Voldemort = He Who Must Not Be Named = Kevin?

[Analytics]

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?

I don't think that's how it went. Here's my understanding of events, some of which I agree with you on.

---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

We're in agreement up to that point, but we part afterwards:

--Charity posts about apologists switching sides in reply to a remark from harmony. Charity says that she knows an apologist who got his head handed to him, but does not tell harmony or the rest of us at MDB the name of this apologist.
-- California Kid assumes that charity is speaking of Kevin Graham.
--Charity does not immediately deny this, but explains further about how they mystery apologist had his pride hurt.
--The MDB people tell charity they don't like rumor mongering.
--Charity maintains that she was not referring to Kevin Graham. The person she was referring to was someone else and was unnamed.

---For whatever reason, Charity contacts Pacman, via PM, and gives Pacman Kevin Graham's own comments about himself. Charity maintains this was to help remove some misconceptions about Kevin Graham.
--Pacman correctly knew that particular PM was referring to Dartagnan, and he (I.e., Pacman), proceeds to post his "that's disgusting" rant.

--MDB catches wind of Pacman's rant and correctly deduces it referrs to Kevin Graham.
--MDB surmises that therefore the mystery man who had his head handed to him must have also been Kevin Graham.
--Charity maintains that the mystery man was not Kevin Graham and that she did in fact PM Pacman about Kevin's own words on this board.
--Charity chides Pacman for his public "PM" post to her.

[_beastie]

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.

Amen, except bob knows exactly why some people post anonymously, he just pretends otherwise in order to discredit critics.

Not to mention how bizarre this construct is to begin with. An apologist gets defeated by a critic - so to assuage that apologist's ego he becomes a critic...because, you know, it just strains credulity to think that maybe the former apologist just recognized the critic's argument had a firmer foundation and altered his beliefs due to that fact.

No, no, it's all because of his huge EGO.

[Guest]

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?

I think you are confusing two different incidents, Mister Scratch.

1. On one thread, I posted information, anonymously, about an apologist who "got his head handed to him in a basket." This person was not Kevin. It was someone else. I have given the person's name to runtu, so he could verify there was such a person, but not have the name blatted on the message board.

2. I pm'ed pacman when he made a statement on the MA&D board about not knowing what Kevin's status was with regards to the Church. The only information I gave pacman was verbatim what Kevin had posted on this board about his status. Pacman put it out on the MA&D board, with his own added speculations. Kevin, and others here, call what I did rumor mongering, etc.

So you see, there are TWO separate events.

Using an incident anonymously is not spreading malicious gossip. Neither is repeating what a person says himself.

edit to add: And would someone tell me how the heck to edit my sig line? I have tried three times now. I think when I added it, I hit the correct button by chance. GRRRRRR.

[_Trevor]

Not to mention how bizarre this construct is to begin with. An apologist gets defeated by a critic - so to assuage that apologist's ego he becomes a critic...because, you know, it just strains credulity to think that maybe the former apologist just recognized the critic's argument had a firmer foundation and altered his beliefs due to that fact.

No, no, it's all because of his huge EGO.

And when all is said and done, I think this is an important point: that charity has confirmed that apologists have difficulty seeing leaving the Church having anything to do with an intellectual discovery. Leaving must originate somehow in sin.

And since in the Christain worldview everyone is a sinner, this observation that the cause of apostasy is sin is worthless.

[_beastie]

Pcman's reply to charity:

Are you serious?! Somehow, that's not much of a disgusting surprise. Disgusting yes...surprise, no.

I asked:

Charity,

You are doing your best to paint yourself as innocent of any wrong-doing. Yet, you said something that made pacman cry out "are you serious?" and label it "disgusting". What exactly had you revealed that prompted that reaction?

Charity's reply:

I would like to know, yes. Thanks.

So now you're pretending you don't even know what you included in your email to pacman that would provoke such a reaction???

Why, you were just helping Kevin by clarifying his situation! How sad that pacman is so delusional that he thought something you said about Kevin could be construed as "disgusting".

[_Zoidberg]

Not to mention how bizarre this construct is to begin with. An apologist gets defeated by a critic - so to assuage that apologist's ego he becomes a critic...because, you know, it just strains credulity to think that maybe the former apologist just recognized the critic's argument had a firmer foundation and altered his beliefs due to that fact.

No, no, it's all because of his huge EGO.

And when all is said and done, I think this is an important point: that charity has confirmed that apologists have difficulty seeing leaving the Church having anything to do with an intellectual discovery. Leaving must originate somehow in sin.

And since in the Christain worldview everyone is a sinner, this observation that the cause of apostasy is sin is worthless.

Since there is an hierarchy of sins in LDS theology, I'm sure they think of the more heinous sins that would prevent you from obtaining a TR. Like killing someone, being "immoral" or drinking coffee.

Just admit it, Kevin, you like latte, don't you?

[_beastie]

Using an incident anonymously is not spreading malicious gossip. Neither is repeating what a person says himself.

Oh, stop. Have some dignity.

First, if you report gossip about a person you do not name but provide specific enough information about that it could only possibly be a couple of people, then you have not gossiped anonymously. There are very few posters who were once known apologists who admitted being bested by a critic, and then switching sides.

Second, you obviously did not just report what Kevin said. You said something in such a negative fashion that pacman cried out that it was "disgusting"!!

[_dartagnan]

Second, you obviously did not just report what Kevin said. You said something in such a negative fashion that pacman cried out that it was "disgusting"!!

Good point. There was something about pacman's comments that rubbed me wrong. Well, actually everything he said did, but it just didn't bode well with charity's explanation. It seems he was pretty excited about juicy data charity had shared with him. What was "disgusting," I wonder?

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

I don't think that's how it went. Here's my understanding of events, some of which I agree with you on.

---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

We're in agreement up to that point, but we part afterwards:

--Charity posts about apologists switching sides in reply to a remark from harmony.

Would it be possible to get a link to this thread?

Charity says that she knows an apologist who got his head handed to him, but does not tell harmony or the rest of us at MDB the name of this apologist.
-- California Kid assumes that charity is speaking of Kevin Graham.
--Charity does not immediately deny this, but explains further about how they mystery apologist had his pride hurt.
--The MDB people tell charity they don't like rumor mongering.
--Charity maintains that she was not referring to Kevin Graham. The person she was referring to was someone else and was unnamed.

Okay, now I see where I was confused, but doesn't this still constitute rumor-mongering? I.e., this dangling of "juicy" information about some critic who "apostacized due to pride"?

---For whatever reason, Charity contacts Pacman, via PM, and gives Pacman Kevin Graham's own comments about himself. Charity maintains this was to help remove some misconceptions about Kevin Graham.

Here's an interesting question worth considering: Was her "clarification" mean to help or hurt Kevin Graham's reputation? Also, Why did Charity deem it necessary to contact Pacman in the first place? What was the "whatever reason"?

[_Trevor]

Good point. There was something about pacman's comments that rubbed me wrong. Well, actually everything he said did, but it just didn't bode well with charity's explanation. It seems he was pretty excited about juicy data charity had shared with him. What was "disgusting," I wonder?

Facial hair. Good Mormons know it is evil, disgusting, and wrong, but especially disgusting.