What I did do, however, was re-issued the challenge to him to hold an impartially moderated debate on neutral territory that panicked him several years ago. The result was the same - total panic, abuse, crude threats and a desperate attempt to save face.
Readers of my blogs, Facebook friends and former followers on Twitter will be aware that I have been the obsessive attention of an Internet stalker and abuser with a long record of posting abuse and threats to people on social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+. He is of course the former Catholic seminarian and now unemployable Manuel de Dios Agosto from the Bronx who was expelled from seminary in 2004 and who assumes a number of different guises to support his fantasising and abusive activities.
Manuel has just had his two latest Twitter accounts suspended following a complaint from me that he was linking to a fake blog he has created in my name to further his obsessive campaign of abuse and harassment, bringing his total up to 31, all suspended or deleted.
Agosto paid the anual $12 fee for the domain name RosaRubicondior.com with money donated to him by a naive young follower, the unfortunate Susan Fox @testisfidelis (doesn't that mean failthful gonads?) who gave him $25 and actually seemed proud of it - the only donation he's managed to con someone out of 'to support my ministry', despite constant begging and boasting in a comment on my blog that people give him hundreds of dollars.
He now posts infantile blogs on this fake site purporting to be by me, plagiarised and altered copies of my blogs and general abuse, even issuing frequent challenges to it to come and debate him, which of course he ignores so he can claim I ran away. He even has a fake Google+ account posing as me, as well as several other accounts he spams my blog with.
Now however, having nothing else to do all day but post abuse in his one remaining outlet, Google+, Manuel unwittingly blundered into a trap. I challenged him in public to the same debate on the same terms and conditions as the one which panicked him so badly and set him off on his psychotic obsession with me almost three years ago. Unlike Twitter, where the posts are only normally visible briefly, Google+ posts are less volatile, so harder for Manuel to deny.
As expected, he panicked again and went into a frenzy of over-stimulated psychosis.
How he fell into this trap and his subsequent descent to a new low in dishonesty, even for Manuel, can be followed on this G+ page where Ellif D'Wulfe had posted a link to a blog I wrote some time ago concerning Dan Barker's Easter Challenge. Manuel had of course been unable to resist the temptation to post more abuse about me including, yet again, his claim that I am afraid to debate him - which is his normal stock in trade and is normally followed up with accusations of criminal activities against his latest victim. Apparently, he thinks this somehow enhances his status in the eyes of his gullible and credulous followers who will then give him money.
For more on this and on further lies by Manuel, aka 'Sac', see Ellid D'Wulfe's blog Rosa & Sac Debate?.
Probably the best place to start in the ensuing thread is where I ask if Manny has posted his answer to the Easter Challenge yet, which prompted his usual squirming excuses, the relevant bit being:
Talking of challenges, any sign of the answer to the Easter Challenge yet? I believe you boasted you could meet it some time ago but seem to have forgotten to post it.
Or should I set up fake blogs in your name and spam the Internet telling people Manny has run away from yet another challenge and then accuse you of all sorts of criminal activities, like you do, even when you haven't told your latest victim about the challenge?
No, I won't bother with that, Manuel, because that behaviour simply isn't normal. Its not the actions of a sane person.
His excuse was:
Thr [sic] challenge is almost complete but your content is not fitting well because you added charts. It will be posted shortly.
There are no charts on the challenge blog, as can be seen. However, to be charitable to Manuel, he probably confused a table with a chart. There is no reason at all why he can't copy and paste from a table, of course, or, if he doesn't know how to, there is no reason he can't type the words himself.
There are no charts on the challenge. Do try not to lie with every post Manuel.
yes there are. Each question and bible passages are in a chart [sic].
It shows up as a chart on my page. How do you remove it?
You don't need to remove it. You just need to post your response to the challenge without further prevarications and attempted diversions. At the moment you are providing me with a lot of information for a new blog - and I don't need to make stuff up. How does 'Cowardly Catholic' sound for a title? How about 'Manny Runs Away Again'?
I could include a link to the first time you ran away from a simple challenge. I expect you remember - lots of other people do. http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/08/debate-is-there-scientific-evidence.html
You ran from me. It is documented.
