Ray A: A Mormon 'John'?

[_Jersey Girl]

[
I "had" to do no such thing at all, Scratch. That's what honest people do when they screw up.

"Had"/"chose"---take your pick. Since we're playing semantic games, why not change "honest people" to "sloppy ass researchers"?

And no, twisted sister, I didn't delete it out of "shame". I stated exactly why I deleted it on the thread.

Distort much?

You stated that you deleted it because "it was starting all over again," or "starting a new chapter," or some such nonsense. Regardless, it was that posting and the ensuing thread that raised questions about your integrity, thus leading to the "investigation," as it were.

I deleted it because it was turning into yet another circus. Not out of "shame".

Questions about my integrity? You wouldn't know a straight arrow if it hit you between the eyes. There are many on this board who know the level of my integrity. As you well know.

Two people (arguably two and a half) vouched for your integrity---Gadianton and Harmony, and to an extent, Liz. Others did not, and in fact insisted they had proof against it. Others read the transcript of our chat and agreed that you seemed to be hiding something.

Investigation, huh? Your investigation? Tell me, Scratch, how did you come up with the ZLMB Cal quotes you used on the thread where you accused me of being involved?

I read them on the ZLMB thread in question.

Really? Are you registered there?

You don't have to be registered to read the threads, Jersey.

That's nice. Now answer my question, are you registered there?

Question #2: Who directed you to the threads?

[_Mister Scratch]

Again: what "sloppy research"? I see you are now hobbling, trying to get out of this jam by making stupid jokes.

I forgot, you don't have a sense of humour. My lapse.

Still no evidence? Okay.

My point (in case you've forgotten) was that you likely would not want to admit to certain things you've done in the midst of a certain kind of company. My point was also that admitting such would cripple your credibility with all the TBMs whom you claim "often listen" to you.

I think "TBMs" are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

Who said anything about "smarts"? My comments have been aimed more towards judgmentalism.

I don't have to start threads like "The Adventures of Ray "Cassonova" A. They are not as dumb as you think they are. But they are certainly much less spiteful.

Less spiteful and rage-ridden that you?

Oh. So you don't actually have any real point. Okay.

They just float over your headpiece - which is filled with straw.

Hey! Nice allusion---that's one of my faves.

Well, you lied when you said you would keep any discussion between you and I private. I turns out that you didn't actually have any genuine curiosity about my "motives," but instead you just wanted to find a sore spot to poke, or an excuse to issue a lecture.

I wanted to find a "sore spot"? What do you do in your blog? Promote peace, love, and understanding?

As I've said all along, the blog is for information and entertainment. Do you want me to delete all the blog entries, Ray?

In other words: You don't have any evidence. We already know that you fiddle with and mess up PMs, and then refuse to pony up the evidence when the going gets tough, so this argument goes right out the window, buddy boy.

If I ever fiddled with a PM then Bill Clinton is a celebate monk.

You fiddled and you know it, which is why you won't pony up the PM to Shades.

I'm not the one who refused to turn over the PM to Shades, Ray. Keep backpedaling.

I don't know why Shades would even trust you. You can easily alter those too. I haven't touched my PMs. Keene can go in and check the dates, times, and content anytime he likes. Why would I send anything? They own the board. They can access any part of it they like. Keene can access this with one click. You are just naïve to think that "sending" anything can make a difference. But the bottom line, Scratch, is that you know, and I know, you altered the content. I don't have to live with the lies - you do.

[/quote]

You mean like you have to live with your hounding, and your lies about "keeping PMs private"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch

Two people (arguably two and a half) vouched for your integrity---Gadianton and Harmony, and to an extent, Liz. Others did not, and in fact insisted they had proof against it. Others read the transcript of our chat and agreed that you seemed to be hiding something.

I wasn't "hiding" anything. I refrained from naming the trolls.

Okay, more semantic games. "Refrained" / "hid"---what is the real difference?

I told you outright that I wouldn't name them in the chat conversation. I stated on this very board that I wouldn't name them. Do I need to quote myself? Chat or post? You pick.

Right. "Yes, Scratch, I know that your personal information was posted on the blog, but, sorry! I'm not telling you anything. Especially now, since I don't like you and I'm mad at you, etc., over the Coggins thing." You want to try and key in on this issue of "hiding," claiming that it's not "hiding" since you've got some right to withhold this sort of information from the people who were directly affected. Okay: fine. You had every right to withhold the evidence from the people who were directly affected, especially since you were pissed off at them. That totally justifies your withholding of the information, Jersey---what a sweetheart you are!!

You know, I *will* grant that you overlooked that I'd been involved. (More "sloppy ass research", I guess???) Liz told me that you didn't know. So...maybe that explains why you were so dodgy?

