DiscussMormonism.com

Graham's just had two polemical slugfests he started axed within minuets of each other. One engaging in some gross manufactured slanders of John Taylor, and the other a continuation of the beating and stomping on the dead horse of the Kinderhook plates episode, which has sunk its hooks into his frenzied apostate imagination had has now become one of his favorite hobby horses.

Even I couldn't rack up that kind of record in as many months.

Graham is now nothing less than the Ed Decker of secular anti-Mormonism. No degree of tendentiousness, no degree of guile, no degree of delusional self importance, no degree of personal animosity regarding things of which he is only dimly aware, is to great a degree for him to grasp and deploy in his maniacal Inquisition of all things Mormon.

How sad a figure he really is.

Graham had his thread locked for correctly pointing out that Taylor lied.

All the chips are in favor of defenders over there, but you still get banned all the time. What's wrong with you?

LOL, no kidding.

It is no mystery why the threads were closed. The Church and its apologists are in the business of suppressing uncomfortable information. Pahoran couldn't find a FARMS article for him to cut and paste on this subject, and he wasn't in a position to refute the data so he acted as "minos" to shut down the threads. After he throws in the last word followed by cheap shots, of course.

If BH Roberts can admit Taylor was less than forthcoming, why can't modern apologists?

Buffalo wrote:

Droopy wrote:Graham's just had two polemical slugfests he started axed within minuets of each other. One engaging in some gross manufactured slanders of John Taylor, and the other a continuation of the beating and stomping on the dead horse of the Kinderhook plates episode, which has sunk its hooks into his frenzied apostate imagination had has now become one of his favorite hobby horses.

Even I couldn't rack up that kind of record in as many months.

Graham is now nothing less than the Ed Decker of secular anti-Mormonism. No degree of tendentiousness, no degree of guile, no degree of delusional self importance, no degree of personal animosity regarding things of which he is only dimly aware, is to great a degree for him to grasp and deploy in his maniacal Inquisition of all things Mormon.

How sad a figure he really is.

Graham had his thread locked for correctly pointing out that Taylor lied.

All the chips are in favor of defenders over there, but you still get banned all the time. What's wrong with you?

I like this place sometimes, and for this reason, I can freely respond to your post by saying that Graham was not banned for telling any truths, an ability he has yet to cultivate. Graham was banned for being a perfect ass, as he always is.

The thread was closed as a "trashing and bashing" thread Where there's Kevin, there's chaos.

But what Droopy doesn't understand is that chaos is a natural result when truth is presented to those who have contempt for the truth. Droops calls me a liar, in so may words, but like Pahoran, he is not in any position to defend John Taylor's lies. Or the lies told by numerous LDS scholars like John Gee. All he has is the triple D tactic: deny, dodge and divert.

Pointing out the fact that their Mormon leaders have lied, or that their precious scholars like Bill Hamblin or John Gee have lied, is just too much meat for these milk-thirsty babes to handle. Or so goes the mentality among the sheep herding mods.

And this is why Mormon apologetics loses every time. It cannot rely on what's true. Ever.

It is no mystery why the threads were closed. The Church and its apologists are in the business of suppressing uncomfortable information.

Interesting how the very same MoveOn.org and Center for American Progress tactics of spin and smear that inform Graham's political discourse are exactly the same that inform his criticism of the Church. The Church "suppressing information" meme is such old and decomposed roadkill its near slapstick comedy to see it still used as a polemical device.

Its the very same tactic he uses in his 3rd grade pop Marxist diatribes against "the rich" and the Tea Party. Its all of a piece.

Pahoran couldn't find a FARMS article for him to cut and paste on this subject, and he wasn't in a position to refute the data so he acted as "minos" to shut down the threads. After he throws in the last word followed by cheap shots, of course.

You lost the argument, Graham, and you were nasty and pompous throughout. It was a personal attack thread aimed at John Taylor grounded in nothing more than subjective interpretation and fevered bias. You brought it on yourself.

What happened is what always happens: Pahoran gave you a rope with a noose on its end, and you put it around your neck and jumped.

Over and over and over and over again.

Droops, we both know that if I had lost that argument, I wouldn't have been kicked out. If I had lost that argument, it would have been a monumental feat for Pahoran, and they would keep that thread alive as long as possible. Just look at how they kept the DCP thread alive, so long as they thought his personal email evidence was enough too put me in my place by "setting the record straight." If I had "lost" the debate then Pahoran's posts would have been progressing instead of regressing, and he wouldn't have had to resort to so many personal attacks or lie about what I had and hadn't said in previous posts.

