Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?

[_beastie]

You don't expose bogus arguments, Bob. At all. You criticize people's grammar, you criticize people for posting anonymously. When you actually do address a real topic, you are not exposing anyone's bogus argument but your own.

Prove me wrong. Show me where my reasoning was fallacious.

I'll repeat my points for your benefit:

The reason it is preferable, when possible to use one's real name is to demonstrate that one is willing to stand behind their words with their reputation in their community.

You are not risking that at all by using your real name here. Your risk here in terms of your reputation to your community is nonexistent. The only risk to you is that some nutball is going to look up your private information, which they did. And that is why the vast majority of people who post on the internet anywhere - even on boards with no conflict at all, like health boards - post anonymously.

[_rcrocket]

Merc: Now you've hurt my feelings. Oh well.

Beastie: Your posts are devolving into substance-less chest beating and repetition. I have no response. Next topic, please.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

Substance-less chest beating and repetition?

I specifically addressed your questions. YOUR questions. And this is your response.

So far, you have:

1 - set yourself up as a moral example in terms of not insulting people just one week after calling me a sociopath (for which you have now, after being cornered, kinda sorta apologized for)

2 - you proclaim that you post here to expose hypocrisy and bogus arguments, and "doing so is like shooting fish in a barrel" and then accuse me of substance-less chest beating and repetition

So this is substance-less:

The reason it is preferable, when possible to use one's real name is to demonstrate that one is willing to stand behind their words with their reputation in their community.

Bob's favorite criticism of posters here is that we post anonymously. The reasons for this have been explained to him ad nauseum, but he simply repeats his refrain. So I wanted to go into more detail.

What other reason could there be for it being ethically responsible to post criticisms using your real name if not to be willing to risk your reputation in your community? Seriously, what other reason could there be?

You are not risking that at all by using your real name here. Your risk here in terms of your reputation to your community is nonexistent. The only risk to you is that some nutball is going to look up your private information, which they did. And that is why the vast majority of people who post on the internet anywhere - even on boards with no conflict at all, like health boards - post anonymously.

Do any of us know Bob crockett? Do we live in his community? Is his real life reputation and name at risk for being injured by false or petty criticisms on this board?

Not at all. The name Bob Crockett, for all its meaning to anyone on this board, is the functional equivalent of a screen name. It means nothing.

Is Bob's real life reputation harmed by repeatedly criticizing people's grammar, as if that is a comment of substance? Is his real life reputation harmed by calling me a sociopath? (excuse me, saying I adopt a sociopathic stance) Obviously not.

So what are you risking, Bob? We all know what you're risking, and it's already happened. You're risking nothing but a nutball searching out information on you and using it to try and harm you. And that makes you morally superior?

This is as embarrassing to you as the previous Maya thread, in which you declared they had no written language, and the horse thread, in which you used a reference that used known hoaxes.

[_harmony]

Trixie's basic question is unanswered: if the church isn't trying to hide it's history, why was this guy excommunicated?

Is it apostacy, if a member communicates church history to another church member who might not have known it? Are we so constrained that we can't even talk about our history?

[_Pokatator]

I "grew up" in the Church if that is possible. I went to seminary, was an eagle scout, and went on a mission when I as nineteen. I came home after two months. I faked like I was sick because I didn't know what to do and I wasn't staying or I would have likely killed myself. I didn't know as I do now that I really needed to be on medication. The mission president decided that I should go home and rest, get better and come back. I was not released. After about two months home I was in a situation where I had sex for the first time. I went to the Bishop that night and told him what happened. He said that I needed to see the stake president that sunday and the Stake President told me that they needed to release me. About a month later I got a call that I needed to see the stake president again. He said Salt Lake had called and said techincally that I was a missionary when I sinned so a court needed to be held. I went through a court and was put on probationl. Well I sinned again and I had to meet with one of the stake president counselors about my probation and I told him what happened and he told me that people that do what I did are cast out; I had to go to another court that week and was excommunicated. I remember crying for at least an hour in the bathroom telling God I just wanted to die. This was July 1981, a couple months before I reached age twenty. I went to church for a while but then just faded away. I now look at what was going on with the early leaders of the Church and I say " what the hell". Good grief, I was just a kid who was told my little sex desire was a little train which was lie as it was more like a raging bull and it was sad as I look back because I didn't really understand what was going on with my body. I read about bank fraud, multiple sex partners during the year, attacking people and burning homes and bringing the goods back to the bishops store house, lies, lies and more lies and I'm just left speechless. Later as I kept in touch with my friends from the Church and we talked about our life, I found out one thing: I was the only honest one among us and I was the one on the outside looking in.

