Beastie rocks my socks.

[_Pahoran99]

Coincidentally, honorethos shared a citation from a paper that explains what I believe is going on with Pahoran:

"Further direct evidence that directional goals may bias memory search comes from studies showing that directional goals may bias reconstruction of one's past behavior. Subjects led to believe that toothbrushing ( Ross, McFarland, & Fletcher, 1981 ) or caffeine consumption ( B. R. Sherman & Kunda, 1989 ) was bad for their health reported having performed those behaviors in the recent past less frequently than did subjects led to believe that the same behaviors were good for their health. These findings support the notion that directional goals may affect memory search for evidence of past behaviors that are consistent with goals (in this case, the goal is to believe that one's own behaviors were conducive to health). However, in both cases, past behaviors may have been inferred from the newly`constructed beliefs about the positivity of the behavior in question. Thus subjects may have changed their`attitudes without realizing that change had taken place and then inferred their behaviors from their new`attitudes. This account seems plausible for Ross et al.'s study, in which the researchers made every effort`to ensure that subjects would not realize that their attitudes had changed: Subjects who were asked to recall the frequency of their behaviors did so in the context of an allegedly different study and were never asked about their attitudes. But the account seems less plausible for B. R. Sherman and Kunda's study, in which no such effort was made."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... &start=100

Despite Pahoran's current protests, I believed then, and still believe today, that Pahoran was referencing Gino as the lying apostate. It's makes the most sense within the context of the thread - apostates who lie about their marital break-ups.

Ah. Beastly tactic no. Second Amendment: when under pressure, produce a blast of irrelevant scholarship and try to intimidate your opponent into silence.

Let's see.

The events in question happened some fourteen years ago.

The discussion wherein you(!) are so non-arrogantly trying to tell me(!) what was really in my(!) mind happened five and a half years ago.

Well, it happens that about seven years ago, I started experimenting with creative writing. That is, I wrote a couple of short stories and started a novel.

The MC in the novel fragment was a country solicitor (that's a lawyer to you) who took on a case wherein a man was suing the Church. The MC, being the good guy, was acting for the defense. The plaintiff, a Mr. Guiseppe DiGiordano, wanted to sue the Church for brainwashing his brother and causing him to go mad and murder his family and commit suicide. The plaintiff also called an expert witness, Dr Martin Walters, all the way from Harmonyville Bible College in the USA.

All characters in the above are ficticious. Any resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, was entirely intentional.

It was a dreadful piece of writing, and I'm glad I didn't finish it.

So why is it relevant?

Because long before the ZLMB discussion, I had already identified the brother as the source of the anti-Mormon version. I don't have to rely upon my memory and any "directional goals" -- I have a written record of how I viewed those events.

Oh, and to forestall your inevitable accusation that I just made that up on the spur of the moment because it is convenient for me now: that's what I was referring to in my PM.

But I also believe that today, Pahoran firmly believes he was referencing the brother. I think his "directional goals" have altered his memory. Now he excuses the statements that make it clear he was referencing Gino with being imprecise, or my stupidity (see: risk of falling through concrete floors). It couldn't possibly be that he was really referencing Gino.

So you know what was going on in my mind better than I do.

Wow.

Fawn Brodie couldn't have done it better.

But his entire concession was that "Christine Jonson" maybe wasn't the best possible example of the point he was trying to make. I made the same concession, with fewer caveats and at least as good grace.

But to answer your demand, I mean question: given your intense anti-Mormon bias, your deep personal animus and your heavily invested agenda, the fact that you made the misinterpretation you did is not only understandable, it was probably inevitable.

Oh. My. God.

Well, you did ask. And you insisted on an answer.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran99]

We've spent a lot of time debating the "Gino or the brother" scenario. Yet I don't recall you answering my question about this debate.

How would focusing on the brother instead of Gino negate my charge that you were exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point?

One accusation at a time, please. (Note that I, unlike you, know how to say "please.") We'll move on to that question after you manage to bring yourself to admit that my position is mine to elucidate.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran99]

Quote:
I was perfectly well aware of this fact. This is frequently part of the pattern, which I did not elucidate. However, it is neither here nor there--the main point is that these people blame the Church for consequences that arise from their own actions.

