Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_Pahoran]

Since your perception of "despicable behavior" is entirely partisan ("die in a fire" is all good, "your vendetta" is despicable) I find your judgement to be entirely irrelevant.

Who said anything about "die in a fire"?

You did, when you smugly proclaimed:

Shulem is far kinder and less prone to ad hominem than you are.

If you're going to make such grand judgements, you need to actually know what you are talking about.

Does my not having seen that mean I condone it as appropriate? Of course I don't need your approval for anything.

Of course; but you seem to fail to realise that I don't need your approval for anything either.

You and I both know what is right and wrong, but one of us finds it entirely acceptable to employ that which is wrong in defending the "truth."

I agree that one of us does. It just doesn't happen to be me.

Your twisted moral depravity is not my fault.

No, it's merely your invention.

But Mister Wang Chung is evidently unaware of the fact that ordinary digital interactions have absolutely nothing to do with any priesthood office, while actual Latter-day Saints do not mock such things.

You mocked him for being a bishop.

I did not; I mocked the claim that he was a bishop. Get it right.

You must not be an "actual Latter-day Saint." (But then we already knew that.) And I sure hope your priesthood office is not conducted the way you conduct yourself here and elsewhere online. You should be ashamed of yourself--but then you appear to be incapable of shame.

I promise you that I'm nowhere near as petty, spiteful or hateful in real life as you are on this forum.

He's no more a bishop than my mother's tortoiseshell cat.

Regards,
Pahoran

CFR. Where is your support for this ridiculous assertion

Naturally there is no "reference" to support a personal opinion; my conclusion is based upon his posting history as I have seen it in this forum.

other than your basic impulse to hate and mock?

I have no such "basic impulse." You appear to be projecting.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_MrStakhanovite]

I’m amused how hard Pahoran tries to hide his real identity so as not to mix it with his online persona. I understand how a lot of posters here are not “out” with their disbelief and given the propensity of Mormon Apologists to contact people’s Church leaders and/or family, so I’m more than happy to leave them anonymous.

But I wonder what Pahoran has to lose in this case?

[_Bob Loblaw]

You did, when you smugly proclaimed:

CFR on anything smug I've said or done.

If you're going to make such grand judgements, you need to actually know what you are talking about.

So, you're saying that unless I have followed every post that he's made, I can't say anything about him? That's very strange.

Of course; but you seem to fail to realise that I don't need your approval for anything either.

I've not asked for your approval.

I agree that one of us does. It just doesn't happen to be me.

CFR on my employing that which is wrong in defense of anything.

No, it's merely your invention.

I simply report what I see, and what I see in you is someone who has decided that kindness and honesty are not necessary for apologists.

I did not; I mocked the claim that he was a bishop. Get it right.

He is a bishop. I know that. You don't know that he isn't.

I promise you that I'm nowhere near as petty, spiteful or hateful in real life as you are on this forum.

CFR on my being petty, spiteful, or hateful. If you're better than I behave, you must be quite a saint.

Naturally there is no "reference" to support a personal opinion; my conclusion is based upon his posting history as I have seen it in this forum.

So, you get to decide what a bishop may or may not say on a forum like this?

I have no such "basic impulse." You appear to be projecting.

No need to project. You have been posting for a long time, and from what I've seen, you are driven at least in part by personal animus and anger. God knows why.

Regards,
Pahoran

I do love the insincere "regards." Adds a nice touch.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I’m amused how hard Pahoran tries to hide his real identity so as not to mix it with his online persona. I understand how a lot of posters here are not “out” with their disbelief and given the propensity of Mormon Apologists to contact people’s Church leaders and/or family, so I’m more than happy to leave them anonymous.

But I wonder what Pahoran has to lose in this case?

It may have something to do with his acrimonious divorce from his first wife, and the subsequent fallout from all of that.

[_Blixa]

Yep, Everybody Wang Chung is a bishop. I believe Jason has also been a bishop, and Ray has too. Yahoo Bot was a bishop, DCP was a bishop, and If I recall correctly, MFBukowski was a bishop, too. Like anything else, I guess, it takes all kinds.

[_Bob Loblaw]

It may have something to do with his acrimonious divorce from his first wife, and the subsequent fallout from all of that.

Or maybe he just doesn't want to make his hypocrisy as obvious after his outing of JP Holding.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yep, Everybody Wang Chung is a bishop. I believe Jason has also been a bishop, and Ray has too. Yahoo Bot was a bishop, DCP was a bishop, and If I recall correctly, MFBukowski was a bishop, too. Like anything else, I guess, it takes all kinds.

Yes but according to Pahoran, no true bishop would say the things Everybody Wang Chung has.

[_Pahoran]

...the fact that ordinary digital interactions have absolutely nothing to do with any priesthood office...

Do you mean that you believe God is officially okay with your online behaviour not meeting the standards expected of a Priesthood holder?

I participate in these fora on the understanding that they are a "level playing field." Just as I don't walk up to people in Church and throw them to the ground, but absolutely have no problem with doing such things on the sports field, so I understand, as you evidently do not, that the rules here are not the same as the rules there.

But I rather resolutely insist that my participation is based upon the presumption that the same rules apply to everyone. I'm not going to bind myself to Marquess of Queensberry rules while everyone else is employing street-brawler tactics. Nor will I be preached at by those who have absolutely no intention of applying those preachments to themselves.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

But I rather resolutely insist that my participation is based upon the presumption that the same rules apply to everyone. I'm not going to bind myself to Marquess of Queensberry rules while everyone else is employing street-brawler tactics. Nor will I be preached at by those who have absolutely no intention of applying those preachments to themselves.

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, I guess that most of us can preach at you then, since none of us (I daresay) has been in the position of actually putting someone's life in jeopardy by "outing" them, as you did with JP Holding. There are other things you've done--taunting people in their worst moments--that go beyond the pale as well.

[_Pahoran]

Well, I guess that most of us can preach at you then, since none of us (I daresay) has been in the position of actually putting someone's life in jeopardy by "outing" them, as you did with JP Holding.

You know that to be an outright lie; but then, if it wasn't, you wouldn't be claiming it.

I note that Mr Holding has evidently managed (somehow) to survive that horrifying footnote. The Florida ex-cons who were regular FARMS subscribers must have missed it.

There are other things you've done--taunting people in their worst moments--that go beyond the pale as well.

That's another lie.

Speaking of "beyond the pale," I remember the "dossiers" you collected on people and published on a blog. How did you manage to collect that stuff? By deceitfully friending them on Facebook?

I also remember you erupting with rage when someone calling himself "Mr Itchy" did exactly the same thing to you. The legacy of that survives in this forum to this day, in the shape of what is approximately the only rule that is ever enforced.

Regards,
Pahoran