Once again I've missed the fun...

[_asbestosman]

Yup, that seems to have been the one exception. The rest he did not dispute, and the rest was a very great deal, enough to make the Maxwell Institute dump him.

You do not seem to be disagreeing with beastie here.

I haven't followed everything in depth. tl;dr.

My understanding is that Will sees his double-entendres as humorous. He consistently denies that they reflect any hatred of women. I'm not sure what his claim is about insults dealing with age or appearance, but I'm quite certain that he denies it is indicative of misogyny--certainly no more than posters hurling male-genitals at each other is an indication of misandry even if a woman hurls it at a man.

I've already said I don't agree with Will's behavior. I'm not sure I care to classify it as misogyny or not. I simply agree that what Will did was wrong because it was over-the-top insulting.

[_Droopy]

Will never claimed to have called anyone the c-word. Ever. He has been consistent in saying it is a vicious lie.

Yes, he has, and has never varied from that assertion. That allegation also implicates the pure-as-driven-snow MsJack in a rather unwholesome stew of premeditated character assassination, to which she of course responds with shock and dismay.

So why do people pile on Daniel Peterson? Is he disingenuous? a sophist? a nuisance?

Peterson is an effective and articulate defender of the Church against precisely the kind of criticism found in abundance here and which, if not dominates, represents the historical preponderance of much within the anti-Mormon world.

The internet stalking of Daniel by Scratch over the years in, what was to me an orgy of character smearing, is indicative of he general tenor here among the anti-Mormon faithful.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Will never claimed to have called anyone the c-word. Ever. He has been consistent in saying it is a vicious lie.

Will plays fast and loose with the truth. Refer to the "I didn't lose my tooth" story. I'd expect there is a similar word game behind this incident as well. His credibility is shot.

[_Kishkumen]

So why do people pile on Daniel Peterson? Is he disingenuous? a sophist? a nuisance?

Daniel has also had his defenders here. I have been among them. I continue to be in contact with him on occasion. In fact I sent him a message earlier today. Having said that, when I read his posts on that infamous Murphy thread from ZLMB, I have to conclude that he has the capacity to be all of the above. It doesn't make him a terrible guy, but as an apologist his methods sometimes leave much to be desired. This is not news.

How about Nehor?

Hey, while I like The Nehor in some ways, he can be a real prick. But Nehor has his positive points. We can say now without hesitation that he does not spare the feelings of an apologist who is a bad writer, when that person's writing is being criticized. Ouch!

I think the reason I'm not targeted is simple: I don't criticize the thoughts of critics much. Oh sure, maybe I criticize stuff by Buffalo or Sockpuppet, but we've got a special thing going.

Are you still on this navel gazing bender? Listen, asbestos, all of this is in degrees. Haven't we fought it out at times? The thing is, you are smart, decent, interesting, honest, and fair. You are not going to compromise your principles to win, or excuse your indulgence of your ego by claiming that you are simply a tirelessly loyal defender of the faith while others are less stalwart.

I have had positive interactions with just about every apologist I have come across. I have even complimented Will, Pahoran, Droopy, bcspace, and Wade. Much of the time, though, they irritate me. I don't feel like a get a whole lot of enjoyment or payoff from reading them.

Will had some really cool thoughts on the LDS gospel, but he hardly ever shared them here. He was too busy taking a dump on the front porches of our trailers. Pahoran is a master insult artist and not much more. Droopy, bcspace, and Wade are so tedious that I hardly even bother reading them anymore. I doubt that my objection to these people has as much to do with their faith as their style and personalities.

If you want to believe that your fairly decent relations with people like me is indicative of some failure of faith or character, I can't stop you, but I refuse to agree. I can understand why it would cause one to reflect a little, though.

[_Kevin Graham]

The important thing to take away from all this is that Pahoran is not here to defend SeattleGhostWriter.

LOL!

Good times indeed!

I love how droopy and others keep referring to the C-Word incident, but fail to address the more egregious acts of vulgarity. Loran and Pahoran both are essentially defending two characters.

The first, called women whores and bitches, and also accused us all of engaging in group anal sex while the men ejaculated in an orgiastic circle. This is indisputable, and even Pahoran finally came around and admitted this was true. But he continues to defend apologists of low character anyway...

