Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_beastie]

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.

You are ignoring Ray's own words on how one should view "dorks who talk about killing missionaries". Do I really have to repeat it? Ok, I will.

On MAD, he went on a rant about how the polemics of "angry exmormons" would like cause real violence to be perpretrated against real life Mormons. You agreed with his assessment.

This was part of his diatribe:

If some dork speaks about "killing Mormon missionaries", I do not care a fig if anyone else sees this as merely words. I take this very seriously. And to all the little minds who think this thread has no substance - THINK AGAIN! And to all of you who quote Jesus, remember that out of the mouth come blasphemies, threats, and bile, which reflect the intentions of the heart. This is a verbal hatred that could one day turn to physical violence. And the more you speak and publish your BILE, the more the sick minds will be encouraged.

By Ray's own words one should take the words of such a dork very seriously.

Now tell me, why are neither you nor Ray willing to take Ray's words seriously? Obviously he wouldn't be breathing out such threats today. But five years ago, would you take Ray's words seriously? Or would you just discount them as words spoken in anger, fairly meaningless?

I don't know Ray in real life. I have no idea what he is capable of or not. All I am doing is using his own words to judge him. Not just the threat, but his later statement about "dorks" who make such threats.

And the fact that he went on such a diatribe while forgetting to mention he had been guilty of the very sin he was now ranting about, and how, in reality, he didn't think his own words should be taken seriously, is the type of hypocrisy that, if he were a public person, the press would go crazy over. As would the public.

You're not a stupid person. You're bound to understand my point.

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.

Again, you're ignoring an inconvenient truth. Ray has repeatedly asserted he does NOT share private mails, and, in fact, disparages those who do.

Yet Ray shared Scratch's private emails.

This makes Ray a liar, and yet you still insist otherwise. The words are in front of you, in black and white. Yet you still deny - and get huffy when the rest of us just won't take Ray's word for it that Scratch altered his emails.

[_beastie]

And, by the way, Ray is lying in regards to another item on this thread.

He keeps repeating that I have not stood up to RFMers. He ignores the Cabbie incident, although he recently told me Cabbie was right to attack me as the product of incest. But now he pretends that I didn't also stand up to Benson.

Yet, when this very issue came up a little over a year ago, Ray said this:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=105

Ray's first comment:

I don't know how you manage it, beastie. You have been maligned by BIGOTS on RFM, yet you turn a blind eye to this and forgive RFM, and excuse them because they are "individuals", but do you offer Mormonism the same leeway? Why don't you tell Salt Lake Cabbie what an asshole he is, publicly? And give Juliann a rest.

My reply:

by the way, I did tell Cabbie what I thought of him, in some many words, and did the same with Benson. I have no idea why, if you read those threads enough to see me attacked, you didn't notice me telling them what I thought of their posting styles. I don't forgive them for being assholes, I forgive the others on RFM who are hurt and venting and try to put it in perspective, and I try to share that perspective when the place is generically attacked.

Ray's next reply:

My apologies. You did say what you thought. And you have told me privately what you thought. And you have taken a public stand against Benson's paranoia.

However, on a side note, I don't believe RFM is a "recovery" board. I think it's a anti-Mormon hate board. Sorry if my honest opinion offends.

Even if, in the interim, Ray had forgotten this incident, I repeatedly reminded him on this thread. Yet now he denies that I ever stood up to them, in order to try and make a case that I'm a hypocrite. Perhaps he thinks this will make his own hypocrisy a little less rank.

In my view, this makes Ray a liar. He read my exchanges on RFM, he corresponded with me about them. He commented on them later. Now they don't exist. That's a memory lapse that is a bit too convenient for me, particularly after I've gone out of my way to remind him.

[_Ray A]

Even if, in the interim, Ray had forgotten this incident, I repeatedly reminded him on this thread. Yet now he denies that I ever stood up to them, in order to try and make a case that I'm a hypocrite. Perhaps he thinks this will make his own hypocrisy a little less rank.

In my view, this makes Ray a liar. He read my exchanges on RFM, he corresponded with me about them. He commented on them later. Now they don't exist. That's a memory lapse that is a bit too convenient for me, particularly after I've gone out of my way to remind him.

