Congratulations DCP

[_Some Schmo]

Well, enough of this. Thinking of gas reminds me of how lightweight Some Schmo is. If he weren't wearing shoes, he'd float entirely away. At least Rollo and Rollo's master have the gravity of grim malice to give them ballast. The Schmo is more like a yipping little Chihuahua that's been inhaling helium.

Basta!

Dude, after all the donuts you've eaten, you're just jealous you're not lightweight yourself.

So, is this to be tonight's tactic? Can't face the comments so you're going to retreat behind some weak insult and go running for the hills?

Shocker! Never seen him do this before!

LMAO

[_Daniel Peterson]

"It's all true!" he sobs, his shoulders shaking with grief and agony. "The Schmo's powerful arguments have driven me away in abject terror! He is, indeed, the true and fitting successor to Rollo and the Master. Though I have long yearned for subtle and intellectual discussion such as the Schmo offers, when I'm actually confronted by it I find it far too frightening, too powerful, to endure. I must flee!"

Cue hokey music.

(Good grief. Could the Schmo possibly be serious? Does he actually think he's offering weighty arguments? If so, cue Twilight Zone music.)

And Beastie wonders why I don't think serious conversation is possible here . . .

[_beastie]

Daniel,

I'm going to be serious for just a moment.

The reason you can't have reasonable conversations here - or on any board with exmormons and Mormons - is partly your fault, as well. Yes, there are a few people here who go after you obsessively, (and you are drawn to them like a moth to the flame) but you have problems that go far beyond that in trying to communicate with exmormons. You are quite dismissive and condescending. You rarely address actual issues on these boards, as you freely admit. That frustrates people. While you may never agree with whether or not loss of faith is ever justified, reality is that there are serious challenges confronting the LDS faith, and when believers respond in a sneering, condescending manner towards those issues, it creates serious communication issues.

Perhaps you are not that way in real life. But you are on the internet.

When conversations predictably become about one person whenever they participate in conversations, the problem is always partly their fault.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm going to be quite serious, too. I'm drawn to the bad guys because one of my principal reasons for coming here is my fascination with extraordinarily bad behavior over religious issues. I've long been absolutely riveted by egregious bigotry on the part of some evangelicals, and I'm intrigued to see it coming from secularists, as well.

I don't come to places like this for substantive discussion. I don't believe it possible, and only a few people here are equipped to engage in it in any event.

I am, in fact, not dismissive and condescending -- except of people like Some Schmo (with whom I never, ever, initiate matters), who merit nothing more than dismissal. I have many, many flaws, but elitism isn't among those flaws. It never has been. I don't come from an elite background.

I have never for a moment denied that there are legitimate issues regarding Mormon beliefs. You have, as I recall, consistently failed to understand my comment about whether or not a loss of faith is ever justified. I've tried to explain it, but, clearly, to no avail. I've denied the interpretation that you have put on it, but, again, to no purpose.

I never respond in a sneering or condescending way to serious people with serious questions. I do not, however, feel any obligation to grovel with reverence toward people like Some Schmo, who, in my experience with them anyway, are consistently aggressive, insulting, and nonsubstantive. It strikes me as truly bizarre that you write to fault me for responding, but fail to notice the continuous and consistently juvenile attacks to which I'm responding.

I disagree with your claim that, when conversations predictably become about one person whenever they participate in conversations, the problem is always partly their fault. On at least two occasions, once on an evangelical message board and once on a secularizing ex-Mormon list, I simply posted an opening introduction and then was pinned to the wall for the next several days by insults and attacks. I know for a fact that I don't have to do anything at all for my sheer presence to provoke certain people.

In any event, I'm going to be away for at least a month. Perhaps the quality and depth of discussions here will soar. But I doubt it.

[_Some Schmo]

I never respond in a sneering or condescending way to serious people with serious questions. I do not, however, feel any obligation to grovel with reverence toward people like Some Schmo, who, in my experience with them anyway, are consistently aggressive, insulting, and nonsubstantive. It strikes me as truly bizarre that you write to fault me for responding, but fail to notice the continuous and consistently juvenile attacks to which I'm responding.

LOL

Wait a second... are you trying to tell me you're capable of serious discussion? That's hilarious! And to think that all this time I was trying to pander to the only level of discourse I've ever seen you put out.

Go figure.

I come here because I find myself fascinated by the bad behavior and BS being sold by apologists...

except of people like Some Schmo (with whom I never, ever, initiate matters)

I call BS. This may be partially true now, but it certainly wasn't true back in my FAIR days. That's ok though; I'm used to your distortions of the truth.

[_beastie]

I never respond in a sneering or condescending way to serious people with serious questions.

It's hard for us to see our behavior in the eyes of the other. I know you believe you do not respond in a sneering or condescending way to serious people with serious questions. But you have, and do.

