may be necessary.

@mordant Oh, trust me... He got burned before he got banned (he did get banned, I've come to discover). But the best part was I did it without attacking HIM personally. I didn't launch one insult at him. Wasn't necessary. But his lord and savior came out with more holes than a cheese grater (or a crucifixion, funny enough).
I have no problems with anyone else's religion, but when you harass me and mine, that's a different matter entirely.

@ghettophilosopher Yes and that distinction is something they never grasp. I'm sure he felt you HAD attacked him personally. In debates with believers, I see people constantly accused of rudeness, "attacks", "hatred" when absolutely NONE of those things are in evidence. To most fundamentalists, simple disagreement is an existential threat; you might as well be trying to mow them down with an AK-47 so far as they are concerned.

If so, I'd have to say that he was the least tenacious proselytizer I've ever seen. Like a missionary who goes to the Amazon and turns tail at the first mosquito bite.