Voldemort = He Who Must Not Be Named = Kevin?

[_Bond...James Bond]

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.

Alright....I'm just going to go on record and say that Blixa rules (and her super intelligence is a major reason she is counted among the hotties).

That and the fact that I'm a stone fox.

Well yeah totally. But I didn't want to be the sexist who boils hottie credentials down to physical features. :)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Drama!

[_Runtu]

Well yeah totally. But I didn't want to be the sexist who boils hottie credentials down to physical features. :)

Blixa has one of the sharpest minds I know. That she's hot is just gravy. :)

[_charity]

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.

What a crock. And for someone reputedly as smart as you are. (I read all your fan mail, since when I got back to the thread I read it from most recent post backwards.)

I was trying to quell speculation when I pm'ed pacman. By merely stating what Kevin had said about himself. I did not editorialize or speculate. How is a person's own words character assassination? Can you make a case for that, blixa?

Of course, people leave the Church for legitimate reasons. Did you read my post on the Johari window? Joseph Luft and Harry Ingram suggested there are 4 different levels of knowledge about ourselves. 1. information we know and everyone else knows. 2. information we know that nobody else knows. 3. information we don't know, but others do. 4. information that we don't know and nobody else does either. I am in line with current thinking on the fact that there might be times when person doesn't know information about himself that others might. This is not an absolute statement.

So, then some people may very well know why they leave the Church and those reasons be known to others. At the other end of the spectrum are those for whom they don't understand the reasons and neither does anyone else. A third group may leave the Church for reasons they undestand but those reasons not be knowable to others. The group which is seems you do not accept are those who leave the Church and don't themselves understand why they did while others may.

Blixa, your association with Mormon apologists seems to be very fleeting interactions with only those who will spend a little time on anti-Mormon boards. Unless you have a different screen name on pro-Mormon boards, that is. If you are really an extremely intelligent person, per your fan club, you should realize that your basis for generalization is inadequate.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

[_Runtu]

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

I'm feeling really stupid about all this at this point. I don't understand the point of any of this. Should have kept my mouth shut and not volunteered to verify the existance of a name.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

I'm feeling really stupid about all this at this point. I don't understand the point of any of this. Should have kept my mouth shut and not volunteered to verify the existance of a name.

I vote that you just tell us. Yes, yes, you promised, but I think Charity should let you off the hook. I, for one, would continue to trust you if you reneged....

[_asbestosman]

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

When did she tell Pacman the name? The only thing I see her telling Pacman was about Kevin Graham's own words here. Charity already admitted that Pacman was referring to Kevin Graham with the Voldemort post. I don't see anywhere that Charity told anyone the name of the apologist who had his head handed to him in a basket.

Well, she told Runtu, but that was an attempt to help clear her name.

[_asbestosman]

Yes, yes, you promised, but I think Charity should let you off the hook.

In that case, Charity should give the name, not Runtu.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm confused about why you continue to be so cagey on this issue, Charity. You told Pacman the name, which shows you are willing to go spreading this malicious gossip around in the first place....so.... why continue with this charade? Why not just tell?

When did she tell Pacman the name? The only thing I see her telling Pacman was about Kevin Graham's own words here. Charity already admitted that Pacman was referring to Kevin Graham with the Voldemort post. I don't see anywhere that Charity told anyone the name of the apologist who had his head handed to him in a basket.

Well, she told Runtu, but that was an attempt to help clear her name.

Whoa... Hold on a sec. Let me see if I've got this straight:

---Charity is told this rumor about a former apologist who "got his head handed to him." In the process of hearing this rumor, Charity is also told the name of the person.
---Charity appears on this board and begins posting, including a series of rather acrimonious exchanges with Kevin/Dart
---For whatever reason, she contacts Pacman, via PM, and "leaks" the story about this "former apologist", and yet does not tell Pacman the "former apologist"'s name.
---Since she failed to tell the name (despite the obvious clarification that such disclosure would afford), Pacman mistakenly assumed that the rumor is referring to Dartagnan, and he (i.e., Pacman), proceeds to post his "that's disgusting" rant.

Am I understanding this chain of events correctly?