"It's not much more than a (very) small clipping service. Trust me on this one. There is no spying or covert action. No trappings of "Mission Impossible." No non-Scientologist Tom Cruise.
Any time someone says "Trust me on this one," my bullshaloney meter starts whirring and dancing and blinking.
Mister Scratch wrote:It is clear, Ray, that you are an errand boy for Prof. Peterson. I'm afraid there is little more that I can do to help you.
I didn't ask for your help. I'd rather be an "errand boy" for someone with integrity than a slanderous blog owner.
by the way: why do you suppose Prof. P. is so hesitant to elaborate upon the SCMC? He has not been "clear" at all. He has been evasive. I'm sorry, but you just don't have any evidence to counter my claims, Ray. Once again, Church secrecy triumphs.
He has elaborated. The problem with you, Scratch, is that you wish to invent conspiracy theories and make sensational claims, and malign people, to the cheering readers of your blogocracy. Regardless of what Dan says, you're going to twist it. You'll never take anything he says seriously, and you know it. You expect people to trust and believe in your own integrity, but you want them to question Dan Peterson's.
Am I supposed to be sorry for taking a swipe at Maklelan, after weeks and weeks of him calling me a liar, when he's the one who was not communicating clearly? How much of his communication is my responsibility? Is it not his fault he didn't ask the right question or explain his terms?
I didn't lie to Maklelan. I didn't lie when I said I didn't create a new account because Blink was suspended, because Blink was never suspended. I didn't lie when I said I didn't create a new account because Blink was banned, because Blink was never banned. I was never asked if I created a new account when Blink was Q'd, so I sure as heck couldn't have lied about it!
I didn't lie when I was asked (in the past or currently) if I sustain the GA's. Just because I question them, their behaviors, their actions, their abilities doesn't mean I don't sustain them in their callings.
Yes, I have lied in the past. I lied when I wrote my weight down on my driver's license. (20 pounds isn't that big of a lie, is it?) I lied just last night when I didn't want to talk to a telemarketer (I said I was on the way out the door, when in reality, I was playing Spider on the computer). I lied when I told my son I didn't care when he forgets to take out the trash (I care). But I don't lie on my income tax, I don't lie on my temple recommend interview, and I don't lie when I post on bulletin boards. I may be wrong, I may be mistaken, I may be operating under a misunderstanding, but I don't lie. Or at least, I try.
I apologize for calling you a liar harmony. I miscommunicated and it didn't become clear to me until it was recently pointed out. I'm sorry I was so harsh about it.
Thank you. I'm happy to accept your apology and put this all behind us. We have more important things to argue about.
Mister Scratch wrote:It is clear, Ray, that you are an errand boy for Prof. Peterson. I'm afraid there is little more that I can do to help you.
I didn't ask for your help. I'd rather be an "errand boy" for someone with integrity than a slanderous blog owner.
by the way: why do you suppose Prof. P. is so hesitant to elaborate upon the SCMC? He has not been "clear" at all. He has been evasive. I'm sorry, but you just don't have any evidence to counter my claims, Ray. Once again, Church secrecy triumphs.
He has elaborated. The problem with you, Scratch, is that you wish to invent conspiracy theories and make sensational claims, and malign people, to the cheering readers of your blogocracy. Regardless of what Dan says, you're going to twist it. You'll never take anything he says seriously, and you know it. You expect people to trust and believe in your own integrity, but you want them to question Dan Peterson's.
Actually, Ray, I trust people to read both sides and make up their own minds. People question me all the time, as evidenced by the personal attacks on me by folks such as you, Plutarch, Coggins, Wade, Gaz, and so forth. Personalized threads are fired up for the sole purpose of attacking me. Is this sort of thing tolerated on MAD? I welcome the fact that people can read both sides and make a decision for themselves.
I did personalize a thread to have a discussion with you. If I made a personal attack it came up naturally in the conversation. I guess I just find you inspiring that way.
If you ever decide to change your ways and stop posting in your narcissistic destructive fashion (Not an attack, just an observation), and decide instead to begin making posts that have something to do with building up instead of tearing down, I will glady recant any derogatory comments I have made towards you.
Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Mister Scratch wrote:Actually, Ray, I trust people to read both sides and make up their own minds. People question me all the time, as evidenced by the personal attacks on me by folks such as you, Plutarch, Coggins, Wade, Gaz, and so forth. Personalized threads are fired up for the sole purpose of attacking me. Is this sort of thing tolerated on MAD? I welcome the fact that people can read both sides and make a decision for themselves.
You fired the first missiles, Scratch. If you were man enough to cop your banning on FAIR instead of going into revenge mode, and offered some balanced and fair-minded criticisms of Dan Peterson, and genuinely listened to his replies, instead of character assassination, things would be very different. But you have it in your mind that they are "nasty, apologetic wankers". Not suitable to real discourse, nor informative except to those who wish to be titilated by your constant distortions and absolutely weird consipracy theories. If you attack, then don't be surprised if a few missiles come your way from "apologists".
Mister Scratch wrote:Actually, Ray, I trust people to read both sides and make up their own minds. People question me all the time, as evidenced by the personal attacks on me by folks such as you, Plutarch, Coggins, Wade, Gaz, and so forth. Personalized threads are fired up for the sole purpose of attacking me. Is this sort of thing tolerated on MAD? I welcome the fact that people can read both sides and make a decision for themselves.
You fired the first missiles, Scratch.
I'm afraid that's not correct. Good luck proving this one, friend.
Gazelam wrote:I did personalize a thread to have a discussion with you. If I made a personal attack it came up naturally in the conversation. I guess I just find you inspiring that way.
If you ever decide to change your ways and stop posting in your narcissistic destructive fashion (Not an attack, just an observation), and decide instead to begin making posts that have something to do with building up instead of tearing down, I will glady recant any derogatory comments I have made towards you.
Gaz
Actually, Gaz, I feel that hardcore TBM apologetics is far more detrimental to the LDS Church than my criticism, because apologetics hinders the Church from improving, or "perfecting the Saints." Instead, mopologetics works to maintain the status quo, and prevents everyone from properly addressing the ugly parts of Church doctrine, history, and culture.
If you want to claim that you and other TBMs are "helping to build up the Church," then you are going to have to explain to me why "ark steadying" is the lingua franca of mopologetics.
Ark Steadying is writing letters to the Prophet saying how you think the church should be run.
Apologetics is merely discussing matters and quieting false teachings. Is it true that some cases could be improved by simply answering "I don't know?". I think so, maybe pride gets in the way of some of these people.
Will you ever make a thread or post on your view of God and true doctrine concerning him? Or will oyu simply leave the issue by saying "I don't know". I think you already did that in the past, but I would just like to put an end to that old discussion.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Gazelam wrote:Ark Steadying is writing letters to the Prophet saying how you think the church should be run.
That is certainly *not* the way the phrase is used by TBMs on FAIR/MAD. In their view, "ark steadying" can be things such as asking that the Church's finances be made open for viewing.
Apologetics is merely discussing matters and quieting false teachings.
No. It is about squelching dissent and whitewashing embarrassing doctrine and history. Why else do you think discussion of "Did Elohim physically have sex with/ Mary" thread was shut down?
Is it true that some cases could be improved by simply answering "I don't know?". I think so, maybe pride gets in the way of some of these people.
Will you ever make a thread or post on your view of God and true doctrine concerning him?
Probably not. I am really not interested in discussing those sorts of things on an Internet forum such as this. I much prefer to discuss controversial issues.
Or will oyu simply leave the issue by saying "I don't know". I think you already did that in the past, but I would just like to put an end to that old discussion.