DCP was skeptical of my claim, so I put together a list of insults that have been thrown at me since July 6, when I began posting again.
I want to be clear I am not putting this together to complain about MAD moderation. I am putting this together for one reason – to show DCP that critics can be harassed very closely to the way he is here.
From the thread: Honest Critic? Is there such a thing?
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 269&st=120
Pahoran:
While your criticism of me is based in sheer and shameless dishonesty. The hypocrisy you project upon me, out of your own superabundance, is a complete fabrication. And you know it.
JeffK
Well beastie, are you telling us you are open to being criticized for your poor posting, your bad logic, and your tendency to almost always, and I mean almost always, taking the position of those who fight against Zion?
Generally I have found anti-mormons who post here to be of very similar tastes. They disparage whenever can, they tend to obfuscate and take what might charitably be called a disengenuous and intellectually dishonest approach with low evidence and poor opinion which they generally state as fact.
I expect it and have yet to be disappointed.
JeffK
The labeling I see is hers, and of course yours. A kind of whiney passive aggressiveness that usually is the retreat of someone who doesn't have a good counter point. Your point regarding the volume of posts you have presumed to have read is irrelevant to the posts that I see. Calling someone obsessive is ridiculous. Nor do I particularly care about her background, I care about what is posted. And whether it makes sense or not.
JeffK
Your need to dissimulate when called on something shows a slight intellectual dishonesty.
JeffK
As to the relatively slow methodology you use towards understanding:
Enough people who show up here only to attack, and who lie reflect the fact that dishonesty is often attributed to those who attack the church.
JeffK
I can only speak from the experience. Maybe people are too dumb to catch on and so we tire of constantly re-explaining what is already known. Or perhaps we grow tired of the obfuscations presented. I suggest you read my sig more closely, you may know the words, but the context seems to escape you.
JeffK
I find your rather intellectually deficient diatribe and your lack of cognative ability to more than justify how utterly silly you have become in these posts.
Just because Paharon does something that is wrong, you presume to justify your action by saying "See Paharon does it".
That is childish, it is immature, it is intellectually dishonest. And you base your entire premise on someone else doing something. I would suggest that instead of worrying about my well adjusted children, you should consider how you yourself were raised. But that is of your personal concern.
Once again, just because someone else does something bad, doesn't justify you doing it.
Do you understand now?
I think a number of them (ie, critics) lie a great deal too. Calling them on it is not out of the ordinary. Well maybe it is for you.
I in no way justify Paharon, I merely point out to you that "you" are over the top. So stop using Paharon as a strawman for your childishness.
JeffK
Whining self absorbed supposition.
Pahoran:
The sophistries by which you attempt to rationalise your hypocrisy only demonstrate that you know how hypocritical you are being.
From the thread Little Yapping Curs and Ancient Vendettas
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =44304&hl=
Pahoran:
A certain little yapping cur then interposed by accusing me of having made a similar argument about anti-Mormons, years and years ago, on another forum far, far away.
From the thread “Are There Any Valid Criticisms”
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 4256&st=20
selek
That having been said, I shall set aside sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek entirely and thank Scottie and Thinking for thier integrity in this thread. While we do not see eye-to-eye even on the color of an orange, and have clashed loudly and heatedly, I am happy to know that there are men such as these among our critics. Such is the consequence of letting me watch Cyrano before posting. And then, of course Beastly slinks in to soil the rug and offer a contrast to their courage.
Selek, commenting on beastie:
I say no, for it is not those who differ from me that are the target of my wit- poor rag though it be-, but the uncouth, the deceitful, the rapacious, the dishonest, the schemer, the liar, the jackal, the fraud and the fool. As such, you may find Beastie to be august company, but her post remains nonetheless, a stain, a blight, and a missive unworthy even of burning. Differ with me and we have no quarrel. Despise me and I'll think you a fool. Slander me and understand that you stand on dangerous ground.
Smart? Thoughtful? I say to you nay- she is neither. She is clever. She is crafty. She is cunning and gifted with the serpent's own tongue to the twisting of words and truth to the service of deceit and treachery. Yet for all her eloquence, her skill at heaping up TRUTH could not mount up a pile of crumbs fit for a starving mouse.
Now, Montfleury , back to the play.
Pahoran, insinuating I was knowingly lying:
Why no, Beastie.
As you perfectly well know, I would not.
As you perfectly well know, I did in fact refer to such an incident once to demonstrate how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.
