Changes

: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.".  That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying.  Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself.  So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie.  Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block.  Why didn't you mention the other?  Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels:  Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->

: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.".  That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying.  Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself.  So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie.  Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block.  Why didn't you mention the other?  Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels:  Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->

:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed.  That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party.  Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time.  Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science.  Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself.  There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed.  That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party.  Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time.  Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science.  Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself.  There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)