The Irrepressible Lou Midgley

[_Calculus Crusader]

Midgley is a petty man with petty thoughts.

This from the fellow who thinks only his kind of Christians are Christians at all.

That's not the case. I accept Trinitarians and Modalists as Christians and neither is my kind of Christian.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, there, Pahoran. Welcome back! I guess you've got some new-found courage after all that butt-kissing and sucking-up led to you at last being installed as a moderator on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board. Congrats on your accomplishments!

Also: thanks for helping me to reminisce about the grand old days of "Mister Scratch's Guide to FAIR." It reminds me that I need to resume work on The Encyclopedia of Mopologetics. I really should probably include an entry on you. Could you maybe send me a picture of yourself, just so that the entry looks polished and professional?

Finally: I don't know that I can accept full credit for developing the "dossiers" on the old "Guide to FAIR." I mean, we should give credit where it's due---the antecedent here is the "Critic's Corner" on SHIELDS, and also Prof. Peterson's somewhat more informal "RfM Archive." Heck, DCP had me beat! Sure, I may have posted your rather well-known names, but good old Dr. Peterson was posting the email addresses and names of people who'd consistently used pseudonyms! Wow!

[_Runtu]

In other words, you've bought into the mythology and decided that it applies to me.

In all honesty, I didn't have to buy into mythology. Back when we were on a.r.m. many years ago, I was embarrassed and ashamed of your behavior because I thought, and still do, that you tarnished the reputation of us LDS by being so relentlessly nasty to people.

The fact that you don't like me very much is an entirely unrelated coincidence.

Oh, not entirely unrelated. I wouldn't say that I dislike you personally, but I abhor your tactics and behavior. Always have. That you went after me when I was suicidal probably didn't help.

And by the same token, there are a whole lot of assumptions that come with the label of "agnostic." For instance, "you can't possibly take seriously anything he says about prophets or revelation; he doesn't even believe in God!"

Why would anyone need to pretend an agnostic was an EV in order to "demonise" him?

I stand by what I said: it's much easier to dismiss an EV than a secular critic. You know that as well as I do. Perhaps "demonize" was an overstatement on my part.

And you notice how the myth feeds upon itself. You think I demonise people, so you interpret something I wrote in terms of the demonisation paradigm, and that in turn becomes further evidence that I demonise people. And so around and around it goes. Next month: "That Pahoran really loves to demonise people. He called Chris Smith an EV, just to demonise him!"

No, it's just sixteen years of observation. I don't know why you do and say what you do. It's been a mystery to me for many years. You are obviously very intelligent and a gifted writer. Why you use your talents to belittle others is beyond my comprehension.

I admit, to my shame, that I haven't been following Chris's personal beliefs quite as obsessively as Scratch follows Dan Peterson's every move. In fact, although I was dimly aware that Chris's views weren't exactly orthodox Southern Baptist these days, I really hadn't given it much thought, and assumed -- errantly, as it turned out -- that he was simply a bit more "liberal" than the norm.

As I said, I've apologized for jumping to a conclusion about you.

I didn't say you had; but you were posting in defense of Kevin, who told us, in shocked and outraged tones, about Mormon apologists maliciously accusing Chris Smith of being an EV in order to establish what, exactly?

I thought I made it clear what I thought you were doing in labeling Chris. Again, I am sorry for making that assumption. I can't answer for Kevin.

And by the same token, I may not be the only person who did not receive the memo on Chris's updated beliefs. And that may not automagically be due to someone wanting to "demonise" him.

Maybe not.

[_moksha]

Two guys were in the woods when they saw a bear heading towards them. They both took off. One got a little bit ahead of his friend, then he slowed down a little.

"What are you slowing down for?" panted the man in the back. "If he catches us, he'll eat us!"

"Yes," said the man in the front, "but I only have to keep ahead of you."

In the credibility stakes, Kishkumen, I only have to keep ahead of you.

I realise that not only can I keep ahead of you without breaking a sweat, I can do it at a very sedate walk.

Regards,
Pahoran

One you get ahead, you could simply turn around and eat Kishkumen and the other guy as well.

[Guest]

Keith,

you might try reading things in sequence. It might help. Here, I'll help you out:

But, you know, it's easier to demonize him if people believe he's one of those EV anti-Mormons.

So I replied:

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.

Now: would you care to try again?

Regards,
Pahoran

Runtu said: Uh, no, Pah. Chris is not an Evangelical. He has told me personally and said publicly that he's pretty much an agnostic . . .