And you're still the only honest one I am sure. Thanx for sharing this, it has meant a lot to me.

[_rcrocket]

Substance-less chest beating and repetition?


This is as embarrassing to you as the previous Maya thread, in which you declared they had no written language, and the horse thread, in which you used a reference that used known hoaxes.

Just more chest-beating. Like King Kong. We know what happened to him.

The Mayans did not have a written language. They used glyphs.

My "horse" references were a tongue-in-cheek joke. The ice-queen cannot detect humor. Others did. You didn't. Get out more and away from your screen.

I am glad that you advocate anonymity for security reasons. For the same reasons, masks make bank robbers more secure, silencers make murderers more secure, nightfall makes graffiti artists more secure. In other words, anonymity does not, as you continue to imply with your refrain, justify the wrong. You and your friends are wrong to use anonymity to say bad things about living people.

If you can't be nice to Trixie, we don't want you here any more. The False Mods.

rcrocket

[_Dr. Shades]

In light of everything you've written in this thread so far, rcrocket, I have a question:

In your opinion, what sin did Michael Lamborn commit which merited excommunication, and why was excommunication merited?

[_beastie]

This is what slays me about you, Bob. It isn't even the criticisms of Joseph Smith that bothers you - it's when YOU are insulted.

You come to this board and make a past-time of correcting people's grammar and other inane posting, and then get huffy when you are insulted.

And you can't even admit when you're wrong.

[_rcrocket]

Trix:

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was getting huffy. I'm used to being insulted here. I guess I tend to wear the insult as a badge of honor. I love to point out the insults when I see them because they are a mark of insecurity. If an argument cannot stand on its own, then only idiots would be persuaded by insults.

I'm sorry that I have corrected your grammar. I honestly don't remember doing so, but you have my apology. I tend to have a tongue-in-cheek and dry sense of humor, and I use it to poke fun at posts. Once again, I apologize for that.

But, this thread isn't about me, and I don't like talking about myself. There is no need for me to post an unconnected and rambling paragraph about a love of fornication and hedonism as a justification for abandoning the Gospel of Christ for the fires of hell.

And, I admit I am wrong. I am wrong all the time.

Shades: I don't know the answer to your question. I have never heard of this guy and I don't know his circumstances. I certainly don't base my judgments upon press accounts.

rcrocket

[_Runtu]

I now look at what was going on with the early leaders of the Church and I say " what the hell". Good grief, I was just a kid who was told my little sex desire was a little train which was lie as it was more like a raging bull and it was sad as I look back because I didn't really understand what was going on with my body. I read about bank fraud, multiple sex partners during the year, attacking people and burning homes and bringing the goods back to the bishops store house, lies, lies and more lies and I'm just left speechless. Later as I kept in touch with my friends from the Church and we talked about our life, I found out one thing: I was the only honest one among us and I was the one on the outside looking in.

Yep. I can handle a lot, but it's the lies at the foundation of all of it. For my own reasons, I really would like to find a way to make it work. I just can't.

I have said before that the worst thing about the church is that it makes reasonable, good people make excuses for lies and immoral, unethical behavior. And then they make fun of us because we won't make excuses.