beastie wrote:Thanks, Kish. From what I've observed of you, I would agree with your assessment. I also can be rude, but I also think that, at times, rudeness is justified.
“I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite. I do not want you to think that I’m very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus.”~Joseph Smith
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Bret Ripley wrote:I think you need to give him a little credit, Kish. I imagine it must be très difficile for him to type with arms fixed permanently akimbo.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I just can't take anything that they say about online viciousness and nastiness seriously when they never had any objections to paling around with William Schryver at his worst.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
MsJack wrote:I just can't take anything that they say about online viciousness and nastiness seriously when they never had any objections to paling around with William Schryver at his worst.
QFT. QED. DAMN SKIPPY.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Their comments are classic Victimology 101. Poke something with a stick. When that something pokes back, whine and cry as loud as you can about the aggressive nature of that something and how unfair it was you were poked back. Receive comfort from other martyrs.
Poke something with a stick again.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Dan and Bill's problem is that they insist on living in a bubble where everything they do can never be considered uncivil and any criticism of them or their method must always be so.
I remember a few years back when I was posting at MAD, I used the word "disingenuous" in the context of Will Schryver's apologetics. The moderators immediately reprimanded me, and then Dan, Pahoran and Bill leaped to the scene to warn everyone about how uncivil I am and that this remark was evidence that I should no longer be allowed to post there.
So I did a little search on the forum's search engine and pulled up a few posts from Pahoran, William and Dan, all of whom used the word "disingenuous" in criticizing "anti-Mormons." I then went on to show more examples of the word "deceptive," and then just for fun, decided to search the FARMS Review for similar examples and came up with something like a dozen.
I then argued that according to Dan's logic, his own publication, which he adores so much ans treats as true scholarship, is nothing if not uncivil.
I think I was banned shortly after that.
Because you have to keep the blind sheep in line by excluding anyone who would dare provide an outside perspective about how they are doing all the things they loved to accuse the critics.
Now I've called Dan a liar and a coward, and I'll stand by those charges any day of the week. The evidence is overwhelming and he refuses to address it. He and Bill hide away in their bubble, which is only getting smaller now that he no longer can use Maxwell as an apologetic shooting range. He's now confined to that pathetic excuse for a "discussion" board and his ridiculous blog, which of course, no comments are allowed. The Church no longer has his back, and his ego is bruised. This is all about Dan's ego, and his inflated sense of self importance. The little cult is shrinking though, and I think it will be fun watching the bubble eventually pop.
I can hardly imagine that calling MsJack an anti-Mormon would be labeled civil, yet I have seen members of Dan's crew do that repeatedly. Did he ever correct them?
No. Not that I have seen.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kevin Graham wrote:Dan and Bill's problem is that they insist on living in a bubble where everything they do can never be considered uncivil and any criticism of them or their method must always be so.
I remember a few years back when I was posting at MAD, I used the word "disingenuous" in the context of Will Schryver's apologetics. The moderators immediately reprimanded me, and then Dan, Pahoran and Bill leaped to the scene to warn everyone about how uncivil I am and that this remark was evidence that I should no longer be allowed to post there.
So I did a little search on the forum's search engine and pulled up a few posts from Pahoran, William and Dan, all of whom used the word "disingenuous" in criticizing "anti-Mormons." I then went on to show more examples of the word "deceptive," and then just for fun, decided to search the FARMS Review for similar examples and came up with something like a dozen.
I then argued that according to Dan's logic, his own publication, which he adores so much ans treats as true scholarship, is nothing if not uncivil.
I think I was banned shortly after that.
Because you have to keep the blind sheep in line by excluding anyone who would dare provide an outside perspective about how they are doing all the things they loved to accuse the critics.
Now I've called Dan a liar and a coward, and I'll stand by those charges any day of the week. The evidence is overwhelming and he refuses to address it. He and Bill hide away in their bubble, which is only getting smaller now that he no longer can use Maxwell as an apologetic shooting range. He's now confined to that pathetic excuse for a "discussion" board and his ridiculous blog, which of course, no comments are allowed. The Church no longer has his back, and his ego is bruised. This is all about Dan's ego, and his inflated sense of self importance. The little cult is shrinking though, and I think it will be fun watching the bubble eventually pop.
CLEVER, use their own evidence against them. Interesting that it was *evidence* that got you banned, not your own testimony or spiritual views. The PHYSICAL evidence is what did the trick. It will always fall, for good or bad, on whether there is evidence or not. The reaction against you clearly shows the evidence was there and it made it's point. Thanks for the comments, very interesting!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
The problem is the way he treats certain others, the way he personalizes his disagreements. And I'm not referring merely to the insulting, nasty, and unjust way that he treats me -- and treats me and treats me and treats me, in hundreds of posts annually, day in and day out, year after year -- but the vile and ferocious way he treats a number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom actually post over at his board and some of whom have never appeared there at all. Taunting, mocking, insulting, maligning, sneering, defaming -- it's acutely painful to watch. Even when, sometimes, I think he actually has a point, the uncharitable, gleeful, seemingly sadistic reviling in which he indulges himself at the expense of his targeted victims makes me almost sick to my stomach. I expect such things from a number of those there; I think some of them may be seriously unhinged. But I'm disheartened to see such things coming from him.
This is as much a distortion as Dan thinks Kish is distorting him. I really don't see visciousness from either side for the most part.