Do you spend all day going through my posts? You're obviously obsessed with me. I could do the same to you, and catch you in your words, like when you said you would "never" go back on FAIR. A week or so later you were a Pundit on FAIR. (And at the time your former outspoken criticisms of FAIR mysteriously diminished! Until, that is, you left it much later. You were obviously too gutless to say what you thought, a la Kevin Graham, and risk getting banned) So, are you a liar? By your definition - YES. Would you like me to dig up more of your own contradictions (which you call "lies"). Not up to it. Maybe next week, if you want to keep playing this little game of yours.

By the way, I never saw your actual criticisms of Benson - Never! I took your word for it, because at the time I trsuted your honesty. That has long gone.

[_Ray A]

Here is another comment from the hypocritical beastie (just as hypocritical as anyone she accuses):

I forgive the others on RFM who are hurt and venting and try to put it in perspective, and I try to share that perspective when the place is generically attacked.

Do you ever "generically" attack the Church? Yes, you do, and often. So Mormons have no feelings, they don't hurt, they don't suffer, only exmos hurt. Right?

[_beastie]

Do you spend all day going through my posts? You're obviously obsessed with me. I could do the same to you, and catch you in your words, like when you said you would "never" go back on FAIR. A week or so later you were a Pundit on FAIR. (And at the time your former outspoken criticisms of FAIR mysteriously diminished! Until, that is, you left it much later. You were obviously too gutless to say what you thought, a la Kevin Graham, and risk getting banned) So, are you a liar? By your definition - YES. Would you like me to dig up more of your own contradictions (which you call "lies"). Not up to it. Maybe next week, if you want to keep playing this little game of yours.

By the way, I never saw your actual criticisms of Benson - Never! I took your word for it, because at the time I trsuted your honesty. That has long gone.

All day? LOL! Evidently my memory is much better than yours, Ray, because I remember these past conversations and can find them easily in a search.

As you well know, I went back to FAIR for one purpose. Juliann refused to discuss the Politics of Apostasy on Z despite my repeated invitation, so at the urgings of several people here, I went back for that. I have no idea why you think I should have gone over there and ranted about FAIR's problems.

You either have a dismal memory or are lying again. If you saw Cabbie attack me and call me the "product of incest", you saw Benson attacking me, as well. But no matter. You remember Cabbie's attack because you agree with him now. So why do you keep lying and saying I don't stand up to them?

Do you ever "generically" attack the Church? Yes, you do, and often. So Mormons have no feelings, they don't hurt, they don't suffer, only exmos hurt. Right?

This makes no sense in response to what I said. I don't think you even know what you're saying anymore.

You and Dan are actually a good pair. You harshly criticized Scratch for sharing private emails before he pointed out that Dan had also done so. Then, instead of harshly criticizing Dan you just backed off the issue, and then started sharing emails of your own. Dan is returning your favor by minimizing your violent threats of the past, and ignoring your own lies on this thread.

[_Ray A]

Even if, in the interim, Ray had forgotten this incident, I repeatedly reminded him on this thread. Yet now he denies that I ever stood up to them, in order to try and make a case that I'm a hypocrite. Perhaps he thinks this will make his own hypocrisy a little less rank.

In my view, this makes Ray a liar. He read my exchanges on RFM, he corresponded with me about them. He commented on them later. Now they don't exist. That's a memory lapse that is a bit too convenient for me, particularly after I've gone out of my way to remind him.

Let me repeat this again, I saw some of your posts on RFM, but I don't recall ever reading any exchanges you had with Benson. I did read some of what Cabbie said, and it was his remarks, at the time, and some others, which made me wonder why you kept going back. I think Matt was also criticising you. Since RFM only has a two week archive, it's not possible to see exactly what you exchanged with Benson, but maybe you'd like to recapitulate. What was your exchange with Benson?

[Guest]

You are ignoring Ray's own words on how one should view "dorks who talk about killing missionaries". Do I really have to repeat it?

No, you don't.

