2nd annointings and Elder Packer - does it explain anything?

[_Pokatator]

And, by the way, I expect a retraction of that hateful, completely erroneous accusation.

Of all the characteristics that I have seen Mr. Crocket display, I am positive that gentleman was not one of them.

[_beastie]

I think the key word is "demand" or "request" as I don't exactly expect a retraction to occur and I'm not so sure you think one will be forthcoming either.

Good grief. I'm actually surprised by what happened.

You're right, I should have demanded a retraction. I don't expect him to make one. I do not believe he has the moral character to admit he made a false and completely baseless, malicious accusation against me.

I'm surprised, too. I knew bob was most likely a misogynist, and I knew he had no qualms about engaging in shoddy research and misleading use of references while accusing others of said behavior, but I admit I'm surprised that - out of the blue - he made such a vile and false accusation against me.

Perhaps the debunking of the C. Ray horse article pushed him over the brink. He was fond of that reference.

[_asbestosman]

I have no intention of making anonymous attacks on rcrocket. I guess I'm too cowardly for that. My comments were more directed to personal thoughts about langauge and life. They were not intended to be a condemnation of rcrocket.

[_beastie]

I have no intention of making anonymous attacks on rcrocket. I guess I'm too cowardly for that. My comments were more directed to personal thoughts about langauge and life. They were not intended to be a condemnation of rcrocket.

It's easier to be generous when someone hasn't just accused you of being an internet stalker who posted private information about his children.

I'm not attacking you or criticizing your stance, I'm just stating reality as I see it. I will certainly attack bob when he made such a baseless and malicious accusation against me. He had absolutely no cause or justification for such an accusation.

And who the heck is bob crocket anyway? For all I know or care it could be just one more screen name among hundreds. He acts as if posting with his own name is some act of moral courage, when the reality is that no one here lives in his community or knows him in real life. It's not like we're his village who could censor him for bad behavior. Perhaps if he posted here with his neighbors watching, he would not have, for example, made this last malicious accusation without any justification at all. But we're not his neighbors, we don't know him, he can post whatever malicious things he wants without any real consequence, just like an anonymous poster can.

[_asbestosman]

It's easier to be generous when someone hasn't just accused you of being an internet stalker who posted private information about his children.

I probably would have responded with something like:

So you want my name? No problem. My lawyer will get in touch with your lawyer regarding libel.

Unfortunately, there probably wouldn't be a good libel case. I don't think your reputation was actually damaged by rcrocket's comment. In fact, that is interesting because I likewise think the church doesn't suffer any damage to its reputation by the remarks of anonymous posters here--at least no more so than yours did by rcrocket. It might be interesting to know his take on the matter, but I really think any rational dialogue is impossible at this point.

Kudos to you, Beastie for being quite rational and in control even when you're angry.

[_beastie]

Thank you, asbestosman, that definitely helps. It really does shock me that anyone - even someone that I hold in little regard like I do crocket - could imagine I would be capable of such an act.

[_rcrocket]

Beastie, forgive me if I misinterpreted your attacks on my children and wife at http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... st&start=0 as stalking. I am sure you are a nice person.


rcrocket

[_beastie]

Beastie, forgive me if I misinterpreted your attacks on my children and wife at http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... st&start=0 as stalking. I am sure you are a nice person.

Oh, please, what a pathetic excuse.

The discussion here was quite clearly about the fact that some internet stalker posted personal information about your family. Don't pretend that it was anything other than that. Here's a review:

beastie:

I'm sure your family members were equally appreciative when their personal information was posted by an internet stalker.

you were clearly also talking about that episode when you responded:

Hmm. As you recall, YOU were that stalker. And quite malicious, too. But, I have come to love and respect your brand of humorless malice.

I don't recall getting upset at all about the public information. Instead, I politely requested that references to my children be removed. And they were!

Now you're going to pretend you were referring to my former statement about me being surprised you had so many kids but your wife laid back and thought about England??? And that comment constituted "stalking"??? And THAT'S what you were referring to? Do you really expect anyone to buy this load of bull?

[_Runtu]

Bob,

I'm still curious as to why you couldn't verify the GA information. It took me less than 5 minutes.

I'm still curious why you spend so much time on this board, why you post anonymously, and why your life at home is different than your life here?

Bob,

Everyone here knows my name, including you. And my home life is not much different from what I post here.

[_rcrocket]

It's kind of fun having Beastie as my own personal stalker, vulgar, attacking and very personal (wife and kids not excluded from the attack). Really, it doesn't bother me. I enjoy it. I'm sorry that you are mad at me. I'll do better.

I rather do like that C. Ray, never refuted, article.

rcrocket