Damnatio memoriae: He who shall remain nameless

During my years exposing and combating hyperpreterism, one tactic used in an attempt to squelch what I have to say, especially because I am a FORMER hyperpreterist, is to simply not acknowledge my existence.  Hyperpreterists such as Sam Frost and Jason Bradfield actually had a policy on their website that people were not allowed to use my name.  They were allowed to cite things I said but they had to use the phrase "he who shall remain nameless" or some sort of description.

This idea of de-existing a person is found in the Latin phrase; Damnatio Memoriae or condemnation of memory.  We might think of it in terms of the phrase, "History is written by the victors".  In ancient times, there was a policy to wipe out all memory and mention of an enemy so that they in effect never existed.  In this way, they don't have to be dealt with.  Their ideas and words are deleted from sight.  This way of manipulation is a bit more difficult today so instead, a person attempting to use damnatio memoriae against someone would have to get people to willingly go along.

As I stated, some of the hyperpreterists couldn't get people to willing go along so they actually had to make it a policy and threaten to delete any postings that violated that policy.

Well, the influence of Sam Frost is again being seen but now with the supposed "anti-hyperpret" site Preteristblog.com ran by Dee Dee Warren (not her real name).  The irony is they continue to talk about what I am saying but instead of using my name (so that their readers can follow up), they have begun a practice of calling me "this person" or "someone" or "certain individual".

Now, Dee Dee may claim she is doing this because I supposedly crave attention and she doesn't want to feed my supposed ego.  Can a pariah with no "followers" actually have an ego?  But this caricature of me goes against what Dee Dee said BEFORE she was bought off by Kenneth Talbot.  Dee Dee responding to a hyperpreterist that claimed I simply wanted to be "part of something" said:

"And I do have to speak up once again as to Samuel attack on Roderick “needing to be a part of something.” Samuel, I have said this before so you have no excuse. Roderick did NOT jump at the opportunity to work with me here. In fact he declined at first, and then agreed to limited involvement, and it was I who insisted and pressed upon him. He did not seek whatever platform he has here. I gave it to him and refused to allow him to give it back." -- http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2563#comment-4303

So, which is it? Do I or do I not "jump at the opportunity" to be "part of something"?  Do I need to be "pressed upon" to act?  Do I or do I not "seek platforms"?

Many times, when damnatio memoriae is used against a person, they simply choose another name and continue saying the same thing they said as before.  And sometimes, they are fully accepted.  It is typically not the message that is rejected, but the messenger.  It is "personal" with these people. They can and will interact once the personage is destroyed.  That is why they make every attempt to destroy the person.  In fact, Sam Frost and Jason Bradfield have since rejected hyperpreterism (supposedly) and are often found using the EXACT same arguments I have used for years and yet it is fully accepted by people like Dee Dee.

The point is, I don't really care if "Roderick Edwards" gets acknowledgement for saying or doing XYZ.  I'll just keep on saying and doing what it is I have been saying and doing.  People like Sam and Jason, and Dee Dee will continue to subsume those words and the effect will still be the same; only slightly tainted by their hypocrisy.