DiscussMormonism.com

Pahoran wrote:In the thread in which Beastie showed her true colours, she specifically singled out the fact that you called Scratch "Ms Scratch," thereby implying that he was a woman, thereby insulting him, which therefore showed that you think calling someone a woman is an insult, thus you were a misogynist.

Now I don't know anything about Scratch in real life, but I'm confident he's male, because of the way he fights.

Just like I'm confident Beastie is female, because of the way she fights.

Beastie fights not like a girl, but like a fishwife. I can just see her, wagging a rolling pin at her hapless husband, and saying: "Don't talk to ME about that! Why, five and a half years ago, YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU said...!" And all in a voice like fingernails on a blackboard, rising to a perfectly off-pitch soprano screech.

Your imagination notwithstanding, Trixie has a melodious voice. Try to not fall into your MAD behavior, Pahoran. It's embarrassing.

Pahoran,

In response to being corrected on the meaning and etymology of the idiom "lie back and think of England" you said,

Pahoran wrote:Thank you.

You're welcome.

Pahoran wrote:Now explain why it is not a vile, inconscionable thing to say to a married man about his sex life, and why any woman with a shred of virtue would think to say such a thing.

I'm not going to explain the Victorian mothers who allegedly tell this to their daughters, and I'm not going to explain why Lady Alice Hillingdon allegedly coined the phrase.

And I am not going to listen to you lecture about the vice of hurling vile and inconscionable insults, your expertise in such things notwithstanding.

This thread is remarkable.

I'm now a woman without a shred of virtue, a fishwife with a voice like fingernails scraping the blackboard, with sociopathic tendencies....

and, of course, this all diverts from the fact that pahoran accused Dr W of exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness in order to score a polemic point... and Pahoran was "pleased" by Dr W's actions...and Pahoran exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point in the past, as well... and Pahoran is waxing eloquent in his condemnation of my character and, it would seem, probably physical traits as well.

It's crazy season.

Pahoran wrote:Beastie fights not like a girl, but like a fishwife. I can just see her, wagging a rolling pin at her hapless husband, and saying: "Don't talk to ME about that! Why, five and a half years ago, YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU said...!" And all in a voice like fingernails on a blackboard, rising to a perfectly off-pitch soprano screech.

Scratch, OTOH, fights, not like a man, but like a fat boy with a rich father: he postures, and he blusters, and he makes rude gestures -- but all from safely on the other side of a wrought-iron fence, and standing next to his dad's chauffer.

Oh. My. God.

Consiglieri (talking to himself)

beastie wrote:I'm now a woman without a shred of virtue, a fishwife with a voice like fingernails scraping the blackboard, with sociopathic tendencies....

You forgot hypocrite. Come on.

beastie wrote:I'm now a woman without a shred of virtue, a fishwife with a voice like fingernails scraping the blackboard, with sociopathic tendencies....

You're not as good at self-deprecation as Dr. Peterson.

Oddly, I have a comment to make on the following:

Pahoran wrote:In the thread in which Beastie showed her true colours, she specifically singled out the fact that you called Scratch "Ms Scratch," thereby implying that he was a woman, thereby insulting him, which therefore showed that you think calling someone a woman is an insult, thus you were a misogynist.

I've also referred to Scratch as female in the past, when I referred to him as "sis". I believed Scratch was female.

Now I don't know anything about Scratch in real life, but I'm confident he's male, because of the way he fights.

Just like I'm confident Beastie is female, because of the way she fights.

The way Scratch fights is exactly why I thought Scratch was female. But I can't hear Scratch like you can hear beastie. ;-)

beastie wrote:and, of course, this all diverts from the fact that pahoran accused Dr W of exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness in order to score a polemic point... and Pahoran was "pleased" by Dr W's actions...and Pahoran exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point in the past, as well...

No, none of this "diverts" from any of that set of factoids; I was, as I am sure you can read well enough to understand, responding to what others have said in this thread.

To the above:

Yes, DrW did indeed exploit a tragedy caused by mental illness in order to craft a completely illegitimate demagogical argument against the Church of Jesus Christ.

No, I was not "pleased." Not everything I say is necessarily to take a position; the above remark was a tactical riposte intended to stop you derailing the discussion into my "moral outrage."

By your own declared standards of behaviour, you must now refrain from repeating that statement, because you will be knowingly making a false assertion. However, since the notion that I am "pleased" to find that my opponents are conscienceless rotters appeals to your personal prejudices and polemical agenda, you will no doubt choose to "sincerely believe" that that's how I really feel about things. Your ability to justify your hypocrisy is equal to any exigency.

And no, my two-sentence hand-wave at the Manna case was not, to any reasonable person, even remotely comparable to what DrW did. Please recall that the only reason the five-and-a-half year old discussion over which you are now obsessing went any longer than those two sentences was because you got hold of it like a dog with a bone and refused to let it go.

Unlike DrW, I did not attempt to parlay it into a commentary on the true nature of apostates and/or anti-Mormons. Merely pointing it out was as far as my interest went.

As, I am sure, you have the intelligence to realise.

Regards,
Pahoran

No, I was not "pleased." Not everything I say is necessarily to take a position; the above remark was a tactical riposte intended to stop you derailing the discussion into my "moral outrage."

I see. If we take into consideration your "tactical ripostes" that aren't intended to take a position (!), your "fuzziness" on morphing a never-been-mormon into an example of an apostate who tells lies over the break-up of his - or whoops, his brother's - marriage - oh wait, I forgot, under Pahoran's rules one cannot discuss the break up of the marriage but only the murder...on a thread about marital break-ups...your "imprecise language"... it's a miracle anyone ever understands what you really mean to say.

Unlike DrW, I did not attempt to parlay it into a commentary on the true nature of apostates and/or anti-Mormons. Merely pointing it out was as far as my interest went.

LOL. So the use of this example to prove your categorical statement that when apostates blame the church for their marital break-ups, they're always lying was, perhaps, another "tactical riposte"? Or maybe "imprecise language"? Or maybe "fuzziness"?

But certainly it could not be interpreted by any reasonable person as a commentary on the true nature of apostates.

Sweet.

Pahoran wrote:As I suspected. Gadianton was clearly having a Proverbs 28:1 moment.

Hi Pahoran. I'm going to assume you meant "Gadianton Plumber" here, and weren't implying that he and I might be one and the same.

Nice to see you on the board again. The BBQ offer still stands if you're ever in California, just send me a PM. I have a freezer full of Ribeye steaks now, they are very, very good. And we don't use gas over here, just the right mix of charcoal and wood. A little montreal steak and cooked with habanero peppers. It's a very old-school BBQ, I have not eaten a restaraunt cooked steak that tastes better (I'll admit I've never been to Japan nor have I spent more than 60$ on a steak).