James Clifford Miller wrote:Your post may be psychologically satisfying to you, Ray, but I doubt it'll have the effect here you think it will. Here, everyone knows I'm not Dr. Shades.
Including Yours Truly.
James Clifford Miller wrote:You should have noticed that from the markedly different writing styles. At the same time, I find myself preening from being mistaken by you for the likes of Dr. Shades whom I admire here (and did in the old days at MADB when I read his excellent, high-level posts there before he and I were banned).
Mistaken? Do you not have sense of ironic humour?
Sorry Ray. Looks like I posted too soon.
Please ignore the post I made just before this one.
"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?"
James Clifford Miller wrote:Nevertheless, a critic's attack like this on an apologist would not have been possible at MADB.
I differ in opinion. While not as crude, attacks on "apologists" happen very frequently.
The difference is here on MD, the attacker continues as a participant, on MADB, the attacker of an apologist runs the risk of getting permanently banned. I find that to be a fundamental and telling difference.
James Clifford Miller wrote:I'm still curious if you find the evenhandedness here a weakness.
I find the evenhandedness here a strength. I find the stupidity that comes with free speech breath-taking.
LOL! For once, I agree.
James Clifford Miller wrote:On a different subject, I confess admiration for your courage in continuing to post here in what must be a hostile environment for you. You don't exhibit the coolness under fire, measured responses, and ability to resist escalation under provocation like Dr. Peterson does (and I've submitted just such a post to him), but you both exhibit genuine courage and I commend you for it. I don't even care if you've both been "set apart" to sustain a defense of the Church in this forum, you're both still brave. I just hope you'll learn from Dr. Peterson how to keep your temper under control. It's certainly something I need to learn (and hope to do).
I like to call a spade a - spade. And an angry exmo an absolute, angry Jack- Ass.
*You can tell I'm absolutely delighted by Ray's paranoid misidentification. I'll bask any day in the reflected glory of anyone with glory and ride on the coattails of anyone with coattails!
Dr. Shades wrote:On this board, I've never used a sock-puppet. I used one a few times to get around the ban on the old FAIR boards as "Madrid," but I only made a few posts (less than 40?) to do so.
On ZLMB, I posted once as "Moon Quaker."
That's the extent of my sock-puppetry.
Unfortunately, in Scratchtalk, that's enough to brand you forever as a liar and a manipulator, and to cast doubt on everything you've ever said or ever will say (except, of course, when what you say might be useful against you or against something you believe in).
Anyone who has followed the long and tempestuous relationship between myself and Scratch will understand that his approach to those with whom he disagrees, especially when the subject matter is Gospel related, is essentially the same regardless of the individual in question or the position he takes on an issue, as long a it is in conflict with that which Scratch believes.
I'm now quite inured to the the classic anti-Mormon dissenter from Central Casting who comes to such forums with the standard LDS credentials; the Temple recommend, the callings, and loved by all the the Ward, but who presents as one with little substantive knowledge of Church doctrine or history (that hasn't be culled from Quinn) and for whom the Church is little more than an object of fear, loathing, and ritualistic denigration. My perception of Scratch is as its always been: he is an articulate, linguistically clever, half educated, poorly read, intellectual hack who has probably never been LDS at all, or, if he has, maintains a strict curtain of anonymity for fear of what might happen if his Bishop and SP (and LDS friends and family members) find out what he really thinks about the Church (and issues like Gay marriage, the ERA etc.).
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I also thank you for the opportunity to quote myself pointing out the differences between the evident evenhandedness here on a critical site on the one hand and on the other hand the one-sided moderation on LDS apologist sites (particularly MADB). It's an important point which cannot be made too often.
But the "one sided moderation" at MAD has made that board interesting, educational, and intellectually satisfying (for the most part) while still encouraging debate. The fact that there is no Terrestrial Kingdomj, Telestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness there, but a small body of rooms with a general standard of discourse means that much of what goes on here is not tolerated there, and hence, actual civil, critical discourse takes place. People like Scratch, Mercury, PP, Harmony, Kimberly, GIMR, and probably 80% of the population of this forum cannot post there because they will not, or constitutionally cannot, abide those intellectual standards.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I'm offended on MAD pretty much on a continuous basis. I try to ignore it and am usually pretty successful at that. It has been insinuated that I'm of the devil, that Southerners are racist, that Protestants are awful people, that atheists (or anyone not LDS) are amoral and I have had personal swipes against my family. Pretty much the same offense factor exists here. The only difference is you've taken a side. I have no side and see that pretty much there I could not defend myself. I'm thankful here that I can.
Coggins wrote:People like Scratch, Mercury, PP, Harmony, Kimberly, GIMR, and probably 80% of the population of this forum cannot post there because they will not, or constitutionally cannot, abide those intellectual standards.
'm offended on MAD pretty much on a continuous basis. I try to ignore it and am usually pretty successful at that. It has been insinuated that I'm of the devil, that Southerners are racist, that Protestants are awful people, that atheists (or anyone not LDS) are amoral and I have had personal swipes against my family. Pretty much the same offense factor exists here. The only difference is you've taken a side. I have no side and see that pretty much there I could not defend myself. I'm thankful here that I can.
Its easy to dish out, but difficult to take, isn't it?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:'m offended on MAD pretty much on a continuous basis. I try to ignore it and am usually pretty successful at that. It has been insinuated that I'm of the devil, that Southerners are racist, that Protestants are awful people, that atheists (or anyone not LDS) are amoral and I have had personal swipes against my family. Pretty much the same offense factor exists here. The only difference is you've taken a side. I have no side and see that pretty much there I could not defend myself. I'm thankful here that I can.
Its easy to dish out, but difficult to take, isn't it?