Chap wrote:I would not so much say that our colleague on this board is 'delusional', which would suggest that his state of mind has come upon him in the form of an affliction not of his making. I think it is the case, rather, that by posting repeatedly in a way that suggests that (e.g.) the FARMS view of Book of Mormon historicity and its relation to Mesoamerican archeology is the one held by most sane people, he is trying to maintain a sense of normality while adopting a viewpoint that has little or no relation to the professional scholarly consensus on the subject outside the tiny world of LDS apologetics.
I don't think that at all. [etc. etc.]
I am sorry if you thought you recognised a possible reference to yourself here. The 'colleague' to whom I was referring was in fact Loran/Coggins, whom I was attempting not to name for purely superstitious reasons.
Bob wrote:(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)
In light of your personality on this board, this statement is truly the pot calling the kettle black. When have you ever engaged in a civil exchange here? Even when I invited you to participate on my thread in the Celestial Forum, you still had to be reminded to keep away from ad hom's, and one of your posts ended up being split off to another forum because of ad hom's. Frankly, Bishop, I don't think that you are a very good example of how a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should treat their fellow man.
I certainly hope that in the "real world", you conduct yourself differently. I have seen glimpses of the good man that I believe exists under your online facade. It's a shame that you choose not to share that side of yourself here.
GoodK wrote:If Bob decides to be a doochebag and share personal information, I will gladly post his home address, home phone number, cell phone number, and anything else I can dig up.
If my posting privileges get revoked, I don't care. I probably spend too much time on here anyway.
This stuff needs to deescalate. Nobody should be harmed as a consequence of posting here.
Ya, sometimes we say things out of anger. Needless to say, I won't be posting any personal information.
Yeah, don't do that. Just let it be blatant how hypocritical he is that he's all about transparency, but he won't post this information himself.
Bob, come to DC dear. Let me know when you'll be here. I'll welcome you as best I can.
I have an office in DC and am there all the time.
When you say "he won't post this information himself," what are you talking about? What information would you like.
I am also published in the Los Angeles Lawyer, FARMS Review, BYU Law Review. What more information would you like that I've not published?
Bob,
In all seriousness (and I mean this from a really good place), you really need to re-think advocating posting personal information on the Internet. With websites like www.zabasearch.com one is very accessible to unknown types. We all have probably placed too much information out ther at one time or another, but, in your case, you don't really need to advertise that fact as often as you do.
What I don't understand is how Bob can call for people to all but put their social security numbers down here, claiming that they're cowards for doing anything less, but himself posts some online resume with a picture that's probably 15 years old, which gives ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER! He's hiding under the fact that he's a schmoosy lawyer, and looking to that for protection.
Bob hasn't revealed a thing here. I'd like to know what ward he presides over, and which stake it's under...would the leadership like to know about how he behaves to defend the church? Taste of one's own medicine?
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
GIMR wrote:What I don't understand is how Bob can call for people to all but put their social security numbers down here, claiming that they're cowards for doing anything less, but himself posts some online resume with a picture that's probably 15 years old, which gives ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER! He's hiding under the fact that he's a schmoosy lawyer, and looking to that for protection.
Bob hasn't revealed a thing here. I'd like to know what ward he presides over, and which stake it's under...would the leadership like to know about how he behaves to defend the church? Taste of one's own medicine?
I think the only thing I have ever suggested is that a person use his or her own real name. If you think otherwise, let me disabuse you of that notion right now.
You wouldn't be the first to complain about me anonymously to my firm or my stake for what I do on this board.
Bob wrote:(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)
In light of your personality on this board, this statement is truly the pot calling the kettle black. When have you ever engaged in a civil exchange here? Even when I invited you to participate on my thread in the Celestial Forum, you still had to be reminded to keep away from ad hom's, and one of your posts ended up being split off to another forum because of ad hom's. Frankly, Bishop, I don't think that you are a very good example of how a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should treat their fellow man.
I certainly hope that in the "real world", you conduct yourself differently. I have seen glimpses of the good man that I believe exists under your online facade. It's a shame that you choose not to share that side of yourself here.
I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Keep in mind that I limit my posts to a board which is extremely hostile to pro-Mormon views. I know you like to remind me many times about how I am a "Bishop" and not a very good example of a Latter-day Saint. How many times have I heard that here? Along with being a lousy lawyer, a lying lawyer and the like. Pile on, my friend. I treat all with courtesy here, in the amount which is appropriate.
And, finally, I don't think your posts show that you have a clue as to what an ad hominem is and when an attack on one's second life character is appropriate and not. But, I'll leave that for another day.
I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?
Yes, this is the part that got under my skin. My family didn't need to see a post that I meant to be annonymous.
I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.
Sending the post to GoodK's family was a real 'dickhead' move, Bob.
Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?
Bob? Come on man...
Alter Idem wrote:
GoodK wrote:
BOB wrote: The family GoodK pokes fun at is known by hundreds of people.
I poked fun? I expressed frustration with God getting the credit for healing someone who, by the same logic, made her sick in the first place. I expressed frustration with the idea that this horrible situation is being used to promote religion.
Don't you think you're being a bit unreasonable? These people are believers in a religion. Naturally they are going to give the credit for her healing to God--and unlike you, they don't believe God gave her the disease in the first place.
I don't believe God gave her the disease in the first place.
You should probably read more of the thread before you jump in... unless you don't mind looking like you don't know what you're talking about.
Uh, I think you'd better go back and read your own post and see what you said. Here, Let me refresh your memory;
I want to ask him why God decided to give this poor girl such a horrible disease, or why the priesthood blessings didn't cure her outright, and so on...
Now, maybe you didn't mean to say this, but I didn't read it incorrectly and it wasn't taken out of context. You expressed the opinion that God gave her a horrible disease.
FYI; I DID read the entire thread--though it wasn't necessary. What you ought to have done was gone back and looked at your own comments before calling me on mine.
Goodk, if you don't want differing opinions, then in the future you can post a little note on your OP that anyone who might criticize or take issue with your actions or your opinions, should just stay out of the thread.
Bob wrote:(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)
In light of your personality on this board, this statement is truly the pot calling the kettle black. When have you ever engaged in a civil exchange here? Even when I invited you to participate on my thread in the Celestial Forum, you still had to be reminded to keep away from ad hom's, and one of your posts ended up being split off to another forum because of ad hom's. Frankly, Bishop, I don't think that you are a very good example of how a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should treat their fellow man.
I certainly hope that in the "real world", you conduct yourself differently. I have seen glimpses of the good man that I believe exists under your online facade. It's a shame that you choose not to share that side of yourself here.
The internet sometimes allows the real life facade to be tossed aside and the person allows the real face to show. With some of us, I have no doubt that the facade is what is shown the real world, not the online world.
Bob wrote:And, finally, I don't think your posts show that you have a clue as to what an ad hominem is and when an attack on one's second life character is appropriate and not.
Honestly--I don't think that attacking one's character (second life or not) is ever appropriate.
Edited to add---And, it is very clear that ad hom's of ANY kind are not allowed in the Celestial Forum. Per Shades---"You should conduct yourself as if you are arguing with your favorite grandmother..."
Last edited by _Yoda on Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(I really wonder why that is necessary, why the mean-spiritedness and hatred of things Mormon is so pervasive -- even among those who post secretly here but appear to be active members of the Church in their real lives. But, you all don't hold a monopoly on mean-spirits.)
Oooo Bob. Well done. Nice little dig in that lengthy paragraph. I am sure you feel better now. And no Bob, we do not hold the monopoly on mean spirits. You certainly are evidence of that now aren't you.