Re: Loquat...

Not necessarily, but there is at least some merit in regarding heaven & hell as mirror opposites, and therefore possessed of parallel attributes. The problem you have is that you're equating words like 'death' & 'perish' with annihilation, extinction, or complete destruction, etc. There is no philological basis for drawing such a conclusion, but I'm not so settled in my views that I'm unwilling to consider contrary evidence.

My mind is always open to such possibilities as these, but last time I checked in on this topic, it seemed to me that the evidence for conscious and eternal suffering was pretty conclusive. That it offends our sensilbilities is unfortunately insufficient grounds for rejecting it, and certainly not the most reliable guide against which to judge its morality. 

I would dearly love to believe in conditional immortality - it would certainly make Christian apologetics a lot easier. But as of right now, I am compelled to believe in eternal punishment, not coz I have some perverse desire to see evil people suffer for ever, but coz that's what the Bible says is their lot. In due course, I would like to see how you (or your co-annihilists) deal with all those passages that clearly teach (or at least imply) eternal suffering for the lost.

As for the bridge jokes, I do not necessarily regard your position on this topic as heretical. It was only a joke, after all. Eccentric maybe, stretching a few choice verses to say something they don't, perhaps, but heresy? Doubtful. Truth be told, I regard refreshed's post-advent salvation ideas a lot more troubling than nihilism, but even then I would still hesitate to think of her as a heretic. 

That cake is still mine tho.