To which you said: No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it. Note that the confusion was further increased by your discussion of his personal religious affiliation in paragraph three of your comment.

I guess the ambiguity of the sentence above left me thinking (reasonably) that you were arguing his status as an agnostic. However, I guess you were arguing whether it's easier to demonize the man by identifying him as an EV anti-Mormon (as opposed to a good old-fashioned demonizing of the man in general).

So . . . yeah.

[_The Nehor]

Hi, there, Pahoran. Welcome back! I guess you've got some new-found courage after all that butt-kissing and sucking-up led to you at last being installed as a moderator on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board. Congrats on your accomplishments!

Also: thanks for helping me to reminisce about the grand old days of "Mister Scratch's Guide to FAIR." It reminds me that I need to resume work on The Encyclopedia of Mopologetics. I really should probably include an entry on you. Could you maybe send me a picture of yourself, just so that the entry looks polished and professional?

Finally: I don't know that I can accept full credit for developing the "dossiers" on the old "Guide to FAIR." I mean, we should give credit where it's due---the antecedent here is the "Critic's Corner" on SHIELDS, and also Prof. Peterson's somewhat more informal "RfM Archive." Heck, DCP had me beat! Sure, I may have posted your rather well-known names, but good old Dr. Peterson was posting the email addresses and names of people who'd consistently used pseudonyms! Wow!

And Scratch, hearing that there is a prominent apologist in the Terrestrial forum where he can insult to his heart's content waddles his obese form to his PC as fast as possible (i.e. not very) and immediately crams as many insults as he can into his post.

There is something to be said for consistency at least.

[_Pahoran]

Hi, there, Pahoran. Welcome back! I guess you've got some new-found courage

It's not a question of courage; there's nothing remotely scary about this place. It's a question of curiosity overcoming disgust.

after all that butt-kissing and sucking-up led to you at last being installed as a moderator on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board. Congrats on your accomplishments!

That is not the case. Not only have I not indulged in "butt-kissing and sucking-up" -- you must have mistaken me for your own fawning acolyte, Butt-kiss-kumen -- but I am also not a mod on MD&D. Evidently you made that up out of whole cloth, as you habitually do.

Also: thanks for helping me to reminisce about the grand old days of "Mister Scratch's Guide to FAIR." It reminds me that I need to resume work on The Encyclopedia of Mopologetics. I really should probably include an entry on you. Could you maybe send me a picture of yourself, just so that the entry looks polished and professional?

No.

Finally: I don't know that I can accept full credit for developing the "dossiers" on the old "Guide to FAIR." I mean, we should give credit where it's due---the antecedent here is the "Critic's Corner" on SHIELDS, and also Prof. Peterson's somewhat more informal "RfM Archive." Heck, DCP had me beat! Sure, I may have posted your rather well-known names, but good old Dr. Peterson was posting the email addresses and names of people who'd consistently used pseudonyms! Wow!

"Critics Corner," If I recall correctly, consisted of descriptions of what the critics had posted, and some correspondence with them.

But apart from that, the fact remains that you do not pry into people's in real life details in order to discourage curiosity about your own, as your valiant defender tried to pretend; you were gleefully publishing people's in real life details right up until someone turned the tables on you, at which time you yowled like the cowardly little hypocrite you are.

Speaking of which, who is "Paul Hogg," and why have you devoted several pages of someone else's thread venting your high dudgeon that he dared to mention it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

In other words, you've bought into the mythology and decided that it applies to me.

In all honesty, I didn't have to buy into mythology. Back when we were on a.r.m. many years ago, I was embarrassed and ashamed of your behavior because I thought, and still do, that you tarnished the reputation of us LDS by being so relentlessly nasty to people.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But (needless to say) I don't agree.

Oh, not entirely unrelated. I wouldn't say that I dislike you personally, but I abhor your tactics and behavior. Always have. That you went after me when I was suicidal probably didn't help.

Oh dear.

I'm very sorry about that, Runtu. I thought we had worked through that misunderstanding all those years ago. Is there nothing I can do that will help you get over it at long last?

I stand by what I said: it's much easier to dismiss an EV than a secular critic. You know that as well as I do.

No, I don't know that; furthermore, I don't agree. (Note to Keith: please try to follow the conversation before you jump in.)

A secular critic's criticisms can be dealt with just as handily as anyone else's; Will Bagley's, for instance, have not proven especially problematic because of his lack of noticeable religious affiliation. Neither, for that matter, have Dawkins and Hitchens. And I reiterate what I said before; if I simply wanted to "dismiss" someone by pointing to their preconceptions, it would be just as easy to do to someone who believes nothing at all as it would to someone who believes something else.

