What's more fun?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Cupcake licking? That does sound fun! But surely not in public!

I lick literal cupcakes in public, but the best kind of cupcake licking should done in private, in my opinion.

But then again, I do most of option two, the trashing of other board members, in private. (Well, by PM. That's private, right?) ;)

KA

[_James Clifford Miller]

1. Arguing over why the Mormon church is or isn't true. A battle of ideas and evidences?

or

2. Exmos against apologists tearing into each other on a more personal level? Who's good, who's bad, who's a hypocrit, who's an ass, a hack, who's a liar or criminal etc.


I know both can be fun but which do you like the best?

Even better would be
3. apologists tearing into each other hurling dueling testimonies and claiming higher personal spirituality and more direct personal revelation.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_barrelomonkeys]

1. Arguing over why the Mormon church is or isn't true. A battle of ideas and evidences?

or

2. Exmos against apologists tearing into each other on a more personal level? Who's good, who's bad, who's a hypocrit, who's an ass, a hack, who's a liar or criminal etc.


I know both can be fun but which do you like the best?

I like #1. I really don't enjoy #2. Unfortunately once I was caught in the crosshairs of someone (and they attacked me personally) I really started to enjoy #2 more as an option. I'm trying to resist being caught up in such nonsense.

[_barrelomonkeys]

1. Arguing over why the Mormon church is or isn't true. A battle of ideas and evidences?

or

2. Exmos against apologists tearing into each other on a more personal level? Who's good, who's bad, who's a hypocrit, who's an ass, a hack, who's a liar or criminal etc.


I know both can be fun but which do you like the best?

Unfortunately the former almost always leads to the latter, unless there's more moderation, or Moderation. About this I have to confess I'm in two minds.

To answer the question about which I like best: I have so many faces that I'll take both.

Interestingly I was attacked personally on a board that you frequent and there is plenty of moderation. What say you?

[_Blixa]

Even better would be
3. apologists tearing into each other hurling dueling testimonies and claiming higher personal spirituality and more direct personal revelation.

Indeed.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Interestingly I was attacked personally on a board that you frequent and there is plenty of moderation. What say you?

Indeed. I've taken far more utterly unwarranted abuse on the Juliann Obsession board than I have here at the Shades Obsession board.

However, LDS persons here have to put up with much the same kind of abuse that critics have to put up with there. If it were possible to muzzle PP, Vegas, and Mercury a bit, we might actually attract some LDS posters.

[_CaliforniaKid]

As for the OP, I only enjoy #2 for about a page. And only if I'm not the target of the foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. (At least one such person is typically involved in those threads). #1, however, is right up my alley.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Where's my "punch the other person in the crotch repetely until they agree with me or pass out" option?


Shenanigans...

[_Some Schmo]

1. Arguing over why the Mormon church is or isn't true. A battle of ideas and evidences?

or

2. Exmos against apologists tearing into each other on a more personal level? Who's good, who's bad, who's a hypocrit, who's an ass, a hack, who's a liar or criminal etc.


I know both can be fun but which do you like the best?

#1 is pointless. Any truly objective and rational person knows it isn't true, and why would someone want to argue with subjective irrational people?

#2 is kind of fun, to a point, but yeah, it can get tiring too. Sometimes, I find myself into it, and other times, like this last weekend, for instance, I think to myself: "So the apologist's are dumbasses. Big deal, no surprise. How does that affect you? It doesn't, so why bother saying anything?"