Mr. Scratch's Guide to FAIR

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, I am confident people can discern things for themselves given the vast amount of crap, er, uh, "data" you left behind on my forum.

Oh, and there is nothing misspelled in that sentence.

Being corrected by the village idiot would be cause for concern, but you don't offer valid corrections. Again, I never said educated people never make typos. But there is a clear difference between leaving out two letters (especially while using a wireless keyboard with low batteries) and the spelling mistakes you make so frequently. Do I really need to make a list? None of yours could be mistaken for typos.

[_asbestosman]

So now you're saying Kevin didn't say Hauglid was dishonest? Which is it?

The latter. I made a semantic error.

If Kevin meant fabricate as in "constructing" a reason to leave out of available evidence the way one constructs a logical argument, then why would Kevin complain about it? That just doesn't make sense to me. That is why I see an element of being less than forthright, especially in light of how he said Pacman et al do it too.

Now that's a convoluted sentence if ever I saw one. Care to try again? Because my first and second response are both the same: huh?

If Kevin meant fabricate as in "construct", it would imply he meant Hauglid was constructing a reason to leave out of available evidence. This is analagous to how one constructs a logical argument out of agreed upon facts (or premises). If that's the case, then why would Kevin complain about Hauglid constructing a logical argument for leaving? Shouldn't Kevin have stuck with denying the premises (which Kevin also did)? Why say that Hauglid appears bent on constructing an argument for leaving? Now if Hauglid was tyring to construct a specious argument for leaving (one that appears valid, but really isn't so), then why did Kevin not stick with the evidence and politely clarify where Hauglid was mistaken? Why guess motives unless you are angry because you believe his motives are less than honest?

Another reason I interpreted fabricate in context to mean looking for a pretense (or poor-excuse) is that Kevin has now gone on to complain about how Pahoran, Schryver, Pacman, and others also imply that Brent is being less than honest with some of his dealings. It sounds like he's saying, "but they do it too". Isn't that a tacit admission that Kevin has also implied others are being less than honest just as Pacman and the gang allegedly do?

[_asbestosman]

In response to his comments in the pundits forum, all I did was say Brian was looking for a way out of a dead-end discussion. He proved my point. He was. He was fabricating a reason for his departure based on his assumption that Brent was, for some weird reason or another, going to start being rude to him like I had allegedly been. Brent did nothing, absolutely nothing, to warrant such a suspicious accusation by Brian.

I suppose an uwarranted assumption isn't necessarily dishonest if that's all you meant. Even so, weren't you still saying Brian was trying to leave for a reason other than the one he would state? If so was Brian being honest?


Honestly, I am getting tired of trying to determine whether Kevin accused Hauglid of "lying" or being less than honest or whatever. I'm just saying I can see why it is easy to interpret things that way.

[_Pahoran]

Okay Snaga, so according to you, we are supposed to believe the following chain of events took place:

1) Dan invents a completely bogus post, right out of whole cloth, and attributes it to you.
2) Dan then publicly apologises to you for misrepresenting you.
3) You then post on RfM and identify yourself as "the same old Scratch from FAIR."

And now, here's the real kicker:

4) You now are active in this forum, with a spiteful, foul-mouthed, trash-talking posting style completely consistent with the "douche bag" post you so vehemently deny making.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that Dan deliberately invented a false accusation against you, and that you only subsequently developed a posting style that makes his accusation completely plausible?

Let's see. Dan as a false accuser--or you as a false denier. Dan as a false accuser--or you as a false denier. Dan as a false accuser--or you as a false denier.

Gawrsh, that's just so hard to figure out!!

I'd be careful with your loyalty to your "precious" master if I were you, Pah. Professor Peterson likes to portray himself as a jovial saint, but he is no stranger to trash-talking (such as calling Tal Bachman "Tal Tales,"), being foul-mouthed (such as referring to Kevin Graham as a "jackass"), or smear tactics (such as his gossipmongering against Mike Quinn).

Also, you said elsewhere that he is your "friend." I say: Prove it. I've never seen him give any indication whatsoever that he views you as a "friend." Instead, I interpret his remarks towards you to mean that he sees you as an obnoxious, obsequious leech who's trying to ride around on his celebrity status, and that he only just barely tolerates you (and your "guard dog" status). I think you wish very, very much that DCP saw you as a friend, but I think that's probably just a pipe dream. Sorry to have to break it to you, my dear sweet friend Pah.