Here's a principle that I believe in and that you might want to consider: The fact that you're obsessed with something doesn't obligate me to take any interest in it.

I ignore most message boards. I ignore most threads on the message boards that I don't ignore. I ignore many of the posts on the threads that I don't ignore on the message boards that I don't ignore. I ignore many of the issues raised by the posts that I don't ignore on the threads that I don't ignore on the message boards that I don't ignore.

I don't feel any obligation to do otherwise.

I don't feel any obligation, either, to pronounce on the moral character or the psychological health of the vast majority of human beings -- not even when you've targeted them for denunciation.

I've been in contact with Ray for years now. I've met him, been in his home, had lunch with him, introduced my wife to him, met his daughter. I know him and understand him reasonably well. I like him. I put the comment that you've exhumed (for purposes of your own agenda from a private message on another message board several years ago) into the context of years of communication with him.

On MAD, he went on a rant about how the polemics of "angry exmormons" would like cause real violence to be perpretrated against real life Mormons. You agreed with his assessment.

I certainly think that's possible. It's not for nothing that many people are concerned about "hate speech" directed against certain groups.

By Ray's own words one should take the words of such a dork very seriously.

Fine. I do.

Now tell me, why are neither you nor Ray willing to take Ray's words seriously?

Who says I don't?

Perhaps I should mention the fact that I don't feel any obligation to issue public pronouncements on the moral character or the psychological health of the vast majority of human beings -- not even when you've targeted them for denunciation. If I feel the need to do so, I will determine that. You won't.

I've been in contact with Ray for years now. I've met him, been in his home, had lunch with him, introduced my wife to him, met his daughter. I know him and understand him reasonably well. I like him. I put comments like those of his that you've exhumed (for purposes of your own agenda from a private message on another message board several years ago) into the context of years of communication with him.

Obviously he wouldn't be breathing out such threats today.

Which is quite relevant to a discussion today.

But five years ago, would you take Ray's words seriously?

Yes.

Or would you just discount them as words spoken in anger, fairly meaningless?

I always allow for that possibility. Nine times out of ten, or ninety-nine times out of a hundred, or even nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand, such words will be merely spoken in anger, and fairly meaningless.

But, once in a while, such words will represent serious threats.

As I've pointed out to you at least twice here -- and as you've ignored both times -- the public character of such words is what interests me. The fact that Ray's words were written, apparently, in a private message to the moderators of a message board several years ago makes them of less interest to me than words spoken in a public venue that, sometimes at least, go without correction or condemnation by others there. I've been interested (as I've said at least twice) in the dynamics of a public place -- and please note that the private in-box of the moderators on a message board does not qualify, in my view, as such a public place -- where bloodcurdlingly hostile things are sometimes said. I'm not worried, especially after the passage of time, that angry, hateful words in a private message to the moderators of ZLMB could have stirred murderous anti-Mormon sentiments in, say, Calmoriah, or even in you. But I do worry that there might be somebody out there in the general public, perhaps a poster, perhaps only a lurker, whose mental state is such that he or she could be stirred to violence by certain things said in a public venue where extreme sentiments are not only expressed but, not infrequently, welcomed and even celebrated.

If you don't like that, fine. As I've pointed out before, I don't believe that I'm under any obligation whatever to be interested in things because you think I ought to find them interesting, or to account to you for what I don't happen to find interesting.

I don't know Ray in real life.

I do.

I have no idea what he is capable of or not.

I'm reasonably confident that I do.

All I am doing is using his own words to judge him.

Which is your prerogative. I wish you joy.

I don't see, though, why you think you need my validation for your judgment.

And the fact that he went on such a diatribe while forgetting to mention he had been guilty of the very sin he was now ranting about, and how, in reality, he didn't think his own words should be taken seriously, is the type of hypocrisy that, if he were a public person, the press would go crazy over. As would the public.

And you're entirely free to go crazy, too.

But you have no standing to demand that I go crazy with you.

You're not a stupid person. You're bound to understand my point.

Again, you're ignoring an inconvenient truth. Ray has repeatedly asserted he does NOT share private mails, and, in fact, disparages those who do.

I'll take your word for that.

