Yahoo Bot wrote: Rather, my argument three years ago was that it is hypocritical to be answering questions as required in a TR interview and then coming here and anonymously attacking the Church and the Brethren.
This is catagorically untrue. I never attack the church or the Brethren. I simply point out their stupidity, their lies, and their inability to keep their fingers out of the tithing trough for their own gain. One should not retreat from the truth.
Yahoo Bot wrote: Rather, my argument three years ago was that it is hypocritical to be answering questions as required in a TR interview and then coming here and anonymously attacking the Church and the Brethren.
This is catagorically untrue. I never attack the church or the Brethren. I simply point out their stupidity, their lies, and their inability to keep their fingers out of the tithing trough for their own gain. One should not retreat from the truth.
And your not attacking the brethern is your above post? I suppose that calling them stupid is not an attack. Nope, no attack there.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Doctor Scratch wrote: And that's less the case today, isn't it? The reason is that DCP has significantly lowered his participation on the boards, and he's tried very hard to channel his energies into things like "Mormon Scholars Testify," and his watered-down, Chapel-Mormony "Mormon Times" articles. He has effectively thrown in the towel in terms of polemical apologetics, which I take as a good sign and as legitimate progress on his part.
Dan made a smart decision since he was attacked on quite a few antimormon boards. He was the favorite punching bag. Much better to lay low and concentrate on more productive endeavors. And of course you may be one reason for this. And whose loss is it? All.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Doctor Scratch wrote: And that's less the case today, isn't it? The reason is that DCP has significantly lowered his participation on the boards, and he's tried very hard to channel his energies into things like "Mormon Scholars Testify," and his watered-down, Chapel-Mormony "Mormon Times" articles. He has effectively thrown in the towel in terms of polemical apologetics, which I take as a good sign and as legitimate progress on his part.
Dan made a smart decision since he was attacked on quite a few antimormon boards. He was the favorite punching bag. Much better to lay low and concentrate on more productive endeavors. And of course you may be one reason for this. And whose loss is it? All.
He chooses to "concentrate on more productive endeavors" and you consider this a "loss" for "all"?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: And that's less the case today, isn't it? The reason is that DCP has significantly lowered his participation on the boards, and he's tried very hard to channel his energies into things like "Mormon Scholars Testify," and his watered-down, Chapel-Mormony "Mormon Times" articles. He has effectively thrown in the towel in terms of polemical apologetics, which I take as a good sign and as legitimate progress on his part.
Doctor Scratch wrote:
why me wrote: Dan made a smart decision since he was attacked on quite a few antimormon boards. He was the favorite punching bag. Much better to lay low and concentrate on more productive endeavors. And of course you may be one reason for this. And whose loss is it? All.
He chooses to "concentrate on more productive endeavors" and you consider this a "loss" for "all"?
I do not consider that I have lost a great deal, if anything, by the absence from this board of the type of posts with which DCP usually favored us.
He spent much of his time here sneering at anybody who disagreed with him, quoting foreign languages to impress the peons, and telling us how important he was. In terms of engaging honestly with points at issue between LDS apologists and their opponents, he was no great shakes. One got a great deal more honest dialog from Schryver most of the time.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:I do not consider that I have lost a great deal, if anything, by the absence from this board of the type of posts with which DCP usually favored us.
He spent much of his time here sneering at anybody who disagreed with him, quoting foreign languages to impress the peons, and telling us how important he was. In terms of engaging honestly with points at issue between LDS apologists and their opponents, he was no great shakes. One got a great deal more honest dialog from Schryver most of the time.
Yeah, I don't know what why me is talking about. The only "loss" that I can see is that the vindictive, lower-tier TBMs don't have a "big gun" who will attack critics for them anymore. And in my book, that's not really much of a loss.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
harmony wrote:This is catagorically untrue. I never attack the church or the Brethren. I simply point out their stupidity, their lies, and their inability to keep their fingers out of the tithing trough for their own gain. One should not retreat from the truth.
I see.
[Personal insult deleted by mod Scottie] And your obsession with what you call "the tithing trough" shows that you wish you could get your trotters into it. But I wouldn't dream of attacking you, not for the world!
And, by your standards, any assertion that I have attacked you must be "categorically untrue!"
liz3564 wrote:It's rotten that Nemesis has chosen to post Shades' in real life name in his post. That really doesn't inspire anyone to extend the olive branch.
Even when we have been utilizing Dan G.'s name, Dan G. is simply another alias. No one actually knows who Dan G. really is.
Nemesis "outted" Shades outright, using his full real name.
Of course, Schryver did this with Tevor's submission situation on MDD as well.
I suppose publishing poster's in real life information is the type of environment Nemesis, and, since Juliann is the founder of the board, I suppose Juliann, too, wants to create.
Actually one would presume that "Dan G" represents at least some part of someone's in real life name. You are stretching there, Liz. There's no real difference.
I suggest you and the other mods go through and remove the "Dan G" and related references from all the posts. You are welcome to start with mine. Make sure Scratch gets another round of rabies shots, as he is clearly overdue for a booster. Then PM me, and I'll happily PM Nemesis and let him know that it's been done, and pass on your request to remove Shades' name from MD&D.
Pahoran wrote:Actually one would presume that "Dan G" represents at least some part of someone's in real life name. You are stretching there, Liz. There's no real difference.
"DanG" is another username name under which he posts. Sort of like how saying "Daniel Peterson" isn't "outing" him, since he himself uses it on the board itself.
Therefore, the difference is quite dramatic. He has no justification to use my real name, since I've never used it to post here or anywhere else.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"