I would agree that he's playing a game, but not that he's not a real person, or who he claims to be.
At least one person on this board has claimed to live in his local community (GoodK) and been in his home, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that to be true.
Unless the "real life" bob verified to the "real life" GoodK that he is, indeed, the poster crocket on this board, the fact that bob crocket is a real person doesn't mean this poster is the same individual.
I guess I continue to underestimate the power of religious persuasion on thought processes, but I really do have a hard time believing that a successful, intelligent attorney would post the things he does on this site. It's possible, but I keep the possibility open that this is someone posting AS the real bob crocket, but in a deliberately malicious way to harm the real bob's reputation. I admit that this is probably not the case, and it probably is the same person, and he just uses a different part of his mind to deal with his professional demands than he does to deal with religious demands, but I reserve the right to doubt - just in case.
Bob made a couple of critical mistakes early on. He laid claim to being a bishop, which is demonstrably true, and to the extent that he can be affected in his local community, it's that community, his ward, that I think would cause him the most problems. He has to wonder now as leader of that ward if he has members who lurk or post here, who know that their bishop also posts here. He's already claimed to have been called in by his stake president (whether true or not).
If this is the real bishop crocket, I don't think he cares at all. His arrogance is such that he believes in his own ability to discern who is really struggling, and who is just some closet vicious exmo, and he dispenses with the latter without a second thought. Closet vicious exmos aren't real people to him, just some foil to his imaginary heroic actions. So anyone who would have a problem with him posting here isn't worthy of his regard. I do believe that the poster crocket has, over the years he's posted here, manifested a personality trait that could dehumanize other people, if they're in the "wrong" tribe. The fact that he feels comfortable - in real life - telling people to get out of the church speaks VOLUMES about his personality, in my opinion.
His other mistake was bringing attention to his profession and author status on a Mormon scholarship website.
I think it must be a real struggle for people, whether they're Daniel Peterson, William Hamblin, our friend Bob here, Julie or Pahoran on the other board, because one would like to use their real name and identity to lend a certain credibility to his or her own arguments, yet that has to be tempered by the desire for privacy and anonymity. People like Dan and Bill go full out in the open. Julie and Pahoran would prefer a greater level of anonymity. Ego can get in the way. Dan's a public figure in the BYU community and also a bishop of a local student ward. Bob happens to live in a different corner of the country, but still can be well known within his own community. The door can swing both ways for him, with full disclosure of his identity both helping him and hitting him in the backside.
Bill and Dan don't have any choice, although Dan has tried to go by pseudonyms several times in the past. Dan, in particular, is too prolific with a recognizable style. And yes, they do want to utilize their prestige as high profile apologists on places such as MAD. I think that although he makes jokes about it, that Dan is actually hurt by the more mean-spirited things some exmos say about him. I mean, how could he not be? In the past he's seemed almost obsessive in reading and even collecting the insulting things exmos say about him.
Juliann's problem is that her own friends outed her long ago, and she also had a pivotal position in the formation of the FAIR board in the first place, and I'm sure also wanted to utilize that prestige.
If pahoran really wants anonymity, he's stupid. He should have started over with a new screen name, one that wasn't OPENLY and REPEATEDLY associated with his real name years ago. The fact that he never did leads me to believe he isn't really serious about wanting anonymity, and just uses any "outing" of his real name to express fake outrage at the immoral exmos. That is, after all, his calling card.
But bob, as far as I know, is fairly unknown as an apologist. He has two reviews on FARMS. Big whoop. So why the insistence on his real name, even at the cost of family risk? This is what keeps me open to the idea that the poster may not be the one and the same as the real bob. Again, I realize this is a small possibility, but I do regard it as a possibility.