Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_beastie]

Guess what. If this was revealed to you and I was anti-Mormon, like you and Gad, you, miss, would not say boo!.

That's what makes you a total sham.

You are wrong. You are living in a world of your own construction.

So, share some of my whining about Mormonism. It may provide some entertainment while we wait for Daniel to answer a very simple question.

[_Mister Scratch]

Basically, whenever you "flatly deny" anything, it essentially means that you've been caught with your pants down.

In Scratch World, if a chosen victim fails to deny one of Scratch's slanders, that's proof that Scratch's slander is true. Yet if the chosen victim does deny the slander, that too is proof that Scratch's slander is true.

No, not really. Because the only time you ever "flatly deny" what I've said is when I've compiled such a mountain of evidence that the only recourse you have is to throw up your hands and "flatly deny" all of it.

Quinn is sleeping on a futon, w/ no health insurance thanks in part to the crap you and your pals have engaged in.

That's baseless slander, as usual.

I've led no campaign to keep Quinn from getting an academic appointment,

What role, if any, did you play in preventing him from presenting a paper at the Yale conference?

have never intervened to prevent such an appointment, and would be perfectly content to see him get such an appointment.

Your editorial sanctioning of vicious baloney such as "That Old Black Magic," and your constant labeling of his work and "tendentious" and "untrustworthy" very much constitutes "intervention," in my opinion.

He simply doesn't care. He's safe in malevolent anonymity to traduce the character of others with no real consequence to himself.

Nothing I have ever done even remotely compares to the real-life consequences which have been suffered by the targets of your scorn. Do you care about the results of what YOU have done?

I care very, very much. If I had done the things of which you accuse me, I would richly deserve condemnation. But I have not.

You haven't overseen the many smear articles in FARMS Review? You haven't engaged in rank gossip on ZLMB, FAIR, MAD, and heavens knows where else?

And nobody who knows me at all well would ever think me capable of such actions as you, operating from safe and cowardly anonymity, persistently seek to lay at my feet.

Correction: Nobody who bothers to look at the evidence would make the kind of "flat denials" you are trying to make here, my dear Professor.

In other words, you are giving yourself a free pass. You were mad at Infymus, and decided to stick it to him by "leaking" the emails.

Since Infymus attacked me publicly, I thought it fair to make Infymus's extremely poor e-mail behavior public.

Yep. What a stand-up guy you are. Way to set a Saintly example.

by the way: Are you ever going to get around to explaining how those Sorenson articles actually support your argument?

I already did, over at MAD&D.

No, actually, you didn't. You never demonstrated how the Sorenson articles would be "obviously LDS" in nature to a non-LDS scholar. I looked over the texts and couldn't see anything that would tip off a secular academic. Would you care to offer up a citation? Or are you going to head for the hills once again?

Further, can you provide some examples other than these seriously discredited Sorenson articles? Or is that all you have?

[_Ray A]

You are wrong. You are living in a world of your own construction.

So, share some of my whining about Mormonism. It may provide some entertainment while we wait for Daniel to answer a very simple question.

Easy. Anyone do a search on "beastie". From morning 'till night you thrive on anti-Mormonism. I know it's only your "Internet hobby", perhaps like an obsession with knitting. You really don't see it, do you? Sometimes I would really like to reason with you, but you have long lost that ability. Postmo is a good example of your back-stabbing and viciousness. I've seriously wondered if you're on anti-Mormon steroids.

Joseph and his "swamp thing" is what first alerted me, though initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You would find "evidence" to support anything which makes Joseph look like a charlatan and a fraud, yet you never openly say those words. I would rather an anti-Mormon who swears a stream a mile long, and can be honest about it, than the long smooth-faced appeasers who compliment you with one stroke, then stab you in the back with the next. You didn't even know who Sam was, and maybe it mystifies you why I can respect him, though I disagree with 95% of what he writes. Sam is honest, you are not. Sam is genuinely disillusioned, Internet disillusionment is your hobby. Entertainment. That's why you post here, to give the rise to Mormons, and for no other reason. Sam is this way 24/7. He can't help it. You put on your anti-Mormon tin foil when you log in to MDB.

[_Mister Scratch]

You have a weird world-view scratch. This is my friend we are talking about. I spoke to him about it. He said the analogy was strained meaning he thought the analogy was bad.

Let's cut to the chase here. What do YOU think was "strained"/"bad" about the analogy, Nehor? Further, what do you think your friend meant by "strained"/"bad"?

[_beastie]

Joseph and his "swamp thing" is what first alerted me, though initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You would find "evidence" to support anything which makes Joseph look like a charlatan and a fraud, yet you never openly say those words. I would rather an anti-Mormon who swears a stream a mile long, and can be honest about it, than the long smooth-faced appeasers who compliment you with one stroke, then stab you in the back with the next. You didn't even know who Sam was, and maybe it mystifies you why I can respect him, though I disagree with 95% of what he writes. Sam is honest, you are not. Sam is genuinely disillusioned, Internet disillusionment is your hobby. Entertainment. That's why you post here, to give the rise to Mormons, and for no other reason. Sam is this way 24/7. He can't help it. You put on your anti-Mormon tin foil when you log in to MDB.