Are you thinking of the time you spammed my Twitter account with dozens of demands to debate you at about 3 am UK time and declared victory within about half an hour? IIRC, I wrote that up as an illustration of how Christian fundamentalists lie to us, I then issued that formal challenge to a neutral, moderated debate to call your bluff, and you promptly disintegrated and haven't got over it yet. Here's how I recorded it at the time. You memory really is shocking, Manuel. It's a good thing this stuff is a matter of record. http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-christian-fundamentalists-lie-to-us.html
And like a pike taking a spinner, he swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker:
Yes. I invited you and you accepted. Then you began to dilly dally. It is all documented. Till this day you still are running. We can have the debate live on hangouts if you wish.
At this point, Manny seems to realise what he's blundered into as he starts to issue blatant threats, clearly intended to cause alarm. I screen-captured that one because these sort of post by Manny have a habit of disappearing, especially when referred to by others, just as quotes from his own blog tend to be edited just before he accuses you of lying about what he said:
Then I reeled him in and landed him, flip-flopping and floundering like a fish out of water, suddenly finding himself in the strange territory of grown-up debate, with real science as the topic. I imagine this brought the terror of Grace H Dodge High School science classes flooding back and trying to keep his head down in case he was asked a question and the class laughed at him:
But perhaps that's a fantasy on my part. Grace H Dodge was shut down soon after Manny left because it's poor standards, so maybe Manuel never did any science.
My challenge is still open if you still not too cowardly. We just need to agree a neutral referee. I gather ReverendSue left Twitter. Any thoughts or are you still too afraid to not be able to delete replies and post abuse with impunity? Same challenge -
Terms and conditions
The topic for debate will be the proposition that:
There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.
This debate will take place between the proposer (the person calling himself @Sacerdotus) and myself. It will be conducted according to the following rules:
The proposer will supply an agreed scientific definition of the Christian God against which the proposition can be tested, precise details of the evidence and how it can be verified, how it could be falsified and how it establishes the truth of the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will be regarded as conceding the debate.
A neutral referee will be agreed. The rulings of this referee will be final and binding on both parties to the debate. The referee will rule on:
Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.
Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.
The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.
Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.
Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.
Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.
The referee may intervene at any time to declare the debate won, lost or drawn.
Should either party fail to provide evidence for which a claim of its existence has been made, the debate will be considered lost.
Making any claim which is shown to be untrue or unsupported by evidence will result in forfeiture of the debate.
Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.
Failure to respond to an reasonable point, answer a reasonable question or to supply the evidence requested within three days (subject to notified periods of absence) will result in forfeiture.
The debate will take place across two blog sites; this one and @Sacerdotus' own blog. Each party will make it clear which point is being addressed. A record of the entire debate may be published in full at the discretion of either party.
These terms and conditions, and the topic for debate are a copy and paste from the ones which started Manny on his downward slide a few years ago.
True to form, Manny panics just like before and demands any debate at a time and place of his choosing and on a venue he controls. There can only be one reason he won't accept a neural forum and impartial moderation or the basic rules of any civilised debate. It's not hard to work out why he's afraid of this.
So let's do it on Google Hangouts. I will set up the event.
Nope. The debate will not take place solely on any site controlled by you. Your refusal to debate on neutral territory or across two sites will be regarded as cowardice. Now, you can either accept or run away in humiliation again. Either way, it's a win for me, because your claim is not scientifically sustainable, as you know.
I don't think I could have spelled it out more clearly. I will not debate with an attention-seeking troll in a venue he controls, and I will regard any refusal on his part to agree to a neutral forum with impartial moderation as indicating cowardice.
Needless to say, Manny won't agree to this and won't even acknowledge the challenge I have made to him, just as before. Still the same cowardly poser afraid to engage in real debate because he knows he can't sustain his fraudulent claim and will be exposed as the scientifically illiterate narcissistic fraud that he is.
In full hyper-psychotic flow he ploughs on, now feigning an inability to read my comments:
Here is the link, spreading it around so everyone can watch. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/ct9k7huptl9rq3s5elkfbf2us5c
The debate will be on youtube/hangouts live, in real time. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/ct9k7huptl9rq3s5elkfbf2us5c
You don't appear to have accepted the challenge yet. Are you too afraid of a neutral venue or an impartial referee still?
