Here, Norman boasts that he gave "internet atheists" a lesson in logic on Twitter. Now, I haven't seen him on Twitter because I don't use the service. But I would expect that, if he had the capacity for coherent thought, he would demonstrate it in one of the places I have seen him.
"Even though it is clear to anyone without a seriously diseased mind that they were wrong, they still insisted that they were right, and I was wrong."
Well, Norman is really not all that persuasive, at least to those who focus on the logic (or lack of same) in his arguments. I have never seen someone go from undecided to agreeing with Norman on the basis of his argument. But, if you look closely, you can see that he starts by "poisoning the well." He is claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with him has "a seriously diseased mind."
"My intelligent readers who have read the article know full well that I said no such thing. A comment was left making reference to the book of Psalms, but no claim of 'proof' was made."
You want to know what I find interesting about this? He doesn't give a screen shot of his own comment. Oh, but look, they're timestamped. He can't make a fresh one because the timestamp will out him. Presumably, he doesn't give a screen shot of his own comment because it won't help him.
"By the way, I've noticed that his hating friends are not interested in logic enough to check the source (my posts) and see that he is making things up. Other have posted distortions and mockeries of what I said, deliberately misunderstanding for the sake of ridiculing God — but I don't have time or the interest to show more of the same."
Well, from what I see -- which, of course, is only what Norman allows to be shown; very few people outside of high school are in a position to check Twitter to verify; I certainly am not inspired to set up an account to verify the rantings of someone I know lies -- they are mocking Norman, not any god. But it is quite possible that he thinks that highly of himself. Now, I'm not impressed with ridicule. At best, it is a sign of frustration when dealing with an individual who just will not listen -- actually quite likely with Norman. But the fact that you can mock somebody does not mean that you can argue against him.
"And oh, boy! When you catch them in a lie or show the errors in what passes as 'reasoning' in their corrupted brains, you are called a liar, stupid, 'fundie' and everything else except 'correct.'"
Well, in Norman's case, it's probably because he has a habit of lying and is seen by a lot of people as stupid. Quite often, his "proof" that a non-christian is wrong consists of quoting a bible verse that agrees with him. So, no, I wouldn't be very inclined to call him "correct." It's pretty much the standard disclaimer "Any similarity between the claims of 'Norman' and actual events current or historic is entirely coincidental."