At RT: don't apologize to me for that. I was actually talking off-forum after my post detailing my suspicions that that was probably not the right way to go about it and was thinking of apologizing for not doing that more privately when you got back. But then fightin' words done started happening and I got swept away.
Took a lot of your comments to mean that you were just being a nice guy the whole way through instead of handling it nicely, the latter part I could've agreed with. Like this threw me:
https://twitter.com/TheRationaliser/status/636493456974696448 You see where I'm coming from?
Off to work, but re you and Yeez and Helene: we might have to disagree on that point. I don't think a lot of religious people have their faith shaken when a figure is caught in an ironic lie, like I was telling gal. These stories are as old as religion. Rapists in the church. Gay gay-hate preachers. Adulterers, liars, thieves, opportunists. Doesn't dent the religion, or it would've by now. Ideas and dialogue do. In all but a very few cases, if any, Tzortzis' supporters will think twice about Tzortzis, not their beliefs. Tzortzis goes, focus shifts to one of the others in the endless supply of charismatic salesmen.
Although we still should rise to meet the apologists. But the devil is in the details: do it intellectually, combat their ideas, expose them specifically for something that is harming others. Taking them down for character flaws like this will not have quite the same results. Satisfying, perhaps, but that's all I can agree on. If you're interested, try looking at the earlier pages of the thread. Whabbist and Hassan and HappyMurtad all made excellent posts on the matter that I think would be worth reading. I'd be interested to hear what you say afterwards. That was the better part of the discussions on this thread.
And for the last part of your post just now, Helene, I don't disagree. Actually agreed some posts back, somewhere in that mess.