Proverbs 6:
16 ¶ These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I know him personally. You don't. You tried. You failed. Move on.

Especially since you finished your post with a blatant falsehood. You said, and I quote again:

all you've demonstrated here is that you've been engaging in gossip with the FAIRmods.

That's a brazen, out-and-out lie. Everything I posted, above, is in the public threads. AS YOU PERFECTLY WELL KNOW.

Thus, I read your other assertion:

I was the victim of a patented DCP smear campaign

You want some cheese with that whine? I guess "a patented DCP smear campaign" exactly equals "exposing your deceitful and two-faced behaviour."

I go back to Scott's question: "Who is the real Mr. Scratch: the earnest and solemn perfecter of the Saints with the long LDS pedigree, or the rabble-rousing, trash-talking, insult-spewing adventurer from the oddly named 'Recovery' board?"

I conclude that not only is the rabble-rousing, trash-talking, insult-spewing adventurer the real you, he was always the real you, while the "earnest and solemn perfecter of the Saints with the long LDS pedigree" is and always was as fake as a Thai Rolex.

Look Scratch, you were found out. The more you try to cover up with these wild and spiteful accusations, the worse you make yourself look.

Just accept it. You'll feel better.

Regards,
Pahoran

First of all, Gollum, I never said that Dan invented the post. I said that was "possible."

Hardly.

I think it's possible, too, that he simply misread something, or made an error in his cutting and pasting, provided that he does in fact maintain an RfM 'archive'.

Anything is possible, I suppose. However, it hardly seems likely, does it?

By the way, your 'assessment' of writing styles is highly questionable, given the ongoing problem you had discriminating Rollo from myself. Go ahead and keep stepping on your own toes, Pah.

Well then, let's put it to the forum, shall we?

(Singing)
Six of these things belong together,
Six of these things are kind of the same,
But one of these things is not like the others,
Now it's time to play our game.

1) Keep on suckin' that teat, Pah.

2) Or is this just more of you sucking up the milk of FAIR and sticking your nose up their butts?

3) you are basically an ass-kisser and a whore

4) Then prove it, suck-boy.

5) constantly and slavishly suckling at the teat of the ironically named FAIRboard

6) Peterson a lard ass and a douche bag

7) my goal is to perfect the Saints.

Which of these things is not like the others?
Tell me, can you guess which one?

Okay, fun over.

Numbers one to five are indisputably yours; they are a matter of record, right here on this forum.

Number seven is the one that doesn't belong there, but it is also yours; and, quite indisputably, you were (I'll be kind here) at least dissembling when you wrote it. Slavishly following your idol Rollo, whose cringing, over-eager lap-dog (to coin a phrase) you are, you piously posed as an oh so faithful Latter-day Saint with the very purest of motives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Which leaves you with a rather serious credibility problem. One not shared by anyone else in the scope of this discussion.

Not by Scott. Not by Dan. And not by me.

Number six is the one you deny. Why deny it? Is it actually any worse than any of the others? Do you think it makes you look any worse to your admirers here in the sty? Heck no! Keep it up, and you'll probably get elected Boss Hog around here.

Number six fits absolutely seamlessly in with the first five. It accurately represents your attitude and your posting style.

So either you wrote it, or Dan was supernaturally inspired to know what was behind the utterly fake veneer you tried to project.

Which was it?

By the way: Are you the author of "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"? This is the third time I've asked you. I'll take your silence this time around to be an answer of "Yes."

Asked and answered.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_wenglund]

Well, I am confident people can discern things for themselves given the vast amount of crap, er, uh, "data" you left behind on my forum.

And, I am confident that few people beside you, will actually care one way or the other (I don't)--certainly not enough to go through the time-consuming process of registering and plowing through the tedious exchanges between you and I. So, you are at least safe in that respect.

Oh, and there is nothing misspelled in that sentence.