Perhaps the difference in our perceptions has to do with who is "serious" with a "serious" question.

I'm going to be quite serious, too. I'm drawn to the bad guys because one of my principal reasons for coming here is my fascination with extraordinarily bad behavior over religious issues. I've long been absolutely riveted by egregious bigotry on the part of some evangelicals, and I'm intrigued to see it coming from secularists, as well.

Study Pahoran, Ray, and Wade, as well. Are you able to set aside your biases long enough to recognize that each of them has, at times, engaged in egregiously bad behavior over religious issues?

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm going to be quite serious, too. I'm drawn to the bad guys because one of my principal reasons for coming here is my fascination with extraordinarily bad behavior over religious issues.

So then... you are drawn to such things as Bill Hamblin's anti-Semetic rant, which he delivered in a fit of apoplectic rage to RfM? Or to Allen Wyatt's cybersquatting? Or juliann's manipulation of sources? Or Lance Starr's attempts to attack Tom Murphy? Or Pahoran---my goodness, Pahoran!---and his long list of misdeeds? (E.g., telling a suidical person s/he deserved it; publishing private information; putting people's lives in danger, etc., etc.---oh, wait: that's right. You said you considered Pahoran to be a kind, thoughtful individual.)

I've long been absolutely riveted by egregious bigotry on the part of some evangelicals, and I'm intrigued to see it coming from secularists, as well.

You actually don't really care about "bigotry" you only care about defending the LDS Church, and that's it. Having any solid morals is irrelevant when it comes to this for you. You either don't see this, or you won't see it.

I don't come to places like this for substantive discussion. I don't believe it possible, and only a few people here are equipped to engage in it in any event.

It *is* possible. The reason it doesn't seem that way to you is that half the time you refuse to answer or address genuine questions.

I am, in fact, not dismissive and condescending -- except of people like Some Schmo (with whom I never, ever, initiate matters), who merit nothing more than dismissal. I have many, many flaws, but elitism isn't among those flaws. It never has been. I don't come from an elite background.

I would like to take you at your word, but your actions contradict what you're saying. Otherwise, why would you carry on in the Gee thread about Gee's and Bokovoy's university achievements? Why would you boast about the various bigwigs and dignitaries you hang out with? Open mouth, insert foot, Prof. P.

I have never for a moment denied that there are legitimate issues regarding Mormon beliefs.

Oh, really? Then what are they? You have always, so far as I know, refused to say.

I never respond in a sneering or condescending way to serious people with serious questions.

Yes, you do.

I do not, however, feel any obligation to grovel with reverence toward people like Some Schmo, who, in my experience with them anyway, are consistently aggressive, insulting, and nonsubstantive. It strikes me as truly bizarre that you write to fault me for responding, but fail to notice the continuous and consistently juvenile attacks to which I'm responding.

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it? Or are you advocating a "two wrongs make a right" sort of approach?

You know, I noticed on the other thread that you performed a stunning about-face after Guy Sajer apologized to you. Really, I don't think I have ever seen such a sea change in your behavior. Is that all it takes? You had been carrying on, ridiculing him for Lord know's how many posts, and then---a magnificent flip-flop. Have you ever wondered if others would treat you in the same way? I.e., maybe you ought to apologize for some of your misdeeds? Or is Rollo right about you: that you are just the same as the institutional Church---incapable of apology and accepting culpability?

I disagree with your claim that, when conversations predictably become about one person whenever they participate in conversations, the problem is always partly their fault. On at least two occasions, once on an evangelical message board and once on a secularizing ex-Mormon list, I simply posted an opening introduction and then was pinned to the wall for the next several days by insults and attacks. I know for a fact that I don't have to do anything at all for my sheer presence to provoke certain people.

I don't think this would be a problem (or at least as much as a problem) if you would simply own up to your mistakes and misdeeds. It is always easier to forgive on with a contrite heart. But it is very hard to forgive someone whose heart is hardened with arrogance.

In any event, I'm going to be away for at least a month. Perhaps the quality and depth of discussions here will soar. But I doubt it.

Well, I hope you have a wonderful trip. Don't forget to write! ; )

[_The Nehor]

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it? Or are you advocating a "two wrongs make a right" sort of approach?

You have my permission to be condescending to me if I get permission to do the same to you.

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it? Or are you advocating a "two wrongs make a right" sort of approach?

You have my permission to be condescending to me if I get permission to do the same to you.

Sorry about that Nehor---you know I love you. I was only trying to get a point across. I hope you can forgive me. :-(

[_Daniel Peterson]

The idea that Bill Hamblin is an anti-Semite, and that he delivered an anti-Semitic rant, may well be the crowning achievement of Scratch's remarkable career in character assassination. It is simply so spectacularly wrong, so absurdly counterfactual, that I very much doubt that Scratch will ever be able to surpass it, however heroically he tries.

Shalom.