Voldemort = He Who Must Not Be Named = Kevin?

[_charity]

You're being very confusing here Charity.

You were referring (gossiping) to someone else to Pacman, but they are Kevin's words?

You were referring to someone else to Pacman, that has a moniker of Voldemort but it isn't Kevin even though he has been referred to that at times.

You were referring to someone else to Pacman that coincidently follows Kevin's situation to a tee, but it isn't Kevin. "Who would have thought."

Far too many coincidences don't you think you need to just come clean?

Runtu has posted that I was not referring to Kevin when I posted about an apologist who got his head handed to him in a basket.

Now, this post you are referring to a pm I sent to pacman on the MA&D board, which he then copied onto a board response.

A question had been asked about Kevin's status with regard to the Church. There were some inaccuracies. In an effort to clear up the inaccuracies, I pm'ed pacman with what Kevin had said about his status with regards to the Church. I really was doing that in an effort to staunch gossip. Going to the horse's mouth always seems the best policy to me.

Pacman took what I said, added his own comments in, and posted it on the message board.

There is no confusion. Unless you are tryiing to create some.

[_karl61]

If anyone at FAIR is "follwoing" anyone in their Book of Abraham concerns, it is going to be Metcalfe, not Kevin. Metcalfe is the one with the standing, the scholarship and the "point man" position on the Book of Abraham. Kevin isn't an Egyptiologist. Kevin may have read extensively but that doesn't replace scholarship. So why would any of the "greater lights" at FAIR spend any time "following him around?"

And Metcalfe is an Egyptologist?

You really expect us to believe that no one over there has the slightest interest in Kevin? Come on!

Trevor, I agree. I have no beef with those that have doctorates but someone who has one in military history from Yale, could get killed real quick in a war when things go bad - even the NCO will likely save everyone's life when basic shooting skills are needed to save lives.

[_Zoidberg]

OMG, this is a soap opera. I haven't read the whole thread for the fear of falling off my chair and gasping for air while laughing hysterically, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned that, but this "other person" would have to be an at least somewhat public figure (or contact information should be provided) in order for Runtu to be able to verify his identity and whether or not the situation charity described really happened.

[_charity]

Well let's hear it. Oh wait, you can't. This former Mormon made charity promise not to tell anyone in the world, except you. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. As if this serves any purpose in validating charity's claim. This is like saying I won't show you the gold plates. I'll show your friend and then you have to accept it.

Having said this, I find it suspicious that an apologist turned critic would be embarrassed or scared at the prospect of us knowing who he or she is, especially since this person doesn't seem to have a problem with idiots like charity using his or her experience to further the cause of his or her former faith. It simply doesn't add up. I mean what is the worst thing that could happen... someone might use this incident in a reckless manner to toot her own horn. Oh, too late, charity already did that.

Kevin, you keep reading things into what is posted. I never said I was protecting the identity of the person I was referring to at his request. I don't even know the person. I have never communicated with the person. I heard about the incident, and asked for information I was told what happened.

And the fact that you make such a leap out of reality in order to ridicule someone and give you an excuse to call names shows the civil people here why I wouldn't repeat a name to you.

Next time you post something to me, try to stay in the land of the living and don't go out in the atmosphere to manufacture reasons to be outraged.

[_Pokatator]

You're being very confusing here Charity.

You were referring (gossiping) to someone else to Pacman, but they are Kevin's words?

You were referring to someone else to Pacman, that has a moniker of Voldemort but it isn't Kevin even though he has been referred to that at times.

You were referring to someone else to Pacman that coincidently follows Kevin's situation to a tee, but it isn't Kevin. "Who would have thought."

Far too many coincidences don't you think you need to just come clean?

Runtu has posted that I was not referring to Kevin when I posted about an apologist who got his head handed to him in a basket.

Now, this post you are referring to a pm I sent to pacman on the MA&D board, which he then copied onto a board response.

A question had been asked about Kevin's status with regard to the Church. There were some inaccuracies. In an effort to clear up the inaccuracies, I pm'ed pacman with what Kevin had said about his status with regards to the Church. I really was doing that in an effort to staunch gossip. Going to the horse's mouth always seems the best policy to me.