Who are the "these people" referenced here? Gino. No mention of the brother.

Yes. Language is imprecise in general, and mine was imprecise on that occasion. I was not drafting a legal document, so perhaps my post ought not to be parsed with such pharisaical precision.

Funny. Here you admit that you were "imprecise". I guess that's the closest you will get to admitting that, on the Z thread, you certainly sounded like the apostate who blamed the church was Gino.

Yet, somehow, me understanding that is what you meant can only be the result of my intense anti-mormon bias, my deep personal animus and my heavily invested agenda.

Oh dear little Beastly.

I will readily agree that you would be justified in asking me a question about that.

A question based upon the rather incontestable fact that I am the world authority on my own thoughts, and therefore uniquely qualified to answer you.

There is nothing written there or anywhere else that justifies you arrogantly assuming to know what my position is or was better than I do.

When you understand that, we can move on.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

One accusation at a time, please. (Note that I, unlike you, know how to say "please.") We'll move on to that question after you manage to bring yourself to admit that my position is mine to elucidate.

Certainly your position is to elucidate your own position. That right does not necessarily include denying that a reasonable interpretation - not an interpretation colored by intense bias, etc - of your words then - words that, by your own admission, weren't well phrased - could be that you were really referring to Gino.

The MC in the novel fragment was a country solicitor (that's a lawyer to you) who took on a case wherein a man was suing the Church. The MC, being the good guy, was acting for the defense. The plaintiff, a Mr. Guiseppe DiGiordano, wanted to sue the Church for brainwashing his brother and causing him to go mad and murder his family and commit suicide. The plaintiff also called an expert witness, Dr Martin Walters, all the way from Harmonyville Bible College in the USA.

All characters in the above are ficticious. Any resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, was entirely intentional.

What does that have to do with whether or not your words conveyed that you believed Gino blamed the church for his marital break-up? You're conflating blaming the murders on the church with blaming the marital break-up on the church. The point of the thread was never whether or not Gino - or anyone - was blaming the murders on the church. The point was whether or not he blamed the church for his marital break-up.

[_Pahoran99]

You and I had several exchanges since both of those events; and they seemed reasonably irenic. What has changed since then?

Regards,
Pahoran

It's a fair question. I didn't learn about the event with Runtu until after we had spoken.

It's discussed in the last thread where you and I conversed (and just a few posts beforehand.)

I probably would have not said anything had you not mentioned "class acts". The fact that you seem to think that those of us who post on MDB are beneath those who post on MAD just struck a nerve....particularly based on how you treated Runtu.

Actually dear Liz, it was you who brought the topic up. I was questioning Beastie's "class." Beastie, you recall, also posts on MA&DB.

And neither she, nor I, nor anyone else would ever get away with saying what she said to Bob.

Mind you, I've looked at the thread in question, and she did indeed apologise.

As I did to Runtu, incidentally.

So, in keeping with the even-handed application of standards here, we'll all agree to give Beastie a pass, and keep on sticking the knife into me.

Because my offense -- and the consequent apology -- is much, much older than Beastie's.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran99]

Hey Beastie: how about we both act as if the other is a reasonable person who knows how to converse? Who knows what that might accomplish?

One accusation at a time, please. (Note that I, unlike you, know how to say "please.") We'll move on to that question after you manage to bring yourself to admit that my position is mine to elucidate.

Certainly your position is to elucidate your own position. That right does not necessarily include denying that a reasonable interpretation - not an interpretation colored by intense bias, etc - of your words then - words that, by your own admission, weren't well phrased - could be that you were really referring to Gino.

But it does include allowing that "reasonable interpretation" to be tentative enough that if the other person says "I was not attributing the false version to Gino," you would then revise the interpretation, instead of accusing me of "rewriting history."

Because that, you see, is not reasonable.

If you want me to credit you with being honest in your arguments, then you really need to return the favour, Beastie. That's pretty much a bottom-line requirement for any sort of dialogue.

The MC in the novel fragment was a country solicitor (that's a lawyer to you) who took on a case wherein a man was suing the Church. The MC, being the good guy, was acting for the defense. The plaintiff, a Mr. Guiseppe DiGiordano, wanted to sue the Church for brainwashing his brother and causing him to go mad and murder his family and commit suicide. The plaintiff also called an expert witness, Dr Martin Walters, all the way from Harmonyville Bible College in the USA.

