Another 'conversation', more posts deleted - and this time it came with a threat

In my previous entry here, I outlined how bullying of commentators on The Conversation's threads is tolerated. I referred to one particular individual, Mark Harrigan. Well, he continued to goad me on. I made an error when I noted that the term 'homophobia' was invented by a homosexual. I should have said that the inventor is a homosexualist activist. Harrigan immediately pounced on my error:

Ms Ng claims "Homophobia is a term invented by a homosexual"
---
Making it up as she goes along as usual it would appear? Perhaps Dr Weinberg had people like Ms Ng in mind when he coined the term. It is certainly apt in this instance.
But, Dania, don't let facts or evidence get in the way of your prejudice - after all - you haven't up till now :)

My response included an acknowledge of my error, and I took the opportunity to point out the unsavory character of the chap who coined the term, a clinical psychologist by the name of Weinberg who claims that he is heterosexual:

Harrigan is correct when he states that I was mistaken in claiming that Weinberg, the inventor of the term 'homophobia', is a homosexual. I should have said that he is a gay activist, which makes him at least a honorary homosexual. He is also a heterophobe, so I don't know how he lives with himself. Here is what he said in an interview: "Another high point was getting a PhD in clinical psychology at Columbia and seeing how hidebound, unimaginative, inhumane and stupid my classmates and the professors were, with very few exceptions" ... " the last things I placed in [my mother's] hands, as she lay dying of a brain tumor, was my book summing up my views on the doctors who said that anal intercourse was sick but had lived their whole lives with their heads up their ass" http://gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.asp In short, yes, I was mistaken about what is known of his sexual orientation, but - eew, what a creep!

And here is where Harrigan really got his goading skills going; he commented,

@ Dania - you really do sprout a lot of bigoted twaddle - "You see, the difference between current homosexual activism and, say, activism for animal rights is that the former aims not merely for human rights but it desires to extinguish heteronormativity"
The gay rights movement seeks simply to have same sex attarcted people affored the same human rights as everyone else. No more, no less. the so called "norms in society which differentiates heterosexuals from homosexuals" is just obfuscation for prejudice.
That your argument is laughable and bigoted is easily demonstated
"you see, the difference beteen black (or insert any ethnic group) activitsm and, say, activsim for animal rights is that the former aims not merely for human rights (for the oppressed group) but it desires to extinguish white normativity (the norms in the society that distinguish whites from blacks)"

Well, apart from the horrible prose and amateurish typos, and the racist analogy he ends with, Harrigan seems to have imagined that he had triumphantly exposed me as a bigot (his aim for months, hence his constant stalking everywhere I went on the Conversation's website). However, his feeble attempt at writing satire at my expense  prompted me at trying my hand at this craft in return. So I replied:

Lol, Harrigan is at it again, the few synaptic gaps he possesses can only lead to nincompoopian screeches as he misunderstands what is happening around him. Like a caged parrot, all he can utter is one melody, along the lines of ..."you really do sprout a lot of bigoted twaddle". Unaware of his simplistic gloating when he thinks he found a particularly tasty cracker crumb, he publicly and proudly preens his rainbow plumage giving us a glimpse of the extraordinarily vivid prejudicial fluff hiding underneath. As he did elsewhere on these threads, our rare bird equates heteorsexuality with racism.
I always recommend wide reading, try looking at what homosexualist 'activism' actually involves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-oppose-gay-marriage/2012/09/21/1cd0056c-02a2-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/gay-activists-threaten-violence
And let's not forget how the Gay Manifesto (an apparent 'satire') ends: "Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks".

Well, the comment was removed within hours. And another homosexual sympathizer, some feller calling himself Mark Amey, jumped in to have a go at me:
"Mrs Ng, your ad hominem attacks on Dr Harrigan are reprehensible, but I'm sure he will be quick to reply.
Just keep looking out for those militant gays...they could be up to anything!"

and after some further, almost incomprehensible shaize, he proclaimed:

"Perhaps I should start my own website, and become the moderator, and get rid of all of the comments that undermine my thesis??"

---

I responded as civilly as I could, trying to explain:

But you don't have to, Mark, you seem to do quite well here, promoting one particular view and complaining about and asking for other people's comments to be deleted. You got it made!
Harrigan is a serial stalker, he makes a habit of taking things out of context, not only in what I say, but other people's as well - see the links I provided at truth2be.net. He is a typical aggressive bully. He deserves to be treated and shown for what he is. His childish satire is perfectly fine with you and others, but give him some of his own medicine back and he and you squeak and scream blue murder. This is over a matter that is far from being a joke, or some fantasy that you see represented in 'nice shows' on TV, if you really want to understand what the reality is, look at something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuf5gAhDADQ

Needless to say, my posting was removed. This time a threatening email arrived in my inbox:

Dear Dania,
Could you please avoid ad hominem attacks on THe Conversation website? I will consider blocking your account if you do not.
Best wishes, 
Reema Rattan
Section Editor, Health and Medicine
The Conversation

It is amazing the people you meet online. There is a particular sort, who have latched onto dogmatic mantras. Having discovered one of the most evil ideologies to exist, which does away with any need to feel guilt about supporting the killing of millions of innocent lives, they seem to have no clue about the reality they aspire for and support. Yet, they attack anyone who tries to illuminate it for them. The sad part is that online publications like The Conversation appear to occupy the strategic high ground in making accessible authoritative and expert information to the community.  It apparently relies on 'experts' to write scholarly pieces, even opinion pieces on important social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, it is this kind of publication which radical and hateful activists and their sympathisers seek to control. God help those who step on their turf! However, I am a firm believer that God is not on the side of those who promote the idea that it is okay to kill innocent beings for any reason. I am proud and privileged to speak up against these things, even if I get banned from posting on the websites of prejudiced publications for doing so.