That's nice. Now answer my question, are you registered there?

I'm willing to answer this via PM, so long as you promise to keep it private. I'm unwilling to say, since some Mopologists think that I am an old-timer, and I'd prefer that they remain in doubt.

Question #2: Who directed you to the threads?

Well, this is kind of a tricky question to answer. *I* went and looked at them myself. But the reason I went looking for them was spurred on by your Kerry Shirts "apology" thread, and a tip I received thereafter.

Thinking about this, I guess that you may be trying to suggest (via your usual game-playing), "Hey, *I* was the one who had you go look at the threads in the first place!", thus proving your innocence. To a certain extent, you're right. During the actual Itchy Affair, you posted a thread saying, "Mr. Scratch, A Word Please," or something like that, and had me go look at the threads. The Calmoriah comments, however, came afterwards, and I only saw them for the first time during my "investigation" of you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch, If you can't choose between chat or post. I'll choose for you.

I choose chat.

Here is me "hiding" something according to you. Refraining from naming the trolls according to me:

[Jersey Girl] 10:58 pm: What gossip is on the table?


[Jersey Girl] 10:58 pm: What about Scratch? Oh yes, he is here!

[Jersey Girl] 10:59 pm: Whats up Scratch?

[Jersey Girl] 11:00 pm: What's the deal on the apology thread, Scratch?

[Jersey Girl] 11:00 pm: Is there something missing from the information?

[Jersey Girl] 11:01 pm: About what?

[Jersey Girl] 11:02 pm: Spill it Scratch...what're you wondering about?



[Jersey Girl] 11:05 pm: Why wouldn't I?
[Jersey Girl] 11:05 pm: What doesn't add up?


[Jersey Girl] 11:06 pm: Yes, I think I saved a copy on my old computer...why?



[Jersey Girl] 11:08 pm: Because I forgot that I copied it at one point...what the hell is the mystery there?

[Jersey Girl] 11:09 pm: I had a memory for phrases that were on the blog...and ?

[Jersey Girl] 11:10 pm: I remember some of the phrases...what are you implying?
[Jersey Girl] 11:10 pm: Why is this so mysterious to you?

[Jersey Girl] 11:12 pm: Why doesn't that add up? Would you like me to just share my research with you upfront?

[Jersey Girl] 11:12 pm: Go find it yourself

[Jersey Girl] 11:13 pm: If it is of importance to you, go find it

[Jersey Girl] 11:13 pm: Good then leave me alone

[Jersey Girl] 11:14 pm: NO
[Jersey Girl] 11:15 pm: Why would I, Scratch?
[Jersey Girl] 11:15 pm: It's over and done with. Do you want those folks back at it again?

[Jersey Girl] 11:16 pm: Do you want people like Shades and harmony having to read that kind of stuff again?
[Jersey Girl] 11:16 pm: More smoke and mirrors?

[Jersey Girl] 11:17 pm: Are you delusional?


[Jersey Girl] 11:18 pm: Cough up what?

[Jersey Girl] 11:18 pm: What are you talking about?

[Jersey Girl] 11:19 pm: Find them yourself

[Jersey Girl] 11:19 pm: I have no reason to
[Jersey Girl] 11:19 pm: I don't know who Robbins is

[Jersey Girl] 11:20 pm: I found out what I needed for myself and for some reason you can't figure out why someone would apologize to another person
.
[Jersey Girl] 11:22 pm: PIece together what ever you like,Scratch. You keep trying to get information out of me that I'm unwilling to give. I found out what I wanted to know for myown purposes.

[Jersey Girl] 11:22 pm: No, why would I?
[Jersey Girl] 11:23 pm: I'm not interested in lighting their fire again

[Jersey Girl] 11:23 pm: Protect them???
[Jersey Girl] 11:24 pm: What are you talking about?

[Jersey Girl] 11:24 pm: Can't you read? Because I don't want to start trouble for people again by dredging it up!

[Jersey Girl] 11:26 pm: Scratch are you insane? If they were named they'd probably start up with stuff again...

[Jersey Girl] 11:27 pm: Who on earth do you think you are,Scratch? Why do YOU care who they are? Were theyposting YOUR private information?


[Jersey Girl] 11:28 pm: Protect them? How many times do I have to say that it would likely cause trouble again...it's not about protecting THEM for god's sake, it's about not seeing others splattered all over

[Jersey Girl] 11:28 pm: I didn't see anything personal about you that I recall

[Jersey Girl] 11:29 pm: Lying? Are you kidding?

[Jersey Girl] 11:30 pm: I don't know who Itchy was. I don't know who YOU are!

