Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

How in the WORLD are my comments a strawman argument?

Because you ignore blatant hatred in commentary towards the Church on this board, right now, and on RFM, while focusing on something that occurred five years ago.

Your replies are too predictable, and frankly, repetitively boring.

My play time is up for this week anyway. In any case, I'd rather deal with drunks than keep replying to you. Nay, I look forward to them because their slurred, dribbling comments make far more sense than yours.

[_Mister Scratch]

How in the WORLD are my comments a strawman argument?

Because you ignore blatant hatred in commentary towards the Church on this board, right now, and on RFM, while focusing on something that occurred five years ago.

Your replies are too predictable, and frankly, repetitively boring.

My play time is up for this week anyway. In any case, I'd rather deal with drunks than keep replying to you. Nay, I look forward to them because their slurred, dribbling comments make far more sense than yours.

Bye, Ray. Your gross dishonesty, and willingness to level false accusations, and your staggering lack of credibility have all been duly noted.

[_beastie]

Because you ignore blatant hatred in commentary towards the Church on this board, right now, and on RFM, while focusing on something that occurred five years ago.

"Blatant hatred", with a few exceptions, is in the eye of the beholder, and I doubt I would agree on what you determine to be "blatant hatred". After all, you have accused me of hating the church, and I don't, so I know your judgment is lacking in this regard.

This may have happened five years ago, but I only recently found out about it. I had no idea this is what you are capable of, and I'm still shocked over it. And your ongoing volatile behavior leads me to suspect you are still capable of this sort of behavior.

Your replies are too predictable, and frankly, repetitively boring.

Yeah, I'm sure it's boring to have your rank hypocrisy repeatedly exposed.

My play time is up for this week anyway. In any case, I'd rather deal with drunks than keep replying to you. Nay, I look forward to them because their slurred, dribbling comments make far more sense than yours.

Sure, Ray, obviously I make no sense at all.

It just makes no sense to point out that you've already been exposed as a liar, and it makes no sense to point out that you had no shame in crafting your MAD diatribe about dorks who talk about killing missionaries. No sense at all.

I think you've completely lost it.

[_Ray A]

"Blatant hatred", with a few exceptions, is in the eye of the beholder, and I doubt I would agree on what you determine to be "blatant hatred". After all, you have accused me of hating the church, and I don't, so I know your judgment is lacking in this regard.

It is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and you completely ignore blatant hatred in anti and ex-Mormons, to a staggering degree! My judgement is lacking? If I crawled over hot broken glass to make amends for 2003, you'd still have a long knife out, because you are a bitter, vindictive person.

This may have happened five years ago, but I only recently found out about it. I had no idea this is what you are capable of, and I'm still shocked over it. And your ongoing volatile behavior leads me to suspect you are still capable of this sort of behavior.

No, if you found out about this, and I was an anti-Mormon, it would mean NOTHING to you, that's what a hypocrite you are.

I think you've completely lost it.

No doubt, I bash up customers every night, and I have a police record as long as my arm.

Happy now? Sleep well tonight?

[_beastie]

t is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and you completely ignore blatant hatred in anti and ex-Mormons, to a staggering degree! My judgement is lacking? If I crawled over hot broken glass to make amends for 2003, you'd still have a long knife out, because you are a bitter, vindictive person.

It's not just the threat you have to make amends for, but your diatribe on MAD about dorks killing missionaries. There is just no way you can hide from this, Ray. You asserted that you would take those words very seriously, and then went on to predict some future Mormon holocaust. In the meantime, when your own threat was exposed, you insist no one took it seriously, they were just words.

And - without proof - you keep insisting we should all just accept your word that scratch lied, and that this lie totally destroys his credibility. DCP got right on board with that, of course. And yet your lie is in black and white right on this thread. You don't share private messages or emails, eh?

No, if you found out about this, and I was an anti-Mormon, it would mean NOTHING to you, that's what a hypocrite you are.

Once again, you ignore the evidence quite to the contrary to this. You know full well that I stand up to other exmormons, and you're so manipulatively deceptive you just pretend it never happened.

No doubt, I bash up customers every night, and I have a police record as long as my arm.

Happy now? Sleep well tonight?

You're in Australia. I sleep very well.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your gross dishonesty, and willingness to level false accusations, and your staggering lack of credibility have all been duly noted.

It doesn't -- really, it can't -- get much better than that.

[_beastie]

It doesn't -- really, it can't -- get much better than that.

No comment on Ray's exposed lie? In case you need reminding, he has repeatedly stated that he doesn't share private emails or PMs and, in fact, considers that despicable. Yet, obviously, he has shared private PMs right on this thread.

I know that his former threats to harm missionaries doesn't interest you, but you did assert that you would alter your view of Ray if it were shown he'd lied. Well?

[_Mister Scratch]

Your gross dishonesty, and willingness to level false accusations, and your staggering lack of credibility have all been duly noted.

It doesn't -- really, it can't -- get much better than that.

You know, Prof. P., when you make posts like this, I always get an image in my mind of you dressed up like an organ grinder, with a little monkey on your shoulder (yes, he's sporting a very dapper little fez) and with "Turkey in the Straw" tooting through the air.

Anyways: where is your evidence that LDS scholars have submitted their most controversial secular theories to academic scrutiny, hmmm???

[_Mister Scratch]

It doesn't -- really, it can't -- get much better than that.

No comment on Ray's exposed lie? In case you need reminding, he has repeatedly stated that he doesn't share private emails or PMs and, in fact, considers that despicable. Yet, obviously, he has shared private PMs right on this thread.

I know that his former threats to harm missionaries doesn't interest you, but you did assert that you would alter your view of Ray if it were shown he'd lied. Well?

C'mon, Beastie. It's transparently obvious that The Good Professor was using Ray as a pawn in the game of Mopologetics. It was useful to use Ray as a Pahoran-esque attack dog for a while, but now DCP is going to begin distancing himself from Ray.

Then again, maybe it won't matter. After all, DCP continues to remain friends with the likes of John Gee, who has been shown quite clearly to be a gossipmongerer and a liar. Why not add another one to the "circle"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So if Ray is a liar, that would change your assessment of him. But it doesn't change your assessment of him to know that he threatened to kill missionaries.

I know that Ray has a fierce temper, can use extremely tough language, was going through a very difficult period, and was at that time (you've dredged this up from a private message sent to the moderators of another board how many years ago?) not at all friendly to the Church, so, no, it wouldn't change my opinion of him much. (Partly because I don't think he was seriously threatening to kill missionaries. [You forget that I actually know him.] Do you really think that he was? Or is this just a rhetorical pose on your part?)

But I have always regarded Ray as fiercely honest, too. Uncompromisingly so. I've not known him to lie. Never. He tells the truth as he sees it even if it is uncomfortable. Accordingly, if I were to discover that he's a coldly cunning deceiver, yes, that would change my opinion of him.

As things stand, for various reasons predating this recent flap over his apparent deceptive alteration of a personal message, I had already concluded that Scratch is, precisely, a coldly cunning (and malicious) deceiver.