Besides: I don't happen to regard EV Protestantism as necessarily a black mark against someone. Even some of our more execrable EV critics, including but not limited to those with alliterative initials, I regard as being what they are despite being Protestants, not because of it.

Perhaps "demonize" was an overstatement on my part.

You could say that.

And you notice how the myth feeds upon itself. You think I demonise people, so you interpret something I wrote in terms of the demonisation paradigm, and that in turn becomes further evidence that I demonise people. And so around and around it goes. Next month: "That Pahoran really loves to demonise people. He called Chris Smith an EV, just to demonise him!"

No, it's just sixteen years of observation. I don't know why you do and say what you do. It's been a mystery to me for many years. You are obviously very intelligent and a gifted writer. Why you use your talents to belittle others is beyond my comprehension.

But I don't merely "belittle others." In fact, I suggest for your consideration the proposition that the sixteen years (has it really been that long?) really amounts to the cumulative effect of the very kind of self-reinforcing assumption that I have described.

As I said, I've apologized for jumping to a conclusion about you.

Thank you. I accept that, and I promise not to bring it up periodically over the next few years.

I thought I made it clear what I thought you were doing in labeling Chris. Again, I am sorry for making that assumption. I can't answer for Kevin.

Indeed, that would be too much to expect of anyone.

Maybe not.

Oh, I assure you that it was not.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, there, Pahoran. Welcome back! I guess you've got some new-found courage

It's not a question of courage; there's nothing remotely scary about this place. It's a question of curiosity overcoming disgust.

Sure---that's believable. I recall you wanting to tell me something via PM (sadly, I have a very long memory), and you chickened out in fear that I'd "reveal" it. You also admitted to fear of being inundated by emails scolding you for your rancid behavior.

But you know what, Pah? I don't think you're as bad as Midgley and DCP. Sure: you're aggressive online, but as best I can tell---apart from your unfortunate FARMS article---you've limited your stuff so that it's not much more than an Internet hobby. (I suppose we could count some of your emails and private messages, but, hey: I'm feeling generous so I'll leave those out.) The "Kingpin" and "The Emperor," though... These guys have made cozy careers out of blasting people, engaging in some pretty spiteful ridicule, and just generally trying to get their jollies by inflicting massive amounts of pain on people. It's no joke! DCP helped to negotiate so that BYU profs could get tenure for their FROB articles! That's just astonishing to me.

after all that butt-kissing and sucking-up led to you at last being installed as a moderator on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board. Congrats on your accomplishments!

That is not the case. Not only have I not indulged in "butt-kissing and sucking-up" -- you must have mistaken me for your own fawning acolyte, Butt-kiss-kumen -- but I am also not a mod on MD&D. Evidently you made that up out of whole cloth, as you habitually do.

No, no---someone here said that you were a mod. Runtu, maybe? Or Mr. Stak? I can't recall.

Also: thanks for helping me to reminisce about the grand old days of "Mister Scratch's Guide to FAIR." It reminds me that I need to resume work on The Encyclopedia of Mopologetics. I really should probably include an entry on you. Could you maybe send me a picture of yourself, just so that the entry looks polished and professional?

No.

Lol. What a bummer.

Finally: I don't know that I can accept full credit for developing the "dossiers" on the old "Guide to FAIR." I mean, we should give credit where it's due---the antecedent here is the "Critic's Corner" on SHIELDS, and also Prof. Peterson's somewhat more informal "RfM Archive." Heck, DCP had me beat! Sure, I may have posted your rather well-known names, but good old Dr. Peterson was posting the email addresses and names of people who'd consistently used pseudonyms! Wow!

"Critics Corner," If I recall correctly, consisted of descriptions of what the critics had posted, and some correspondence with them.

And their email addresses? Would you care to tell me where I published anyone's personal email address?

But apart from that, the fact remains that you do not pry into people's in real life details in order to discourage curiosity about your own, as your valiant defender tried to pretend; you were gleefully publishing people's in real life details right up until someone turned the tables on you, at which time you yowled like the cowardly little hypocrite you are.

Oh, so you're a mind-reader now?

Speaking of which, who is "Paul Hogg," and why have you devoted several pages of someone else's thread venting your high dudgeon that he dared to mention it?

Regards,
Pahoran

I'm happy to tell you all about Paul Hogg, Pah. But I'm not gonna do it for free. What is there of value that you're willing to trade me in exchange for the information?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Pahoran has all the persistence, rational faculty, and charm of a zombie.