maklelan wrote:I appreciate the remarks, runtu. In addition, I think you're right that asbestosman is perfectly civil, and I can always count on him being objective with an issue.
One thing I learned when I "switched teams" on FAIR was that we "critics" had to be better, more civil, more polite, than the believers, if we were to be able to have any kind of conversation at all. Of course, in the end, it didn't matter, as they banned us anyway.
But I still try to live by that rule: try to behave better than your "opponents." Leave the nastiness to them.
maklelan wrote:I appreciate the remarks, runtu. In addition, I think you're right that asbestosman is perfectly civil, and I can always count on him being objective with an issue.
One thing I learned when I "switched teams" on FAIR was that we "critics" had to be better, more civil, more polite, than the believers, if we were to be able to have any kind of conversation at all. Of course, in the end, it didn't matter, as they banned us anyway.
But I still try to live by that rule: try to behave better than your "opponents." Leave the nastiness to them.
This wisdom is why Runtu has achieved Godhood. LOL ;)
liz3564 wrote:Also.....I DID defend you on the thread where you were personally attacked. And I defended you, even though the thread was in the Telestial Forum, where personal attacks are allowed.
That would explain why I didn't see the offending post. I haven't been in the telestial forum for a long time.
I have been personally attacked in all three forums. I don't recall where the accusation was originally made about my mission president, but it has been brought up since then. Most recently Vegas has been telling me that I'm "full of s***" over in the Terrestrial forum. He's also latched on to this ridiculous argument that severing an animal in half to seal a covenant was considered a sacrifice, which it was not. He'll continue to harp on about how he's right until I lose interest in feeding his hatred, and then he'll boast about proving me wrong. And then he'll talk about how weak my scholarship is. That's not debate, but he follows me around wherever I go to make stupid accusations. How civil are you all going to be if you've got Vegas calling you an idiot every time you submit a post?
liz3564 wrote:Also.....I DID defend you on the thread where you were personally attacked. And I defended you, even though the thread was in the Telestial Forum, where personal attacks are allowed.
That would explain why I didn't see the offending post. I haven't been in the telestial forum for a long time.
I have been personally attacked in all three forums. I don't recall where the accusation was originally made about my mission president, but it has been brought up since then. Most recently Vegas has been telling me that I'm "full of s***" over in the Terrestrial forum. He's also latched on to this ridiculous argument that severing an animal in half to seal a covenant was considered a sacrifice, which it was not. He'll continue to harp on about how he's right until I lose interest in feeding his hatred, and then he'll boast about proving me wrong. And then he'll talk about how weak my scholarship is. That's not debate, but he follows me around wherever I go to make stupid accusations. How civil are you all going to be if you've got Vegas calling you an idiot every time you submit a post?
We did not attack you mac, we attacked (and still do) your assinine belief system and the resulting conclusions you make based on said system of belief.
We leave the personal attacks to you.
I feel like Lucy holding a football waiting for Mac to try and kick it again. It works every frigging time.
maklelan wrote:I have been personally attacked in all three forums. I don't recall where the accusation was originally made about my mission president, but it has been brought up since then. Most recently Vegas has been telling me that I'm "full of s***" over in the Terrestrial forum. He's also latched on to this ridiculous argument that severing an animal in half to seal a covenant was considered a sacrifice, which it was not. He'll continue to harp on about how he's right until I lose interest in feeding his hatred, and then he'll boast about proving me wrong. And then he'll talk about how weak my scholarship is. That's not debate, but he follows me around wherever I go to make stupid accusations. How civil are you all going to be if you've got Vegas calling you an idiot every time you submit a post?
It's easy to respond in kind, isn't it? It's much harder to stay above it. I don't condone the personal attacks against you, and I wish it would stop (that means knock it off, Vegas). I can't help that. I'm not criticizing you for responding in kind, but just gently suggesting that you don't have to give as good as you get.
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.
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.
Ray A wrote:I think harmony has a testimony, and I don't doubt her belief. I think she has trouble reconciling many things which appear, and are, contradictory. It is natural for anyone to struggle with this. However, I still haven't worked out Scratch. Are you a believer, Scratch?
Sort of. In general, I prefer not to say, in order to stave off ad hominem attack, which is rife amongst apologists. Perhaps if you were to PM me, I would tell you privately where I stand on this stuff.
That's quite ironic, Scratch. Are you serious? Let me quote what you just wrote in reply to me in another thread:
Ray, you are an idiot. Kevin was right: you are a totally moronic, stupid, knee-jerk hick bonehead. Do you not know how all of this started? All of this began on a thread in which many of us---myself included---were congratulating DCP on the publication of his Mohammed book! How stupid and/or ignorant are you? My compliments of DCP far, far outweigh his towards myself, this board, or anyone on it. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
So, you want to stave off ad hominem attacks while liberally indulging yourself in them. You want to scrutinise others' beliefs while remaining silent on yours, for fear of ad hominem attacks. You refuse to reveal your real identity, or tell us anything about yourself or your beliefs, while launching into scrutiny of others' beliefs.
Yep. That's the way it goes.
You also try to malign the statements and motives of people, in this instance specifically one Daniel C. Peterson:
A poster on FAIR brought up the Strengthening the Church Members Committee, apparently disquieted that such a thing even exists. During the course of the thread, most posters, notably Charity, tried to pooh-pooh away the OP's concerns, labeling them "conspiracy theory," and generally making fun of the whole thing. But what's interesting is that Prof. Peterson himself has actually functioned as an "agent" (his own word) for this committee:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
"[sic] .. was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings."
Four hours? In a confined space? And he wants to claim that the SCMC is some kind of innocuous "newspaper clipping service"? He's got to be kidding. Further, his denials on the matter are of the "he doth protest too much" variety:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
"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.
Some critics have severely overheated imaginations. "
It is worth pointing out that, even if he is correct and it's only "a (very) small clipping service" (and "service" seems an odd choice of words), the "operation" would still involve people combing through newspapers, journals, blogs, etc., etc., and this really doesn't seem like a very small task. It seems that Lavina Anderson was far closer to the mark when she labeled SCMC an "internal espionage" organization. In any case, DCP appears to be in "deeper" than some may have thought.
Despite Dr. Peterson's clear statements regarding his limited and innocuous involvement with the SCMC, on you go with your conspiracy theories. And what is the sole purpose of this: To portray Dan as a liar, and that his "involvement" is "deeper" than he has clearly stated.
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.
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.
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.