Pahoran is an overgrown child who thinks his ability to tongue lash a critic is going to give him loyalty noogies in the hereafter. His double-standard is so obvious to anyone who is willing to take off the apologetic/loyalty blinders and apply the same standards they do to critics. But he has never been able to win a debate, not just with me, but with anyone really.

He was always running from the Psalter incident trying desperately to get everyone to pay attention to his little diversions and smear campaigns. He wanted to use "one lie" to discredit Caswall, but when I tried to use "two lies" to discredit Taylor, suddenly it was an unacceptable case of "trashing."

See, you can't prove LDS leaders have lied or sinned in any way. That goes against MAD policy. They refuse to have critics using their forum to demean the "Lord's anointed." This means MAD is not a place where open debate can take place without strong boundaries fully in place.

Kevin Graham wrote:But what Droopy doesn't understand is that chaos is a natural result when truth is presented to those who have contempt for the truth.

Exactly, which is why you entire posting history is a long, trying miasma of anger, ad hominem venom, bitter animosity to those who disagree with you, and the most relentless narcissism and self importance I've yet seen in the ex-Mormon world.

That is why countless otherwise civil, intelligent, educated people are driven to exasperation by your bomb throwing and demagoguery. That is why, wherever you go, a thread or discussion deteriorates into a flaming cauldron of ill will. Wherever you go, the spirit you posses and its attributes dutifully tags along. An ill wind blows from Kevin Graham, wherever he goes.

Droops calls me a liar, in so may words, but like Pahoran, he is not in any position to defend John Taylor's lies. Or the lies told by numerous LDS scholars like John Gee. All he has is the triple D tactic: deny, dodge and divert.

Just passing of intellectual gas, and some of us know it for what it is.

Pointing out the fact that their Mormon leaders have lied, or that their precious scholars like Bill Hamblin or John Gee have lied, is just too much meat for these milk-thirsty babes to handle. Or so goes the mentality among the sheep herding mods.

As you sink ever deeper into your own maelstrom of neurosis and desperate self justification, please understand, Kevin, that a number of us do see right through it, and hope that someday, you will too.

Kevin Graham wrote:Droops, we both know that if I had lost that argument, I wouldn't have been kicked out.

You weren't kicked out for losing the argument, but for acting like a jackass, which you have been doing for a number of years now everywhere. The thread was locked because you are nearly incapable of civil discourse. That's what we both know. It was yet another thread who's sole purpose was defamation of an apostle and anyone who dared speak in his defense. SOP.

Pahoran is an overgrown child who thinks his ability to tongue lash a critic is going to give him loyalty noogies in the hereafter.

Yes, right Kevin...

He was always running from the Psalter incident trying desperately to get everyone to pay attention to his little diversions and smear campaigns. He wanted to use "one lie" to discredit Caswall, but when I tried to use "two lies" to discredit Taylor, suddenly it was an unacceptable case of "trashing."

You lose an argument. Then you crow and bleat to anyone who will listen that you won it. Always the same pattern

See, you can't prove LDS leaders have lied or sinned in any way. That goes against MAD policy.

You can't because you don't have the evidence you need to do so. You're also very rough in the critical thinking department, which explains, to me at least, why you're so well versed in the ad hominem smear department.

Exactly, which is why you entire posting history is a long, trying miasma of anger, ad hominem venom, bitter animosity to those who disagree with you, and the most relentless narcissism and self importance I've yet seen in the ex-Mormon world.

But there are only a handful of people who actually say these things, and even fewer who actually believe them. These are usually the folks who despise me because at some point in time, I made them look foolish. On the other hand, I call numerous intellectuals "friends" who hail from both the LDS and critical sides of the fence. You caannot say the same. In fact your posting style is so abhorrent that you find it hard to stay welcomed on your home-team board. The only time they seem to tolerate you is when you're launching into personal attacks to protect your precious veteran apologists from the likes of me. So please, stop projecting by pretending I share your credibility status in the apologetic world. Anyone who calls me "angry" does so because they need to. It makes them feel better about abandoning a debate they can't win. Anyone trying to say Taylor didn't lie has to be nuts. There is no defense there. And those who know me know I'm anything but angry.

You're just one of those poorly educated guys who thinks he can compensate for this deficiency or impress certain folks by regurgitating mantra with a thesaurus in one hand and a FAIR Journal (or Mises subscription) in the other. But I can't think of anyone, apologist or critic, who thinks you're anything more than a joke. So keep attacking me, it only makes me look better.