DiscussMormonism.com

The Nehor wrote:
Sure:

Nehor---

I have to say, you have done a remarkably good job of defending your position, and I really have to tip my hat to you. You are without question one of "The Good Ones."

For context: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... hor#p40039

Not only does it say I'm one of the good ones but that you say I did a remarkably good job of defending my position I'll also take that as evidence of substance and sincerity.

You're welcome. Now, was that a post a lie to manipulate me, a joke, or would you like to withdraw it as incorrect?

Ah, yes! I suspected that it had been uttered in the context of some discussion pertaining to the SCMC. Thank you for providing the link. I can see now that I was being sarcastic. Why, after all, would I sincerely praise a defender of the SCMC as one of "The Good Ones"?

As to your claim that you post with "substance and sincerity"... Well, I suppose that, given my review of your comments on that thread, it is debatable. It's probably worth pointing out that this was the same thread in which you said "Personally I'd rather lose 2 planes a year and still be able to show up at the airport and get on the plane within 15 minutes." Is that what you consider "substantive and serious"? You stated in the "Hughies" thread that you quit posting with "substance" due to the reaction that you got, and yet it seems to me that you were treated decently--especially given the juvenile ridiculousness of what what coming out of your keyboard.

Finally, you had to go back two years to dig up an example of your supposed "seriousness and substance." That doesn't do much to help your claims, my dear boy.

Mister Scratch wrote:Ah, yes! I suspected that it had been uttered in the context of some discussion pertaining to the SCMC. Thank you for providing the link. I can see now that I was being sarcastic. Why, after all, would I sincerely praise a defender of the SCMC as one of "The Good Ones"?

Because you used to be more honest then you are now and your views on the SCMC hadn't codified into utter contempt yet. Sarcasm? You didn't follow through Scratch. Sarcasm is supposed to be revealed. It's a kind of wit. No one seemed to laugh. In fact, our discussion continued

As to your claim that you post with "substance and sincerity"... Well, I suppose that, given my review of your comments on that thread, it is debatable.

That's as much of an admission as I'll ever get. I invite all to review the evidence and decide for themselves.

It's probably worth pointing out that this was the same thread in which you said "Personally I'd rather lose 2 planes a year and still be able to show up at the airport and get on the plane within 15 minutes." Is that what you consider "substantive and serious"?

I still believe that. I also believe that we shouldn't restrict cars to 10 mph everywhere to decrease the number of automobile fatalities.

You stated in the "Hughies" thread that you quit posting with "substance" due to the reaction that you got, and yet it seems to me that you were treated decently--especially given the juvenile ridiculousness of what what coming out of your keyboard.

I was treated decently in that thread until I discovered your biting sarcasm that slipped past everyone's radar. One would almost suspect that what you said is now sarcasm only to avoid being caught in a lie. As for juvenile antics, I've always been a jokester here. It just used to be only a part of what I did hear.

Finally, you had to go back two years to dig up an example of your supposed "seriousness and substance." That doesn't do much to help your claims, my dear boy.

Note the claim was I USED to post serious and substantive things. I generally don't anymore. How exactly this disproves my claim I have no idea. Still, Scratchian logic is an odd beast and I might have missed something.

I'm afraid I don't buy your backpedaling sarcasm explanation. I have to conclude that you were in fact wrong or forgot your own history. That's normal for fanatical hatred. Eventually you rewrite the memories of white and gray things into total black to justify your twisted worldview.

Wow! Look at this! This is the most substantive posting you've done in ages, The Nehor! You really are flailing about in desperation. How unfortunate.

The Nehor wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Ah, yes! I suspected that it had been uttered in the context of some discussion pertaining to the SCMC. Thank you for providing the link. I can see now that I was being sarcastic. Why, after all, would I sincerely praise a defender of the SCMC as one of "The Good Ones"?

Because you used to be more honest then you are now and your views on the SCMC hadn't codified into utter contempt yet.

But, The Nehor: I have always had a great deal of disdain for the SCMC. I had posted criticism of it on KG's board, well prior (by some 18 months) to the thread you linked.

Sarcasm? You didn't follow through Scratch. Sarcasm is supposed to be revealed. It's a kind of wit. No one seemed to laugh.

Oh, believe me. I laughed.

It's probably worth pointing out that this was the same thread in which you said "Personally I'd rather lose 2 planes a year and still be able to show up at the airport and get on the plane within 15 minutes." Is that what you consider "substantive and serious"?

I still believe that. I also believe that we shouldn't restrict cars to 10 mph everywhere to decrease the number of automobile fatalities.

Oh, my.

You stated in the "Hughies" thread that you quit posting with "substance" due to the reaction that you got, and yet it seems to me that you were treated decently--especially given the juvenile ridiculousness of what what coming out of your keyboard.

I was treated decently in that thread until I discovered your biting sarcasm that slipped past everyone's radar.

I'm afraid I don't follow you, The Nehor. Above you said that you never discovered the sarcasm, and now you're saying that you did. So, were you lying in your original statement?

One would almost suspect that what you said is now sarcasm only to avoid being caught in a lie. As for juvenile antics, I've always been a jokester here. It just used to be only a part of what I did hear.

What you did "hear"? Wow, even your spelling is falling to pieces. You must really be in a rage.

What would the "lie" be, The Nehor? I said in my original recollection that I figured I may have been joking.

Finally, you had to go back two years to dig up an example of your supposed "seriousness and substance." That doesn't do much to help your claims, my dear boy.

Note the claim was I USED to post serious and substantive things.