[Jersey Girl] 11:31 pm: Yes, I believe that I do

[Jersey Girl] 11:32 pm: What PM box? Huh? I think I have a copy on our old computer
[Jersey Girl] 11:32 pm: PM box?

[Jersey Girl] 11:34 pm: Why?

[Jersey Girl] 11:34 pm: It's over and done with. You should let it be done.
!
[Jersey Girl] 11:36 pm: I already stated on this board that I would never name them publicly.
[Jersey Girl] 11:36 pm: And I won't.
[Jersey Girl] 11:36 pm: I have no reason to. [Jersey Girl] 11:37 pm: I didn't say that.
[Jersey Girl] 11:38 pm: YOU said that. Can't you remember what you say? You said it. I have no idea who Mrs. Robbins is.

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch

Thinking about this, I guess that you may be trying to suggest (via your usual game-playing), "Hey, *I* was the one who had you go look at the threads in the first place!", thus proving your innocence. To a certain extent, you're right. During the actual Itchy Affair, you posted a thread saying, "Mr. Scratch, A Word Please," or something like that, and had me go look at the threads. The Calmoriah comments, however, came afterwards, and I only saw them for the first time during my "investigation" of you.

Geez, buddy. You can't remember anything accurately, can you? Check your first chat log. That's where I gave you the location of the threads. The "A Word Please" had nothing to do with having you go look at the threads.

Investigation, my eye.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch

Thinking about this, I guess that you may be trying to suggest (via your usual game-playing), "Hey, *I* was the one who had you go look at the threads in the first place!", thus proving your innocence. To a certain extent, you're right. During the actual Itchy Affair, you posted a thread saying, "Mr. Scratch, A Word Please," or something like that, and had me go look at the threads. The Calmoriah comments, however, came afterwards, and I only saw them for the first time during my "investigation" of you.

Geez, buddy. You can't remember anything accurately, can you? Check your first chat log. That's where I gave you the location of the threads. The "A Word Please" had nothing to do with having you go look at the threads.

Investigation, my eye.

So my basic point was correct? I don't have a copy of any "first chat log," nor do I recall you ever saying, "Hey, Scratch, go look at this thread where Calmoriah states that I had the same IP address as one of the Z trolls."

Further, I believe that your above excerpt (where'd you get that, by the way? or do you save all of your chats?), pretty clearly demonstrates your game playing. Why not post the whole exchange? Including the part where you blithely dismiss the very personal nature of this stuff as it concerns me?

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch

Thinking about this, I guess that you may be trying to suggest (via your usual game-playing), "Hey, *I* was the one who had you go look at the threads in the first place!", thus proving your innocence. To a certain extent, you're right. During the actual Itchy Affair, you posted a thread saying, "Mr. Scratch, A Word Please," or something like that, and had me go look at the threads. The Calmoriah comments, however, came afterwards, and I only saw them for the first time during my "investigation" of you.

Geez, buddy. You can't remember anything accurately, can you? Check your first chat log. That's where I gave you the location of the threads. The "A Word Please" had nothing to do with having you go look at the threads.

Investigation, my eye.

So my basic point was correct? I don't have a copy of any "first chat log," nor do I recall you ever saying, "Hey, Scratch, go look at this thread where Calmoriah states that I had the same IP address as one of the Z trolls."

Further, I believe that your above excerpt (where'd you get that, by the way? or do you save all of your chats?), pretty clearly demonstrates your game playing. Why not post the whole exchange? Including the part where you blithely dismiss the very personal nature of this stuff as it concerns me?

You almost never correct about anything, Scratch. Why do you seem so surprised? When you "threatened" to post the chat log, didn't I ask you to do just that so we could see if it matched mine? Didn't I say that on this board? Are you seriously asking me where *I* got a copy of the chat or if I save all of *my* chats? Talk about rich irony! I posted my comments from chat in their entirety (there could have been a few parting remarks however, the portion you refer to is right there.) Nothing was left out except your questions which I'll be glad to post at your request. I, unlike you, do not post the chat comments of others without their permission.

You see, Scratch, you don't know what to do when faced with an honest person. You live in a self deluded world of "informants" and "tips", and you use those in an attempt to do harm. In my case, you were barking up the wrong tree.

[_Ray A]

Still no evidence? Okay.

Providing evidence for you is like providing a banana for a monkey - it only gets chewed up to bits.

Who said anything about "smarts"? My comments have been aimed more towards judgmentalism.

And you never judge anyone. Are you related to Morgan the one-eyed pirate?

Less spiteful and rage-ridden that [sic] you?

I forgot, I'm a deranged prick who should shove his head up his ass.

As I've said all along, the blog is for information and entertainment. Do you want me to delete all the blog entries, Ray?

The Romans used to feed Christians to lions "for entertainment". Do you think that should have been "deleted"?

