DiscussMormonism.com

Yoda wrote:To be honest, the whole thing happened so long ago, I don't really remember the details, and I haven't bothered to reread this entire thread.

I will say that YB has, over the years, developed a pattern of how he hones in on certain individuals and decides to "push their buttons" and treat them poorly. For someone who is a former Bishop, I think it's a rotten way to act. If Everybody Wang Chung wants to make an example of an apologist who has been an embarrassment to his religion for treatment of others, YB is a much better example than Dan, in my opinion.

However, I think that everyone is entitled to second chances. YB has a really great knowledge of the gospel, and I think that if he presented things in an amicable way, there is a lot to be learned from him.

I don't think YB has anything to teach me that I can't find somewhere else in a more sane and civilized amicable way. So yes I agree with you and so why put up with YB's so called second chances?

Yoda wrote:

Chap wrote:And although Yahoo Bot did his usual 'no case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney' act about it, he really did come off rather badly in that encounter, didn't he?

To be honest, the whole thing happened so long ago, I don't really remember the details, and I haven't bothered to reread this entire thread.

You don't need to read the entire thread. The first post by Beastie says it all:

viewtopic.php?p=251345#p251345

The guy is a troll. He is not here to communicate, but to downgrade this board by timewasting and distraction, mainly by annoying posters and using up bandwidth by saying things that he knows are not true, but which take time and effort to refute.

Yoda wrote:I will say that YB has, over the years, developed a pattern of how he hones in on certain individuals and decides to "push their buttons" and treat them poorly. For someone who is a former Bishop, I think it's a rotten way to act. If Everybody Wang Chung wants to make an example of an apologist who has been an embarrassment to his religion for treatment of others, YB is a much better example than Dan, in my opinion.

Well, yes.

Yoda wrote:However, I think that everyone is entitled to second chances. YB has a really great knowledge of the gospel, and I think that if he presented things in an amicable way, there is a lot to be learned from him.

If everybody had infinite reserves of time, energy and temper, it would still not be a good idea to treat Yahoo Bot as anything but what he plainly has decided to be - and that is a troll, whose main aim is to stop an (in his view) anti-Mormon board from functioning effectively and attracting the uncommitted to participate.

What Chap said.

Tator wrote:

Yoda wrote:To be honest, the whole thing happened so long ago, I don't really remember the details, and I haven't bothered to reread this entire thread.

I will say that YB has, over the years, developed a pattern of how he hones in on certain individuals and decides to "push their buttons" and treat them poorly. For someone who is a former Bishop, I think it's a rotten way to act. If Everybody Wang Chung wants to make an example of an apologist who has been an embarrassment to his religion for treatment of others, YB is a much better example than Dan, in my opinion.

However, I think that everyone is entitled to second chances. YB has a really great knowledge of the gospel, and I think that if he presented things in an amicable way, there is a lot to be learned from him.

I don't think YB has anything to teach me that I can't find somewhere else in a more sane and civilized amicable way. So yes I agree with you and so why put up with YB's so called second chances?

Actually, no one really has to. The easiest thing to do is to put YB on ignore.

As far as second chances are concerned, I just meant that he has as much right as anyone to post here. We are kind of a board of "second chances". After all, most of us were booted from the MAD board.

It's unfortunate that apparently YB is still behaving in such a manner that someone felt this thread was pertinent. I put him on ignore long ago, and highly recommend it. YB is like a bored kid who thinks up ways to aggravate a sibling just for the fun of it. One can only play "stop punching yourself" so many times.

My gosh, why can't people just let this thread be dormant. Why resurrect it again? To trash YB? To bring up old wounds? This thread was not the board's finest hour.

A lawyer opened the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along and hit the door, ripping it off completely. When the police arrived at the scene, the lawyer was complaining bitterly about the damage to his BMW.

"Officer, look what they've done to my Beamer!!!", he whined.

"You lawyers are so materialistic, you make me sick!!!" retorted the officer, "You're so worried about your stupid BMW, that you didn't even notice that your left arm was ripped off!!!"

"Oh my gaawd....", replied the lawyer, finally noticing the bloody left shoulder where his arm once was, "Where's my Rolex???!!!!!"

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:A lawyer opened the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along and hit the door, ripping it off completely. When the police arrived at the scene, the lawyer was complaining bitterly about the damage to his BMW.

"Officer, look what they've done to my Beamer!!!", he whined.

"You lawyers are so materialistic, you make me sick!!!" retorted the officer, "You're so worried about your stupid BMW, that you didn't even notice that your left arm was ripped off!!!"

"Oh my gaawd....", replied the lawyer, finally noticing the bloody left shoulder where his arm once was, "Where's my Rolex???!!!!!"

THAT is funny! My brother-in-law is an attorney. I need to send him that joke. He would appreciate it.

why me wrote:My gosh, why can't people just let this thread be dormant. Why resurrect it again? To trash YB? To bring up old wounds? This thread was not the board's finest hour.

Actually it was. It was started because of YB's dishonesty and trolling. It was resurrected again because of YB on another thread. I suppose though that since he defends the church he cannot do any wrong in your eyes.

Ahh. Some interesting observations above. My response.

I never had any contact with Eric's father about any of his postings on this board until his father, a client of mine, called me to ask about what he had read for himself. There were others on this board, whose names I know, who alerted Eric's dad. Not little old me, although I made an attempt to link to an Eric thread, but I had an obsolete email for Eric's dad and then didn't pursue when it bounced.

Eric did a lot more than post my wife's picture on his avatar. He contacted my firm's partners on three occasions. In the first post he used the phrase "child molester." In the third post he accused me of being a "gay basher". Of course, my firm has nothing to do with my posting. He contacted the state bar twice and in the last instance, reported to this board that an investigation file had been opened against me due to his complaints. My connections with the bar led me to the right person who reported that the complaints were summarily ignored and or rejected as frivolous and malicious. Seems the state bar is used to such.

Having said that, I want to remain neutral about Eric. I've followed his lawsuit and think there might be something there, but who knows. I certainly don't want to upset his parents and have them think that I oppose Eric's activities. Other than defensive measures I do, I really wish him the best and hope that on a better day I can help him.

As far as Beastie is concerned, I merely repeatedly quoted her own words, which contained a threat. She misconstrued a post I made as being hateful to women; I had called Scratch a "she" when I was developing a theory, which I still hold, that Scratch was really a committee. Beastie took my one-liner as an indictment of womanhood. You can read it for yourself.

But, now I turn to Kishkumen, whose anti-YB rhetoric is ratcheting up as the days go by, the constant allegation of "lying" when there isn't any example of such. I feel sorry for K, for the flipping we see between nice testimony-holding Trevor and viturperative let's crucify Him anew Kiskhumen, a truly split personality. One is somewhat committed to the gospel of Jesus, the other is committed to defame and injure. (I'm not talking about me; he knows who I am but doesn't try to hurt my career.) One is upbeat, one is depressed. One is helpful, one is spiteful. Of course, he must see by now that his on-line persona is a window to his realness, his schizophrenia, his descent into darker stuff. It really is remarkable to see him transitioning between Trevor and Kish; as Trevor he talked about Kish and Kish's problems. He is becoming one with Kevin Graham and Paul Osbourne. He is following their example of schizophrenia, but Kish differs in that he is more educated than they. I hope he comes back to faithfulness to honor the pioneers who crossed the plains and who died for him. The Church can use him.