No. The debate will be according to the conditions I have outlined. Why are you too afraid of neutrality and impartiality?
Would you like me to repost the terms and conditions I posted a few moments ago, as you seem to have forgotten them already? Or should we take that as another cowardly refusal?
I'll give you 24 hours before I record another cowardly refusal to engage in a neutral, impartially moderated debate. I'll then write it up if +Ellif D'Wulfe is okay with me cutting and pasting from his G+ page.
just show up for the hangouts, it is already set up. I gave you a few days to prepare as you will need it against me. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/ct9k7huptl9rq3s5elkfbf2us5c
I'll record that as another cowardly response then. Don't you wish you have the courage and integrity to debate people properly, Manuel, instead of this well rehearsed sham of challenging people then demanding the right to set infantile conditions and control the venue? It's that sort of behaviour which makes you such a figure of derision and contempt, Manuel.
I'm happy to have exposed you as a fraud again, just as I said I would this morning. Like taking candy from a baby.
Done with you now. Thanks for being my unwitting assistant again.
Soon after this exchange he began making threats towards Ellif D'Wulfe to 'make a scene', boasting that he had details of his address and that of his friends. This has been removed and reported, as has Manuel's threat of legal action - a normal tactic when he feels he's been humiliated yet again. Ellif then blocked him from posting further comments on his page.
Apparently he feels it's okay for him to abuse, plagiarise, impersonate, reveal private details, true of imagined, lie about and defame, anyone of his choosing in any medium of his choice, but the law somehow protects him from being called on it, just as he threatened to report Oxfam to the police for telling the world that he was lying about my donations to them. It is of course all bluff, intended to intimidate because he has no other means of defending himself and can't control his habitual lying and abuse. According to Manny, I should have been arrested and extradited to America to face accusations of correcting his lies multiple times by now. No doubt the 'UK Authorities' as he calls them are about to make an arrest again...
But it reinforces the warning that several people have been giving - don't give any personal details at all to Agosto, not even an email address, because he may well start to stalk and harass you and will post private details and claims to have evidence of criminal activities, fraud, child abuse and/or terrorism and may attempt to contact members of your family. This inadequate little man actually enjoys the attention this behaviour gets him and the thought that he may be causing alarm and distress to another person. It's his way of feeling better about himself.
And now I hear he is spamming the fake Rosa Rubicondior blog he owns with this invitation, with the clear intention of claiming I agreed to them and is spamming anyone who will listen with claims that I have agreed to his challenge on his terms and conditions.
So there we have it. Manny has panicked at a simple challenge yet again and has now agreed with himself that I am to debate him in the small hours of the morning UK time in a venue which he alone controls and where he is free to delete replies and questions, rule anything out as a fallacy or an ad hominem and declare himself the winner. And all to attract traffic to his site where he can beg for money to
At several points in the above I emphatically refused his conditions, none of which went acknowledged by Manny in his state of over-excitement. As can be seen, no where did I agree to debate with him anywhere other than in a neutral forum on that specific topic with impartial moderation.
The person who ran away from free and fair debate on his absurd claim to have scientific proof of the Christian god, was Manuel de Dios Agosto, the expelled seminarian, online beggar, Internet stalker and serial abuser from Bronx, who poses as a world-renowned academic with multiple higher degrees whilst behaving like an emotionally retarded simpleton from his room in his mother's apartment.
And of course, he never did manage to complete the Easter Challenge.
[Update 06 April 2015] I assume in an effort to save face, or in pursuit of some sort of vendetta for being humiliated again, Agosto pestered me with repeated requests to log on to his hangout for two hours from 05:30 a.m local time today, despite being told several times that I will not debate him in a venue where he is free to manipulate the debate, exclude people at will and delete replies, despite no agreement from me about the date and time and despite no topic for debate ever having been specified, as can be seen from the above record and that independently recorded by Ellif D'Wulfe on G+ and in his blog.
I have now blocked him and reported his account for harassment. I suggest others do likewise and repeat the warning against giving him any personal details whatsoever. He will even use your G+ account to harass you at all hours of the night if you admit him to your circle.