Yes, and you've yet to provide a definitive and irrefutable example of "serious and substantive things." The above is just your usual juvenile ranting. You probably think that your nonsense about women not fighting back deserve to be raped is also "serious and substantive."

I'm afraid I don't buy your backpedaling sarcasm explanation. I have to conclude that you were in fact wrong or forgot your own history. That's normal for fanatical hatred. Eventually you rewrite the memories of white and gray things into total black to justify your twisted worldview.

"Twisted worldview"? The Nehor, my dear boy, I'm not the one who thinks it's okay to sacrifice a couple of planes a year so that I can board my plane in fifteen minutes.

Well, if spelling shows I'm in a rage then your bad grammar above means you must be livid.

Let's suppose an apologist is phoned by the Strengthening Church Members Committee. The apologist is given an order by the Committee---e.g., the apologist is told, "Look. We have a problem with a prominent member who is 'struggling' with the Church. We know about your apologetic activities, and we need you to intervene. I don't advise you to deny this request, since this is coming straight from the First Presidency. So, will you help us out? Will you speak to this wavering member?"

Is that how you, too, envision this taking place?

Yes. It is. Clearly in this case the apologist is being used as an apologist. Is being called, temporarily, to the office of an apologist.

I can imagine a darker kind of recruiting though, I'll have to think about an example, but I can imagine an apologist's expertise on the "dirt" surrounding the ex-mo and "anti" world could come in very handy to the SCMC. I'd imagine the SCMC, clip though they might, often draws a blank on context. And who could better elaborate on the damning situation of the wavering or questioning member than an apologist?

Gadianton wrote:

Let's suppose an apologist is phoned by the Strengthening Church Members Committee. The apologist is given an order by the Committee---e.g., the apologist is told, "Look. We have a problem with a prominent member who is 'struggling' with the Church. We know about your apologetic activities, and we need you to intervene. I don't advise you to deny this request, since this is coming straight from the First Presidency. So, will you help us out? Will you speak to this wavering member?"

Is that how you, too, envision this taking place?

Yes. It is. Clearly in this case the apologist is being used as an apologist. Is being called, temporarily, to the office of an apologist.

I can imagine a darker kind of recruiting though, I'll have to think about an example, but I can imagine an apologist's expertise on the "dirt" surrounding the ex-mo and "anti" world could come in very handy to the SCMC. I'd imagine the SCMC, clip though they might, often draws a blank on context. And who could better elaborate on the damning situation of the wavering or questioning member than an apologist?

This topic just gets dumber and dumber.

Gadianton wrote:
I can imagine a darker kind of recruiting though, I'll have to think about an example, but I can imagine an apologist's expertise on the "dirt" surrounding the ex-mo and "anti" world could come in very handy to the SCMC. I'd imagine the SCMC, clip though they might, often draws a blank on context. And who could better elaborate on the damning situation of the wavering or questioning member than an apologist?

I would definitely be interested in hearing a specific example. Reflectively speaking, though, I have come to realize that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. For one thing, the reaction on the aptly named MADboard was striking. Every so often, when the critics have alighted on a very sensitive Mopologetic issue, the MADites will erupt in a group hug/laugh session, apparently in an effort to reassure themselves that everything is OK. We saw this after the threads dealing with FARMS finances, and we are seeing it again now. I think it's safe to say that the Brethren are more deeply involved with FARMS then we have long been led to believe. Indeed, this is such a sensitive subject that Bill Hamblin issued a rather grave warning to DCP:

Prof. Hamblin wrote:Dan, it's time to re-lock up the bedlamites over at the Bedlam Board and throw away the key.

Recall that DCP said much the same to Hamblin when it was apparent that Prof. H. would get creamed by Kevin Graham on K. Shirts's blog (or wherever it was). The bottom line here is that there appears to be a lot at stake in terms of maintaining the facade that the Brethren have nothing to do with LDS apologetics.

Mister Scratch wrote:

Gadianton wrote:
I can imagine a darker kind of recruiting though, I'll have to think about an example, but I can imagine an apologist's expertise on the "dirt" surrounding the ex-mo and "anti" world could come in very handy to the SCMC. I'd imagine the SCMC, clip though they might, often draws a blank on context. And who could better elaborate on the damning situation of the wavering or questioning member than an apologist?

I would definitely be interested in hearing a specific example. Reflectively speaking, though, I have come to realize that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. For one thing, the reaction on the aptly named MADboard was striking. Every so often, when the critics have alighted on a very sensitive Mopologetic issue, the MADites will erupt in a group hug/laugh session, apparently in an effort to reassure themselves that everything is OK. We saw this after the threads dealing with FARMS finances, and we are seeing it again now. I think it's safe to say that the Brethren are more deeply involved with FARMS then we have long been led to believe. Indeed, this is such a sensitive subject that Bill Hamblin issued a rather grave warning to DCP:

Prof. Hamblin wrote:Dan, it's time to re-lock up the bedlamites over at the Bedlam Board and throw away the key.

Recall that DCP said much the same to Hamblin when it was apparent that Prof. H. would get creamed by Kevin Graham on K. Shirts's blog (or wherever it was). The bottom line here is that there appears to be a lot at stake in terms of maintaining the facade that the Brethren have nothing to do with LDS apologetics.

LOL

The Nehor wrote:
... I USED to post serious and substantive things.

CFR.

antishock8 wrote:

The Nehor wrote:
... I USED to post serious and substantive things.

CFR.

Sure, use the search function and read all my posts from a year and a half ago to when I first registered. Thanks for your interest.