You fiddled and you know it, which is why you won't pony up the PM to Shades.

I don't have to "pony up" to anyone. I just can't believe your brazen lies! When posters here finally figure you out - they will beatify Mark Hofmann. Your lies belong in the flames of Hiroshima.

I'm not the one who refused to turn over the PM to Shades, Ray. Keep backpedaling.

Duh, you didn't read what I said, did you? Handing over a PM is like handing over your bank account balance to a teller.

You mean like you have to live with your hounding, and your lies about "keeping PMs private"?

So, I should keep PMs private, and allow you to quote them willy nilly to incriminate me?

Your sense of justice and fair-play is marvellous. Like a boxer insisting that his opponent have one hand tied behind his back. This is you, Scratch, Morgan the Pirate. The Minister of Distorted Information, which shall not be challenged.

You are one sick and lying dude.

[_marg]

Well some people do deserve to be negatively judged, do deserve to be criticized. Let's put Ray's actions into perspective. He currently is about 55 years old.

According to him, about 5 years ago he took into his home and helped out a young 22 year old pretty woman. He says they were like soul mates. What sort of man, takes a woman into his home, more than half his age, a woman who is emotionally and financially bankrupt, who is dependent on heroin? Well one would think a very charitable man, but unfortunately we can not assume that when Ray admits he had sex occasionally with this young pretty woman he so generously was helping. The picture changes with his actions.

So I do judge Ray negatively. In essence he's a poor thinker, poor decision maker. It is no surprise he thinks the Book of Mormon is god inspired. It's no surprise he seeks to impress women half his age.

Some of you are very out of touch with today's realities. Age differences mean little, and I'm not 55. At the time I was 46, and she was 21. No one would raise an eyebrow about that today (maybe "only in America"?). She lived with me for two weeks, because she asked if she could, as she had no where to go and would have ended up sleeping on park benches. Cool, huh? When she found a place she moved out, by agreement.

The only motive I had at the time was her well-being. Of course, you wouldn't believe that, and frankly, I don't care what you believe because you can't read my mind.

Ray, don't try to con me that in Australia it is not unusual for a 21 year old sober woman, one not working as a prostitute (you say you weren't a client) to choose sexual partners more than twice their age..46 years in your case. The realities are, since you want to talk about realities is that invariably with such a wide difference in age between a young woman and an older man there are typically reasons which often reduce to an unequal distribution of power. And that was the situation in your case. My point Ray is that it's not a surprise that you choose women who are emotionally and financially weak, hence vulnerable. It's not a surprise that you involve yourself in relationships with others who are desperate rather than who are emotionally strong. Your choices are a reflection of you, where your head is at, the sort of intelligence you have, the maturity or immaturity you have. in my opinion this attraction of yours to desperate young women tells me you are below par intellectually to the majority of men your age and you are more immature than most men of your age. So this is the connection to the Book of Mormon, despite all your studying of it and Mormon history, despite that you weren't indoctrinated from a young age, you immaturely cling to the stupid notion that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired work.

[_Ray A]

Ray, don't try to con me that in Australia it is not unusual for a 21 year old sober woman, one not working as a prostitute (you say you weren't a client) to choose sexual partners more than twice their age..46 years in your case. The realities are, since you want to talk about realities is that invariably with such a wide difference in age between a young woman and an older man there are typically reasons which often reduce to an unequal distribution of power. And that was the situation in your case. My point Ray is that it's not a surprise that you choose women who are emotionally and financially weak, hence vulnerable. It's not a surprise that you involve yourself in relationships with others who are desperate rather than who are emotionally strong. Your choices are a reflection of you, where your head is at, the sort of intelligence you have, the maturity or immaturity you have. in my opinion this attraction of yours to desperate young women tells me you are below par intellectually to the majority of men your age and you are more immature than most men of your age. So this is the connection to the Book of Mormon, despite all your studying of it and Mormon history, despite that you weren't indoctrinated from a young age, you immaturely cling to the stupid notion that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired work.

You are one bloody ignorant ass. That's all I can say. "Con you"? Why on earth would I try to "con you"? Your blatant prejudice is unbelievable:

don't try to con me that in Australia it is not unusual for a 21 year old sober woman, one not working as a prostitute

You are an absolutely, ignorant fool. You piss me off even more than Scratch. Buy your plane ticket to Australia, come and see for your ignorant, prejudiced self, before writing crap like this.

I will not be responding to you any further, because you are an utter fool, and hurry up and go on your date with Noel. How well do you read? Did I ever say I wasn't a client? Your whole gist in this post is, once again, to try to discredit the Book of Mormon. I sometimes wonder if I'm even sane when I read stuff like this, and the ends some of you will go to discredit the Book of Mormon.