All characters in the above are ficticious. Any resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, was entirely intentional.

What does that have to do with whether or not your words conveyed that you believed Gino blamed the church for his marital break-up? You're conflating blaming the murders on the church with blaming the marital break-up on the church. The point of the thread was never whether or not Gino - or anyone - was blaming the murders on the church. The point was whether or not he blamed the church for his marital break-up.

It's true that the marriage had been in trouble for some time. But it did not finally break up until he murdered his family, set the house on fire, and committed suicide.

It's a one-package deal. You cannot separate the break-up from the murders, IMHO.

There is no "version" of the marriage break-up that is not also a version of the murders. Again, IMHO.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Yoda]

Mind you, I've looked at the thread in question, and she did indeed apologise.

As I did to Runtu, incidentally.

So, in keeping with the even-handed application of standards here, we'll all agree to give Beastie a pass, and keep on sticking the knife into me.

Because my offense -- and the consequent apology -- is much, much older than Beastie's.

Regards,
Pahoran

I'm glad that you apologized, and that you realized it was wrong to treat Runtu that way.

I do not, however, equate the two scenarios. Beastie swiping an off-color joke in Bob's direction doesn't compare to telling someone who is actually mentally ill to commit suicide.

Even so....since you did sincerely apologize, I'll consider it water under the bridge.....

Will you answer my question?

You wouldn't answer it when I asked you before.

Why do you feel the need to result to personally attack those who don't agree with you? Why can't you let your knowledge of the gospel speak for itself? Honestly....and you know I have said this to you before......When you verbally attack others, you end up discrediting your argument.

Yes, I hold you to a higher standard. You're a priesthood holder. Shouldn't I hold you to a higher standard?

[_Pahoran]

Mind you, I've looked at the thread in question, and she did indeed apologise.

As I did to Runtu, incidentally.

So, in keeping with the even-handed application of standards here, we'll all agree to give Beastie a pass, and keep on sticking the knife into me.

Because my offense -- and the consequent apology -- is much, much older than Beastie's.

Regards,
Pahoran

I'm glad that you apologized, and that you realized it was wrong to treat Runtu that way.

I do not, however, equate the two scenarios. Beastie swiping an off-color joke in Bob's direction doesn't compare to telling someone who is actually mentally ill to commit suicide.

Even so....since you did sincerely apologize, I'll consider it water under the bridge.....

Will you answer my question?

You wouldn't answer it when I asked you before.

Why do you feel the need to result to personally attack those who don't agree with you? Why can't you let your knowledge of the gospel speak for itself? Honestly....and you know I have said this to you before......When you verbally attack others, you end up discrediting your argument.

It's a loaded question, Liz. I don't know that I do feel the need to personally attack anybody, so it's not clear to me that the fact to be explained actually exists as a fact.

Yes, I hold you to a higher standard. You're a priesthood holder. Shouldn't I hold you to a higher standard?

Personally I prefer level playing fields, myself.

As Beastie is aware.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Gadianton Plumber]

You prefer level fields? You are from MAD!

[_beastie]

It's true that the marriage had been in trouble for some time. But it did not finally break up until he murdered his family, set the house on fire, and committed suicide.

It's a one-package deal. You cannot separate the break-up from the murders, IMHO.

There is no "version" of the marriage break-up that is not also a version of the murders. Again, IMHO.

So, according to your view, Gino did not believe his marriage was breaking up?

It appears he knew the bishop told his wife to divorce him. Your "very likely" indicates agreement with the idea that the bishop's comments probably indicated this. His neighbor's comments indicate that he blamed the bishop for trying to get his wife to take the house - which could only be in a situation of actual divorce.

By your own admission, the marriage had been in trouble for a very long time, prior to the murders.

Yet, according to you, we can't discuss whether or not Gino blamed the church for the break up of his marriage - despite the fact that this was the topic of the entire thread. We can only discuss who blamed the church for the murders.

You clearly have been thinking of a way out of this pretty obsessively since I brought it up, and this is the best you can do. I think that is a good indication of how weak your argument is.