I see...to your way of thinking the word "amount" is correctly spelled "about". Certainly, your spell-checker didn't catch it, so to your mind it must not have been misspelled. Now, that is high-level educational thinking fur sure. ;-)

Being corrected by the village idiot would be cause for concern, but you don't offer valid corrections. Again, I never said educated people never make typos. But there is a clear difference between leaving out two letters (especially while using a wireless keyboard with low batteries) and the spelling mistakes you make so frequently. Do I really need to make a list? None of yours could be mistaken for typos.

Kevin, I simply juxtaposed two exact quotes from you. I provided no commentary or suggestion, and I simply left the quotes to speak for themselves.

Yet, for some reason you: 1) felt the need to falsely assume that I was correcting you; 2) felt the need to call me a village idiot; 3) felt the need to consider as invalid the correction you falsely assumed I had made; 4) felt the need to deny ever saying something that I have yet to suggest that you had said; 5) felt the need to blame your keyboard for what you wrote; 6) felt the need to mention that I frequently make spelling mistakes; and 7) felt the need to draw a distinction between "typos" and "mispelling". Fascinating! Who would have imagined that my merely quoting you would generate such an extreme reaction...and to think you don't consider yourself hyper-sensative and reactionary.

Anyway, if it helps your fragile ego to list my spelling errors, then I don't mind. I am not the one who mistakely assumed that spelling is an indicator of education, nor is my sense-of-self dependant upon perfect spelling (obviously not for informal discussions on message boards). In fact, as previously mentioned to you, I have intentionally avoided using the spell-checker because I understand how desparately you need to feel superior to others, and that is my way of allowing you to feel superior to me. Think of it as a charitable sacrifice on your behalf.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

""Poor spelling is clearly an indication of lack of education"--Kevin Graham
"I am the one who handed DCP 12 copies of the book, hoping he would give copies to compenet reviewers only. . .I don't see how anyone could blame Holding for being atad upset since he expected a quality response by an LDS scholar"--Kevin Graham

[_moksha]

But, contrary to Scratch's jealous denials and projections, and having myself spent not a few years on a private e-list with both Pahoran and Dr. Peterson, I can confirm that these two men are, in fact, friends.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Somehow I find this disquieting. Does this indicate Dr. Peterson has a more clandestine and darker side?

...only if one is prone to seeing the boogey man in every nook and cranny.

I hope the scope of that list goes beyond methods of attacking ideas or persons the list generator disagrees with.

It did. In fact, a large portion of the activity on the list was devoted to addressing attacks made against us and our ideas that the anti's disagree with.

Does the scope of your disquiting include them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for answering Wade. Perhaps I was just letting my imagination run awry.

...

[_Pahoran]

I am not aware that Ol' Scratch--to give the devil his due, as it were--however bitterly he resents being banned from FAIR, and however viciously he festers over it, has ever actually tried to post as a sock-puppet. Although I am aware that he has tried various and devious tricks to log on using spoofed IP addresses, but I have no knowledge of him attempting to post in that mode.

(bold emphasis added)
Keep on suckin' that teat, Pah. Here's yet another question for you: How would you know this? Does this mean that you're a mod? Or that the mods have been gossiping to you? Regardless, I suppose that some level of surveillance does indeed go on within the annals of the ironically named FAIRboard.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions with that rather reluctant confession.

No, I am not a mod, and no, nobody dobbed you in to me. However, I was told that the mods were having trouble with people attacking the forum with spoofed IP addresses--no indication of who or when or where. Then I saw a post from you, here, in which you said something equivalent to "It's getting harder for me to get into FAIR. I managed to log on using a proxy server but the mods keep closing my accounts." Interestingly, when I try to search for that in the forum search engine, I can't find it now.

For crying out loud, Pah. Get your facts straight. This is what, the umpteenth time your are utterly screwing something up? Are you a complete idiot, or just a compulsive whiner?

None of the above.

I am simply trying to get to the facts, in the full knowledge that, despite your first-hand knowledge thereof, you are not to be relied upon as a source.

I'll gladly come right out and tell you what I've done. I have used a proxy in order to read FAIR. Are you even awared that the ironically named FAIRmods have actually gone so far as to ban people from even reading FAIR? Or is this yet another instance of you being a presumptuous moron who is too lazy to check facts?

How is that materially different from what I said?

I have never, ever "logged on" with a proxy server. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the "logged on with a proxy server" was written by another poster. Coffeecat, perhaps.