As you perfectly well know, that is not the same thing.
And now, thanks to you, I can refer to it again, to demonstrate how anti-Mormons invariably misrepresent the arguments put forward by LDS apologists.
Thank you so very much.
Pahoran
As you perfectly well know, I have engaged in no "polemics;" I am attacking no belief system.
For the record, I feel no "moral outrage" about Dr W's obvious desperation at the lack of a valid argument against the Church of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, I'm rather pleased with it. I point out the contrast between his self-description and his actions because that contrast supports my position.
Pahoran
I did not refer to Gino telling a story that did not resemble the facts. You did not quote me as attributing to Gino a story that did not resemble the facts.
So I am going to ask you for the last time to please refrain from such fabrications.
I am not your husband (for which I am devoutly grateful) so I don't have to apologise to you for being right when you are obstinately and offensively wrong.
This derail has really gone on long enough, I think. If you want to pursue this further, you will be pleased to take it to another thread.
Pahoran
either of these apply to your ancient grudge against me; therefore your harping and nagging on this topic constitute a derailment of the thread.
Pahoran
Just so you know, the facts failed to resemble the story his brother told.
My two-sentence hand-wave at the Manna case fails entirely to resemble DrW's slick, demagogical manipulation of the "Christine Jonsen" case.
As you perfectly well know.
And your continued nagging and harping about it fails entirely to address the purposes of this thread.
Pahoran
That is an assertion you cannot plausibly claim to have a good faith belief in.
Pahoran:
That's as truthful as any assertion you've made; that is, it is false.
From the thread “Can’t Leave it Alone”
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 4339&st=20
JeffK
The rest is really just your lack of maturity in dealing with Mormons beastie. You seem to want to blame all but yourself regarding your decision to stop believing (an internal act). /a word of advice whining is inviting a sad pathos to your existence as an individual, while simultaneously ducking your own responsibility for who you are. Like someone spoilt child desperate for some hard Oprah couch time and seeking some kind of outside validation from the audience or Doctor Phil. In a sense I could blame America for being so politically correct as to encourage such a crop of mewling kittens who are upset when their milk doesn't have cream.
There are real things to worry about out there, that have nothing to do with blaming the church because of how you feel about your belief system. Such people really need to get over themselves.
JeffK
The context was self validation, not testing one's testimony beastie. It is more than a little intellectually dishonest to change context.
But that's ok, we have come to expect such dodges and weaves.
As long as it doesn't make sense to you, you will continue to blame others for your own choices.
Now, this next part really reminded me of how DCP is often treated here. JeffK clearly made a personal remark about me – a remark I found completely unwarranted. So I asked:
Beastie
by the way, just whom do I blame for my choices, and which choices do I blame them for?
JeffK responded:
Every single time you discuss your own apostasy, you blame the church. Oh the leaders this... and the leaers that ,,,, it is a clear pattern you follow. It is whining and somewhat boring.
Your view is that somehow external validation is what testimony is about misses the reasoning for testimony meetings. You attempted to change context is not intellectually honest. If there were no testimony meeting, would a testimony be diminished? No, it would not be, if you have a good testimony. Your testimony is not validated because another believes or disbelieves. It would be obvious to most.
Once again, Jeff made an assertion about me that I felt was completely unwarranted. So I asked him to prove his assertion:
Beastie
Give me a couple of examples. It shouldn't be hard, since I do it repeatedly.
JeffK
We had a whole thread on how you blamed church leaders and hiding history for your falling away... please don't be tiresome.
Jason:
And the thread heads rapidly down the tubes to "you said this" and "I said that", which seems to happen all too often when beastie is involved.
So I’m not allowed to respond when personal comments are made toward me without being accused of…. To paraphrase… making it about me.
Sound familiar, DCP?
JeffK
You are right, I should treat her as a parody of intellectual discourse.
Jason
Or maybe people on the board just don't like you.
My comments:
I really don’t think that I behaved in a fashion to justify these remarks. I did accuse Pahoran of being a hypocrite and rewriting history, within the context of Pahoran accusing Dr. W of being dishonest for “exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness to sore a polemic point”. I presented information that I think showed Pahoran did the exact same thing. I’m pretty sure those comments were the only ones I made that could be construed to be similar, at all, to these comments made to me. And I made those comments within a specific context. Often these insults were launched at me without any connection to the context at all.
Keep in mind – this long list of personal insults that I’ve endured on MAD were all made in the course of one week.