Pacman took what I said, added his own comments in, and posted it on the message board.

There is no confusion. Unless you are tryiing to create some.

I haven't seen a post from Runtu that you are referring to here.

[_Pokatator]

You're being very confusing here Charity.

You were referring (gossiping) to someone else to Pacman, but they are Kevin's words?

You were referring to someone else to Pacman, that has a moniker of Voldemort but it isn't Kevin even though he has been referred to that at times.

You were referring to someone else to Pacman that coincidently follows Kevin's situation to a tee, but it isn't Kevin. "Who would have thought."

Far too many coincidences don't you think you need to just come clean?

Runtu has posted that I was not referring to Kevin when I posted about an apologist who got his head handed to him in a basket.

Now, this post you are referring to a pm I sent to pacman on the MA&D board, which he then copied onto a board response.

A question had been asked about Kevin's status with regard to the Church. There were some inaccuracies. In an effort to clear up the inaccuracies, I pm'ed pacman with what [b]Kevin had said about his status with regards to the Church. [/b] I really was doing that in an effort to staunch gossip. Going to the horse's mouth always seems the best policy to me.

Pacman took what I said, added his own comments in, and posted it on the message board.

There is no confusion. Unless you are tryiing to create some.

An here all this time I thought you were claiming your were referring to someone else.

This is about as clear as MUD.

[_Blixa]

To me the bigger picture is this:

I don't care about who the alleged mystery person voldemorted about was/is. What is clear is this: charity and pacman are gossipy jerks following an all-too prevalent mopologetic script: character assassination. No one can leave the one truth church for any legitimate reason, they have sinned. Rumors will be spread, "secrets" chortled over, accusations of anger and pride lobbed by those with the worst superiority-complexes I've seen in 15 years online and 51 years in real life. Whatever the offline identities and personalities behind it are, online Mormon apologetics is a completely unscholarly, anti-intellectual quaqmire with Book of Abraham shenanigans at the apex of incredulity.

And crockett wonders why some people post anonymously.

[_Yoda]

You're being very confusing here Charity.

You were referring (gossiping) to someone else to Pacman, but they are Kevin's words?

You were referring to someone else to Pacman, that has a moniker of Voldemort but it isn't Kevin even though he has been referred to that at times.

You were referring to someone else to Pacman that coincidently follows Kevin's situation to a tee, but it isn't Kevin. "Who would have thought."

Far too many coincidences don't you think you need to just come clean?

Runtu has posted that I was not referring to Kevin when I posted about an apologist who got his head handed to him in a basket.

Now, this post you are referring to a pm I sent to pacman on the MA&D board, which he then copied onto a board response.

A question had been asked about Kevin's status with regard to the Church. There were some inaccuracies. In an effort to clear up the inaccuracies, I pm'ed pacman with what Kevin had said about his status with regards to the Church. I really was doing that in an effort to staunch gossip. Going to the horse's mouth always seems the best policy to me.

Pacman took what I said, added his own comments in, and posted it on the message board.

There is no confusion. Unless you are tryiing to create some.

I haven't seen a post from Runtu that you are referring to here.

Neither have I, and I've gone back over this thread twice.

Runtu? Care to comment?

[_Yoda]

To me the bigger picture is this:

I don't care about who the alleged mystery person voldemorted about was/is. What is clear is this: charity and pacman are gossipy jerks following an all-too prevalent mopologetic script: character assassination. No one can leave the one truth church for any legitimate reason, they have sinned. Rumors will be spread, "secrets" chortled over, accusations of anger and pride lobbed by those with the worst superiority-complexes I've seen in 15 years online and 51 years in real life. Whatever the offline identities and personalities behind it are, online Mormon apologetics is a completely unscholarly, anti-intellectual quaqmire with Book of Abraham shenanigans at the apex of incredulity.

And crockett wonders why some people post anonymously.

Blixa...you're my hero!

:)

[_Zoidberg]

Neither have I, and I've gone back over this thread twice.

Runtu? Care to comment?

It's in the "apologist head in a basket" thread.