Perhaps. It doesn't matter, since I wasn't offering that as any kind of quote. You had previously admitted that you used a proxy server in order to beat FAIR security.

The fact that you are mistaking posters with one another doesn't exactly lend much creedence to your (and your sweet master, DCP's) totally unsupportable accusations above.

Another lie. What I reported above was simple facts; no "accusations" and nothing "unsupportable." You are becoming incoherent in your rage at being caught and exposed.

Is that because the search engine is unreliable, or is something else going on here?

Something else: namely that you are a presumptuous gollum and a jerk and that you're too lazy and/or stupid to properly check your facts.

Yet there they are. Funny that.

The fact is that using subterfuge to evade moderator action is an attack upon the forum.

What, reading? Cutting off information? Squelching critics? Which?

Since you are clearly not a complete ignoramus who doesn't know one end of a computer from another, you of course know that any attempt to breach a system's security is ipso facto an attack upon that system. It doesn't matter how benign you imagine your motives to be.

That you should choose to interpret defending against such attacks as "surveillance" shows that you have an extraordinarily egocentric world view. Evidently anything that isn't strictly according to your agenda and your wishes is sinister, if not downright evil.

What 'agenda'?

Your intense, obsessive, practically unbalanced, anti-Mormon rage and hatred.

And what "attacks"? Give me one example, Pah.

One example? Okay, your attempt to subvert FAIR system security.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Since one must be registered to view the post on my forum I was asked to post here, so here goes:

== I see that Kevin is a regular participant here. I'll give him a chance to set the record straight if he chooses. I can tell you that his most recent banning was for using sock-puppets.

I can also tell you that the moon is made of cheese, but that would also be nonsense. I find it utterly hilarious that the FAIR mods are still reinventing their position on why I was banned.

The FAIR mods have never "reinvent[ed] their position on why [you were] banned." You're not actually on the radar any more.

To clarifly what I said above: when I wrote "his most recent banning was for using sock-puppets," I intended to convey that "he was most recently banned in the person of a sock-puppet."

As anyone who can see – anyone who cares to anyway - the thread where I was banned made no mention of sock-puppets(Pahoran's excuse), nor did it make any mention of copyright infringement (Juliann’s reason why I was banned), nor did it mention my failure to keep an agreement to forgo talk on Islam (another ad hoc reason that was given by a mod). The chronological order of events pretty much renders these excuses as blatant falsehoods. I was banned for calling Hauglid a liar, which is something I never did.

Then you chose an extraordinarily poor word by which to attack him.

Period. And to this day it has not been demonstrated that I have broken one single "rule" in their list of board rules. The rules kept changing and they developed new ones for the sake of convenience.

So what do you expect? That they take the matter to court and lay out their case?

If you think you can justify away all your various infringements, then accept that you could just have been banned for being too high-maintenance.

And by the way, I have no sock-puppets at FAIR. My recent comment to which asbestosman refers was made in jest. I knew for a fact the FAIR mods had been frequenting my board – often hanging out in the “members list” area - and I also knew they had spent many hours trying to block dozens upon dozens of proxy servers (I know of at least 37 proxies they have blocked). My comment was made for fun, assuming they would read it and go nuts trying to figure out which monikers I had been using; perhaps even ban two other innocent, though suspicious posters.

Very funny. So, In other words, you are not above spreading disinformation on your own board, and you don't mind if it causes consequenses for others.

Got it.

Incidentally, KW Graham was deactivated about a month before I began to have problems with the mods. It frustrated me because I didn’t know why and I had been using that account to store many private messages from various posters. You’re only allowed 50 per account and mine was constantly overflowing, so I took advantage of those provided in the other monikers. Only recently did it dawn on me that they deactivated it because they were snooping in my private message cache, and didn’t like what they were reading.

And do you have any evidence that that was the case, or only your own strange suspicions?

At what time has any FAIR moderator ever said that they welcome multiple accounts per user?

== I don't know if all of them have; I do know that another one was recently.

Nonsense. The last moniker of mine that was banned was Kevin Graham.

Are you absolutely sure it wasn't Declan McKenzie? Wasn't it in that mode that you managed to bluff Diggerdan60 into defending a rather foolish throwaway comment? Later, upon mature reflection, he admitted that it did not represent his true position.

