MormonDiscussions.com: Guide To

[_The Dude]

I see a lot of accurate things in the blog, and a few inaccurate things. Better than shooting in the dark, though, or a horoscope entry. JT has noted Wade's homosexual streak, and found his way into e-list of naked Will Schryver pics, so he's not a total dope.

Are we to believe that Justin Thames is nothing but a lurker? Apparently a long-time lurker? Or -- more likely -- JT is a sockpuppet from somebody among us. Whatever. He/She is an afflicted board voyeur and board addict.

He forgot to mention that I am quite paranoid.

[_beastie]

Yeah, I think it's clear this is someone who is a board addict and has followed personalities fairly closely. I'm sure it's a sock puppet, and concur with those who suspect it's rcrocket himself.

If I were taking it seriously, I would quibble about the rating system. How in the world does Justin imagine that observing selected conversations on MD reveals adequate information to rate "LDS knowledge" and "integrity"? Just using myself as an example, I doubt there is any aspect of Mormon doctrine that I'm not well-informed on, but due to the fact that I, like all posters, choose to participate on threads that interest me in some way, that knowledge isn't going to be well demonstrated in general, because I'm not that interested in discussing Mormon Doctrine (angels on the head of a pin and all that). I'm sure the same is true of other posters whose knowledge he rated even lower than mine. Just because some posters are more interested in the social or historical aspects of Mormonism does not indicate an inadequate knowledge of LDS doctrine, but rather a lack of interest in discussing it.

And the problems of rating "integrity" from these discussions is just as obvious.

However, I view this as entertainment, and not serious reviews. I suspect, based on the tenor of some of the reviews, that was probably the intent. So, rcrocket, if this is indeed you, I would rate it as your best production, and may have to reevaluate my overall opinion of you. Schryver's review alone made me an instant fan, to say nothing of wenglund's. ROFL! So I say more! more! more!

[_harmony]

The best lies are always wrapped in some truth. I'm still trying to find the truth in Wade and William's descriptions, but many of the rest are fairly accurate (except mine, of course, because he was fairly upbeat when I was the subject, and we all know how he despises me).

I'm wondering why he has such a stick up his tush about cinepro. Whoa. Not at all cool. What did you do, cinepro?

[_beastie]

I'm wondering why he has such a stick up his tush about cinepro. Whoa. Not at all cool. What did you do, cinepro?

Yeah, that was probably the review I found the most disconnected to reality. Cinepro is quite bright - you can tell in his sharp humor. I think Justin simply has not paid enough attention to his posts - and some of his funnier stuff is on MAD.

I have to admit, Harmony, reading your hobby of "Joseph Smith the boob and imposter" made me laugh out loud.

Interestingly enough, he edited out the part about my "vicious temper". Evidently I was persuasive.

I'm going to remain silent about his error on my age, though. You better shut up, too, Harmony, don't go tattling on me like Ray almost did. Aussie brat.

[_harmony]

I have to admit, Harmony, reading your hobby of "Joseph Smith the boob and imposter" made me laugh out loud.

I suspect he just couldn't bring himself to use adulterer or liar.

Interestingly enough, he edited out the part about my "vicious temper". Evidently I was persuasive.

Perhaps it is a work in progress.

I'm going to remain silent about his error on my age, though. You better shut up, too, Harmony, don't go tattling on me like Ray almost did. Aussie brat.

Oh, c'mon, Trixie! You always wanted to be a child bride, and this is your chance! Or not.

[_beastie]

Oh, c'mon, Trixie! You always wanted to be a child bride, and this is your chance! Or not.

Well, I could always claim my three adult children were adopted in their late teens.

[_richardMdBorn]

Might be highly educated in some other field -- a doctor?

My profile says that I'm an actuary but who wastes time reading to get information when speculation is more fun.

[_solomarineris]

If you haven't been following Ray's "The Church's 'Internal Espionage System'" thread or clicked on rcrocket's siggy link, you've missed it:

MormonDiscussions.com: Guide To

Sorry but this guy is a total idiot, while scoring
Wade Englund 10 in LDS DOCTRINE
he scores;
Beastie 7
BcSpace 3
California Kid 8
Chap 5
Cinepro 7
Dr. Shades 4
Dartagnan 8
DCP 10
Droopy 4
Me 6

If DCP, WE score 10; inquired minds ask; how come are they still active in this church?
Clearly the guy is clueless, most of the guys named above surpass the most knowledge DCP & his clones are amassed.
I've been been in the church since probably before he was born.
Is there any aspect of the Church I've missed? Or any of you guys.

This guy should ask himself; what could he possibly learn from an apologist, especially William Schrywer, whom he scored 10.
Sorry but what a dimwit this guy is. William Schrywer was trashed thoroughly on this board over and over.

Thanks for links though, it was entertaining, nevertheless.

[_Gadianton]

If the link was from rc, then obviously it's him. He should be applauded for trying to contribute something at least.

"Knowledge of Mormonism", after comparing his ratings, I think should be changed to "willingness to pretend Internet Mormonism is Mormonism."

His sockpuppet has some issues, the main one is he doesn't really define his rating system, what is "trustworthiness"? One to ten based on poster averages, seminary graduate as average, college graduate as average...?

The IT stuff doesn't work. He has to break character all the time to make fun of others by saying they are nerds in IT. So, he should have picked a "cool" occupation, like director of marketing somewhere, for his sockpuppet to castigate nerds in IT with or condemned the people he wants to hit the hardest with some other kind of accusation. Further, he bleeds in too much of his own rc bias, "so-and-so isn't a good writer. So-and-so is a good writer".

He doesn't really *nail* people very well.

And something that is a real weakness for both the sockpuppet and the puppeteer on a personal level, is his prideful career bias. On the one hand, he has proven to be liberal in a way, accepting of the "downtrodden", generous with his money, but on the other, he's very proud of his occupation, and looks down others who aren't part of what must have been considered the cool professions back in the 1970s. I mean, seriously, the guy reminds me of one of my rich uncles, you're either a doctor, lawyer, businessman, academic, athelete, or nothing. He goes to lengths to ridicule people for what he perceives as a lack of education or important career. He really seems to hold a grudge against work that is "nerdy" or blue-collar and uses that bias in what appear to be attempts at funny put-downs.

[_Doctor Scratch]

On the one hand, I suppose that I should nod my head in approval, since, as they say, "imitation is the highest form of flattery." What's unfortunate is that this is the second time that Bob has ripped off a good deal of the format and techniques of my old blog. Did he make sure to take it easy on Mercury this time, though? I have long been under the impression that he panicked and shut down his last rip-off blog after he became fearful of a "tactical strike" from Mercury. (Further, doesn't Merc work in IT? Rcrocket...er, I mean "Justin Thames," is playing with fire.)