Why I am not a Mormon

[_rcrocket]

Let's face facts here: the real reason Bob is so upset about all of this has to do with the fact that it seriously undermines his anti-anonymity campaign. He wants to continue railing against those of us who rightly value our anonymity, and yet he has demonstrated that the reason he wants people to use there own names is so that he can attack them, possibly even doing damage to their family relationships.

I think you're spot on. Bob and DCP can bark all the platitudes they want about the evils of anonymity, but this thread is the perfect illustration of their true agenda: obtain a poster's true indentity and ruin him/her. The Two Bishops are pathetic ... and deserve each other.

Thjs is a terrible thing to say about me, and it isn't true.

Nothing upsets me on this board. I have no desire to ruin anybody. And, I never have; I never made contact with GoodK's father on this topic (but, it wasn't for want of trying).

The purpose for my anti-anonymity campaign is merely to demonstrate that anonymous hate pieces are (1) not to be trusted because they tend to be statements the poster would never post in real life, (2) possibly reveal inconsistent conduct in real life, and (3) show lack of courage. The names of several posters on this board have come out and I have no desire whatsoever to contact their families or bishops.

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's face facts here: the real reason Bob is so upset about all of this has to do with the fact that it seriously undermines his anti-anonymity campaign. He wants to continue railing against those of us who rightly value our anonymity, and yet he has demonstrated that the reason he wants people to use there own names is so that he can attack them, possibly even doing damage to their family relationships.

I think you're spot on. Bob and DCP can bark all the platitudes they want about the evils of anonymity, but this thread is the perfect illustration of their true agenda: obtain a poster's true indentity and ruin him/her. The Two Bishops are pathetic ... and deserve each other.

Thjs is a terrible thing to say about me, and it isn't true.

Nothing upsets me on this board. I have no desire to ruin anybody. And, I never have; I never made contact with GoodK's father on this topic (but, it wasn't for want of trying).

So... What, then? You were just interested in lobbing idle threats?

The purpose for my anti-anonymity campaign is merely to demonstrate that anonymous hate pieces are (1) not to be trusted because they tend to be statements the poster would never post in real life, (2) possibly reveal inconsistent conduct in real life, and (3) show lack of courage. The names of several posters on this board have come out and I have no desire whatsoever to contact their families or bishops.

But you just said that you "wanted" to contact GoodK's father.... You are full of crap, Bob. You want to ruin/embarrass people, hence your anti-anonymity campaign. Furthermore: what is the motive behind your desire to "reveal inconsistent conduct in real life"? Why might you want to do that? Hmmm, Bob?

[_guy sajer]

The purpose for my anti-anonymity campaign is merely to demonstrate that anonymous hate pieces are (1) not to be trusted because they tend to be statements the poster would never post in real life . . .

Bob, I certainly hope that you aren't as rude to people in real life as you are to people on this board.

Give me one good reason we shouldn't consider you a rank hypocrite on this issue?

[_Some Schmo]

The purpose for my anti-anonymity campaign is merely to demonstrate that anonymous hate pieces are (1) not to be trusted because they tend to be statements the poster would never post in real life . . .

Bob, I certainly hope that you aren't as rude to people in real life as you are to people on this board.

Give me one good reason we shouldn't consider you a rank hypocrite on this issue?

Maybe because he's a dick in real life too?

[_TAK]

Crocket:

The purpose for my anti-anonymity campaign is merely to demonstrate that anonymous hate pieces are (1) not to be trusted because they tend to be statements the poster would never post in real life . . .

Which does not necessarily mean the statement is a falsehood. The more likely reason is the first step in Mormon apologia; character assassination.

[_rcrocket]

If my son, whom I support, spend money on, pay for an education, pay for food, room and board, . . .

DAMN, some people have life easy.

Was he implying that my dad did those things? I thought he was talking about his son. Certainly isn't the case for me.

And I know otherwise.

[_Droopy]

Let's face facts here: the real reason Bob is so upset about all of this has to do with the fact that it seriously undermines his anti-anonymity campaign. He wants to continue railing against those of us who rightly value our anonymity, and yet he has demonstrated that the reason he wants people to use there own names is so that he can attack them, possibly even doing damage to their family relationships.

Fact: Goodk, a relentless, mean spirited religious bigot, viciously attacked a family member when that member's chips were down.

That is the primary, salient fact of the matter here. Bob knew this family and relayed this information, didn't he?

The world is a place where we must sometimes face accountability for our actions, isn't it?

Well, isn't it?

Yes, yes, I agree, you people do need your anonymity, don't you. It serves you well, and serves your purposes.

[_Droopy]

Amazing how Bob never returns the venom, poison, and personal slander he receives in this forum on a continual basis, isn't it?

What a reptile house...

[_harmony]

Amazing how Bob never returns the venom, poison, and personal slander he receives in this forum on a continual basis, isn't it?

What a reptile house...

What a crock! You're suffering from selective memory again, Droop. Crock gives as good as he gets.

[_Droopy]

Uh...

Right.