The second, the erotic, stub-crotched apologist, who has done nothing but lie since being caught red-handed having produced erotica material while at the same time acting as an apologist for the Mormon faith. Pahoran has tried desperately to call him "one of our own" during this time, despite the evidence to the contrary. SGW's lies to the contrary are all they need, same as in the case of Will's c-word incident. All they need is his denial, and they swallow it whole. But the funny thing is they act like we're supposed to just take what they say for granted, despite their history of lying to us.

They're going to defend their own, at all costs.

The funny thing about all this is Pahoran will pretend we're just a bunch of liars who are bloodthirsty and dying to attack an apologist based on the flimsiest of evidence. However he comes here and brings up some idiotic accusation about "sex for drugs" based on no evidence whatsoever. All it took was Juliann's assertion that it happened, without mentioning any names at all. Had anyone here made such a statement about anyone at MAD, he'd be calling us cowards and charlatans for making such baseless claims. But because they're members of his tribe, and we're the "traitors", he just goes along with the double-standard while pretending to have credibility.

Indeed, these are very good times for critics of the faith. The best part is, they really don't have to do much as of late because the apologists are falling on their own swords, one after the other.

[_Kishkumen]

They're going to defend their own, at all costs.

I guess if one looks at all of this as nothing more than a game, it might be an interesting challenge to pick out the biggest douche bags to defend. I can't say much else than that without getting really insulting about both the defenders and the defended. Or should I say more insulting than I already have been? Yeah, that's it.

[_Ceeboo]

and also accused us all of engaging in group anal sex while the men ejaculated in an orgiastic circle.

This is a lie. Both times that I was involved, the people were clearly positioned to make a rectangle (NEVER was there a circle made)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kishkumen]

This is a lie. Both times that I was involved, the people were clearly positioned to make a rectangle (NEVER was there a circle made)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I'm so disappointed Ceeboo. I really expected you to catch on to "the Rhombus." It's the new kinky thing in The Trailerpark.

And here you go calling it a rectangle. You, sir, are a geometrical disgrace.

[_Pahoran]

In other words, you are accusing him of lying.

However, he didn't say he was out of the Church when he wrote all the erotica he's ever written. He said that he wrote a particular piece of erotica that someone here had jumped on.

If he is still writing something he calls "erotica," I'd wonder how that's compatible with Church standards. But I do not see that that somehow justifies yet another of the dog-pile threads for which this sty is becoming famous.

When one person makes two directly contradictory claims, then that person is either lying or has a terrible memory.

And what "two directly contradictory claims" are they?

On the one hand, he claimed to have written a particular piece before he returned to the Church. On the other, he says he is still interested in writing "erotica." Granted that this may well be problematic, depending upon what's in it (contrary to the spiteful asinumptions of the herd, I haven't read any of it) the "contradiction" appears to be either manufactured or merely imagined.

Well then, if she never claimed it, how do you know she is "the person in question?"

And how did all the posts relating to the matter manage to disappear?

Instead of being parlayed into a 60+ page thread?

Could it be that the accused party was not an LDS defender, and thus was considered to be a fully human person with rights?

What a novel idea!

I don't recall there ever being posts relating to the matter. It was a behind-the-scenes accusation made by a person who likely had serious emotional challenges. I assume this is the same individual because some parts are "almost" right, but not quite.

From what I heard, there were posts, but they got "moderated" out of existence.

No poster can control how many pages a thread lasts. This is a weak attempt to portray not only your statements on this thread, but just about every thread you've ever participated on as fundamentally different than focusing on "personalities."

Okay, then forget the page count. As an avid rugby fan, I understand, as you do not, the fundamental difference between throwing the elbow while playing the ball, and ignoring the ball to go after an opponent. The fact is that there was no ball in play when the muck-raking diva, with obvious relish, lined up Will for her behind-the-ruck tackle.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I would say that any loyal Latter-day saint who is either disingenuous, a sophist, a nuisance, or just a plain asshole probably does paint a target on his or her back by posting here in ways that reflect those characteristics. Big surprise.

Compare them with those who don't resemble one of those descriptors, and the likelihood that everyone will dog pile that person greatly diminishes.

Question for clarification, Kish: Are you telling us that you actually approve of the vindictive jihad threads that this sty regularly spawns, or are you merely cheering from the sidelines because you simply haven't the vertebrae to stand up to the hagarchy?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,
Pahoran