You're entirely free to attack him for seeming hypocrisy on that point, and Ray is entirely free to defend himself against your attack.

I don't see how any of this obligates me to be involved.

Yet Ray shared Scratch's private emails.

You're entirely free to attack him for seeming hypocrisy on that point, and Ray is entirely free to defend himself against your attack.

In the meantime, what interests me -- and, please recall, I'm free to be interested in anything I choose, even without your permission -- is the fact that Scratch appears to have tampered with one of those e-mails in order to avoid letting the unvarnished truth be known about what he had written. I have strong grounds to believe that I've seen him do something very similar before.

This makes Ray a liar, and yet you still insist otherwise.

Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps Ray felt that he had compelling reason to violate his general policy.

You're entirely free to attack him for seeming hypocrisy on that point, and Ray is entirely free to defend himself against your attack.

I've actually said nothing about this particular issue at all, for the simple reason that I haven't been paying attention to it. (I accept your summary of it only for purposes of discussion here.)

The words are in front of you, in black and white.

You're wholly mistaken if you imagine that my life revolves around your quarrels here. I haven't read those words. I haven't read and don't read most of the words on this message board. You shouldn't assume that I'm watching with rapt attention just because you're agitated about something.

Yet you still deny - and get huffy when the rest of us just won't take Ray's word for it that Scratch altered his emails.

I haven't been "huffy." In fact -- and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't recall saying anything here ("huffy" or non-"huffy") about the fact that some seem much more willing to give Scratch the benefit of the doubt on this matter than I am. I've simply stated my opinion that Scratch is very likely guilty of a deliberate (and rather brazen) attempt to deceive. It wouldn't, if I'm not mistaken, be the first time for him.

[_Ray A]

This makes no sense in response to what I said. I don't think you even know what you're saying anymore.

You are dodging the question. Do you ever generically attack the Church?

[_beastie]

You are dodging the question. Do you ever generically attack the Church?

It depends on your definition of "attack", of course. I criticize certain claims of the LDS church, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I criticize its leaders, usually past leaders like Joseph Smith. Does this constitute "attacking" the church? Not in my view, although in yours, I'm sure it does.

But here's why your response didn't make sense. I said this:

I forgive the others on RFM who are hurt and venting and try to put it in perspective, and I try to share that perspective when the place is generically attacked.

And you replied:

Do you ever "generically" attack the Church? Yes, you do, and often. So Mormons have no feelings, they don't hurt, they don't suffer, only exmos hurt. Right?

I know you're trying to show that I'm a hypocrite like you, but this isn't working. Nothing I said indicated that Mormons have no feelings, they don't suffer, only exmos hurt at all. So why are you pretending it does? Oh, let me guess. Because you're trying to divert the attention from the fact that while proclaiming that folks should take dorks who threaten to kill missionaries very seriously (insert predictions of holocaust here), while omitting the pertinent information that you had once been such a dork, and now insist that your words should NOT be taken seriously.

And, of course Daniel isn't interested at all in your former threats, because they were made in private PMs and not on a public board.

[_Ray A]

You and Dan are actually a good pair. You harshly criticized Scratch for sharing private emails before he pointed out that Dan had also done so. Then, instead of harshly criticizing Dan you just backed off the issue, and then started sharing emails of your own. Dan is returning your favor by minimizing your violent threats of the past, and ignoring your own lies on this thread.

Dan never posted any emails I sent him, and I said I respect him for that. It was of little consequence to me that he offered them privately to anyone who wanted to read them. Even if he had posted them on Z, I would have reacted in the same way I did to Gad. Even Gad admitted that what he did was a "perhaps a little unethical", but as I said, I'm prepared to wear the consequences. I don't shirk from responsibility, even if it means being constantly attacked by you and Scratch. I can live with that, also knowing that most reasonable people will see this in a larger light.

I posted Scratch's PMs for one purpose, and one purpose only: Because he was out to savagely attack and try to discredit me (what's new?). Those PMs would never have seen the light of day if Scratch had not maliciously done that, and it was malicious, and desperate. I don't think there's any level to which Scratch will not stoop. And you are now right there with him.