And yet you recently here slandered him by misrepresenting that it did.

== Well, it's tantamount to it. It's rather hard to fabricate something that one believes to be true, or validly holds as an opinion.

This is borderline idiotic to anyone who was actually there.

No, it's just plain English.

Brian Hauglid was given an opportunity to debate Brent Metcalfe one on one. Even though I started the discussion, I was not permitted to participate. That was all well and good, but what threw us all off guard was Brian’s out of the blue response to Metcalfe, which consisted of little more than complaining about my attitude and warning him that if he sensed Brent was going to adopt my attitude then he was going to leave the discussion. Brent provided a blistering critique of Brian’s previous post, and Brian was expected to come up with something equally impressive. We were all disappointed with his post that we waited more than a week for, and which dwelled not on Brent’s counter-points, but rather me! It was perfectly clear that Brian was already making excuses to leave the debate. That pissed me off and others as well. It pissed me off more because Brian was taking advantage of the fact that I could not respond to his attacks against me. So I simply said it appeared as if Brian was trying to fabricate an excuse to leave the debate.

Exactly. You accused him of dishonesty.

(And before you say “oh but I bet Brian’s gripe was justified given your history of aggressive behavior,” I also had documented in an exchange just a week prior to this, that Brian accused me of having “bad tone” in an otherwise pleasant exchange, the minute I expressed mere disagreement with him. The mods jumped to his side and threw down the usual threats, but the FAIRites were NOT on Brian’s side, and several of them said they saw absolutely nothing wrong in my response. Gtaggart went so far as to say I was actually “gracious” with him and Will Schryver emailed me to say he couldn’t understand brian’s claim that I had a change in tone. I decided to back out of the discussion only to have numerous posters, including Oreos, request that I remain. This event pretty much proved that Brian complains about bad on when it is convenient for him to do so - he certainly had nowhere else to go with Brent's pummeling refutation. He was trying to pull the same nonsense on Brent, but I didn’t let him get away with it, which is what pissed off the mods)

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Kevin.

In common Book of Abraham polemic at FAIR,

Book of Abraham polemic? You mean the anti-Mormon propaganda that still gets heavily propagated there?

this type of rhetoric has been perfectly acceptable when coming from Brian, Will, Pacman, and especially the prick of pricks, Pahoran.

Luke 6:
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Thank you for providing that example of your "graciousness."

You have all implied quite emphatically that Brent is dishonest, that he lies about how he got the photos that he manipulates the photos, that he is careful not to show photos that damage his argument, et cetera. Worse of all is the idiotic complaining about his “bias.”

Hey Scratchy! Here, boy! Time to trot out your signature "lapdog" insult!

Gawrsh, I wonder why he doesn't?

Do you actually deny that Metcalfe has a bias?

My final post on FAIR was a lightning rod for critical thinkers and many eyebrows popped up as well as lights going off in many heads. I said complaining about Brent’s bias was silly because it should be clear that apologists need the KEP to represent “copies” of an original, far more than Brent needed them to represent original manuscripts. The mods knew this, and realized they had to be rid of me or else Brian would have a meltdown, which later he did. In his attempt to respond to Brent again he instead provided a 60 word quote from something I said on this forum. That left everyone scratching their heads, so Brian went back and deleted it.

Let's see. Making an error in cutting and pasting is your idea of a "meltdown?"

You have clearly been reading too much of your own fan-mail. Not only are you not as important as you think you are, nobody is as important as you think you are. The notion that you were banned from FAIR for your specious mind-reading trick is risible.

== Brian Hauglid is a prominent LDS scholar. Anyone who thinks FAIR exists to expose its valuable posters to vicious cheap shots from anonymous individuals should ask themselves why they would imagine such a thing.

The record will show that it was Brian who attacked me long before I ever said anything about him fabricating excuses. Well, that is what the record showed before it was conveniently erased (after I made copies fortunately). Thus, FAIR exists to make sure its valuable posters are free to make vicious cheap shots to individual posters, whether they are anonymous or not.

Would you really feel that way if you hadn't finally made yourself too obnoxious to stay there?

== No, I suspect Kevin's latest sock-puppet was "Declan McKenzie."