You see what you want to see. I am now The Enemy, so everything you perceive about me is through that lens. For example, you state that:

You would find "evidence" to support anything which makes Joseph look like a charlatan and a fraud,

ignoring that some of the things I said which provoked Cabbie into telling me I was the product of incest (an act you now applaud), was that I couldn't agree with Joseph Smith being a clinical narcissist because he seemed capable of genuinely caring about people around him, and gave examples like his caring for the twins all night. I was told that "couldn't count" because narcissists do everything for show.

I also argued that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen Mar, and gave what I considered to be good evidence supporting that view. Cabbie didn't like that one, either.

But now, according to you, I "support anything which makes Joseph look like a charlatan and a fraud."

And when I DON'T viciously attack, you even use that against me!! You pretend to be able to read my mind and know that I'm just being maliciously coy to trick people, that I'm cloaking the "real me".

You just could not stand that I called you on your BS about the oncoming Mormon violence, and that made me The Enemy. You made me The Enemy because I disagreed with you and stood up to you, just like I did with Cabbie and Benson.

Still waiting for Daniel's answer to my question. I'll keep popping it up til he answers, because I can't fathom why he would want the support of someone so craven that when he opposed the church he threatened their missionaries. I doubt if even Benson would stoop so low.

[_Ray A]

ignoring that some of the things I said which provoked Cabbie into telling me I was the product of incest (an act you now applaud), was that I couldn't agree with Joseph Smith being a clinical narcissist because he seemed capable of genuinely caring about people around him, and gave examples like his caring for the twins all night. I was told that "couldn't count" because narcissists do everything for show.

I also argued that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen Mar, and gave what I considered to be good evidence supporting that view. Cabbie didn't like that one, either.

But now, according to you, I "support anything which makes Joseph look like a charlatan and a fraud."

And when I DON'T viciously attack, you even use that against me!! You pretend to be able to read my mind and know that I'm just being maliciously coy to trick people, that I'm cloaking the "real me".

You just could not stand that I called you on your BS about the oncoming Mormon violence, and that made me The Enemy. You made me The Enemy because I disagreed with you and stood up to you, just like I did with Cabbie and Benson.

Still waiting for Daniel's answer to my question. I'll keep popping it up til he answers, because I can't fathom why he would want the support of someone so craven that when he opposed the church he threatened their missionaries. I doubt if even Benson would stoop so low.

I don't know much about Josh Skains, but I'm now reading a lot. Very enlightening, your approach to him. Seems like he still believes Mormonism. Did you sympathise with him because he expressed anti-Mormon sentiments, then turn on him when he expressed pro-Mormon sentiment?

This is clearly your track record. Have you ever advise Runtu to get "professional help"? I see:

Pro-Mormon - get professional help.

Anti-Mormon - "just venting". No worries. No one on RFM needs "professional help". "Just venting". Go to Church Sunday, bash the Church Monday on MDB or RFM. No worries. Nooooo problemo here. No duality. No indecisiveness. "Just venting".

You speak with forked tongue, and that's why no matter what you defend about Mormonism, or in Mormonism, you really think it's rotten to the core. That's why I even have more time for Porter, than you.

[_beastie]

If I had been around when runtu expressed his disturbing thoughts, I would have definitely encouraged him to get help, unlike your idol Pahoran.

That you think it is some sort of insult or taunt to encourage someone who is plainly troubled to get help speaks volumes about you.

[_Ray A]

That you think it is some sort of insult or taunt to encourage someone who is plainly troubled to get help speaks volumes about you.

So you think Runtu only needed professional help then? You don't think he's erratic, indecisive, often in two minds? No, because he makes it clear he believes Mormonism is a fraud, that's why. If he still had a testimony, you'd be the first to advise him to "get professional help", because of his "instability". Instability, that is, in still believing.

[_beastie]

o you think Runtu only needed professional help then? You don't think he's erratic, indecisive, often in two minds? No, because he makes it clear he believes Mormonism is a fraud, that's why. If he still had a testimony, you'd be the first to advise him to "get professional help", because of his "instability". Instability, that is, in still believing.

People don't need professional help because they're indecisive or of two minds (I don't believe he's erratic). People need help when they express thoughts that have a pattern of some thought disorder, like thinking everyone is out to get them (ie, "demonizes me").

But both of these individuals mainly needed help due to suicide ideation, which Josh has expressed in the past. I've "known" him online for a long time and have seen it. So when I see Josh pop back up, saying things like "everyone demonizes me", that is a huge red flag.

[_Ray A]

People don't need professional help because they're indecisive or of two minds (I don't believe he's erratic). People need help when they express thoughts that have a pattern of some thought disorder, like thinking everyone is out to get them (ie, "demonizes me").

That's not what I get from his YouTube video. He asks a simple question: WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HATE SO MUCH?

But both of these individuals mainly needed help due to suicide ideation, which Josh has expressed in the past. I've "known" him online for a long time and have seen it. So when I see Josh pop back up, saying things like "everyone demonizes me", that is a huge red flag.

I don't see any "red flag" being raised about Runtu here????????????

As Professor Julius Sumner would ask: "Why is this so?"