Declan is a buddy of mine I met on the Catholic forum. Several of them had migrated over to FAIR just prior to that discussion, because of a FAIR poster who went over them and egged them on. I forget who it was.

No doubt you had that cover story all worked out.

== So the much-touted MTT isn't that tolerant of divergent viewpoints either? Who'da thunk it!

Sorry but you have me confused with Shades’ board. I don’t have a telestial forum, and there are limits. My board was set up for critical discussion and it was originally by invitation only. Having said that, the forum is extremely tolerant of divergent viewpoints, as evidenced by the fact that wade has his plastered all over it.

And yet FAIR managed to put up with Wade--and you--far longer than you managed to put up with Wade.

Funny, that.

Incidentally, some time back--it might have been around the same time they finally ran out of patience with you--I was warned by the Mods that I needed to tone it down. They indicated that they simply couldn't cope with high-maintenance posters.

I thought you might like to know that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mister Scratch]

I am not aware that Ol' Scratch--to give the devil his due, as it were--however bitterly he resents being banned from FAIR, and however viciously he festers over it, has ever actually tried to post as a sock-puppet. Although I am aware that he has tried various and devious tricks to log on using spoofed IP addresses, but I have no knowledge of him attempting to post in that mode.

(bold emphasis added)
Keep on suckin' that teat, Pah. Here's yet another question for you: How would you know this? Does this mean that you're a mod? Or that the mods have been gossiping to you? Regardless, I suppose that some level of surveillance does indeed go on within the annals of the ironically named FAIRboard.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions with that rather reluctant confession.

No, I am not a mod, and no, nobody dobbed you in to me. However, I was told that the mods were having trouble with people attacking the forum with spoofed IP addresses--no indication of who or when or where. Then I saw a post from you, here, in which you said something equivalent to "It's getting harder for me to get into FAIR. I managed to log on using a proxy server but the mods keep closing my accounts." Interestingly, when I try to search for that in the forum search engine, I can't find it now.

For crying out loud, Pah. Get your facts straight. This is what, the umpteenth time your are utterly screwing something up? Are you a complete idiot, or just a compulsive whiner?

None of the above.

I am simply trying to get to the facts, in the full knowledge that, despite your first-hand knowledge thereof, you are not to be relied upon as a source.

I'll gladly come right out and tell you what I've done. I have used a proxy in order to read FAIR. Are you even awared that the ironically named FAIRmods have actually gone so far as to ban people from even reading FAIR? Or is this yet another instance of you being a presumptuous moron who is too lazy to check facts?

How is that materially different from what I said?

I have never, ever "logged on" with a proxy server. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the "logged on with a proxy server" was written by another poster. Coffeecat, perhaps.

Perhaps. It doesn't matter, since I wasn't offering that as any kind of quote. You had previously admitted that you used a proxy server in order to beat FAIR security.

The fact that you are mistaking posters with one another doesn't exactly lend much creedence to your (and your sweet master, DCP's) totally unsupportable accusations above.

Another lie. What I reported above was simple facts; no "accusations" and nothing "unsupportable." You are becoming incoherent in your rage at being caught and exposed.

Is that because the search engine is unreliable, or is something else going on here?

Something else: namely that you are a presumptuous gollum and a jerk and that you're too lazy and/or stupid to properly check your facts.

Yet there they are. Funny that.

The fact is that using subterfuge to evade moderator action is an attack upon the forum.

What, reading? Cutting off information? Squelching critics? Which?

Since you are clearly not a complete ignoramus who doesn't know one end of a computer from another, you of course know that any attempt to breach a system's security is ipso facto an attack upon that system. It doesn't matter how benign you imagine your motives to be.

That you should choose to interpret defending against such attacks as "surveillance" shows that you have an extraordinarily egocentric world view. Evidently anything that isn't strictly according to your agenda and your wishes is sinister, if not downright evil.

What 'agenda'?

Your intense, obsessive, practically unbalanced, anti-Mormon rage and hatred.

And what "attacks"? Give me one example, Pah.

One example? Okay, your attempt to subvert FAIR system security.

Regards,
Pahoran

Look up the word "subvert," Brother _____.

[_asbestosman]

Look up the word "subvert," Brother _____.

Perhaps you should direct your comment to Pahoran if that is who you meant to address. I see nobody with the name of _____ on this board.