Outing Annonymous Posters

[_Jason Bourne]

Here's my problem with your posts, and Harmony's. To claim special status and authority for your posts, you claim to be active members of the Church.

Really? Where. Examples please.

How would you feel if I, to claim special status and authority for my posts, claimed to be the son of a General Authority (I am not) or a bishop? You would deride that.

No.

Similarly, I find your and Harmony's continued resort to your standing in the Church as an irrelevant deflection.

In regards to me I ask once again, example please. All I claim is to be an LDS member that actively participates. I claim no other special status then that.

[_Sam Harris]

What I don't understand is how Bob can call for people to all but put their social security numbers down here, claiming that they're cowards for doing anything less, but himself posts some online resume with a picture that's probably 15 years old, which gives ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL INFORMATION WHATSOEVER! He's hiding under the fact that he's a schmoosy lawyer, and looking to that for protection.

Bob hasn't revealed a thing here. I'd like to know what ward he presides over, and which stake it's under...would the leadership like to know about how he behaves to defend the church? Taste of one's own medicine?

I think the only thing I have ever suggested is that a person use his or her own real name. If you think otherwise, let me disabuse you of that notion right now.

You wouldn't be the first to complain about me anonymously to my firm or my stake for what I do on this board.

Whatever. You've gone farther than that, but you're more quick to turn tail and claim otherwise when cornered, just like cog-dis does when asked aout his inability to stand up for his testimony with something other than words.

Here's a hint for you Bob: one of the great defenders of atheism often quoted here (one of the four horseman) is my namesake. Liz and Mok among others could guess very quickly. You wouldn't be able to find me, but if you did, be my guest.

You go past first and last names, you want to ruin lives. And yes, you're an abusive church leader.

[_Brackite]

Here's my problem with your posts, and Harmony's. To claim special status and authority for your posts, you claim to be active members of the Church.

How would you feel if I, to claim special status and authority for my posts, claimed to be the son of a General Authority (I am not) or a bishop? You would deride that.

Similarly, I find your and Harmony's continued resort to your standing in the Church as an irrelevant deflection.

Hey Bob,

How come you suddenly left the Discussion Thread about Plural Marriages (Polygamy)? This Discussion Thread = Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question. How come you are not able to deal with the Fact that the Book of Mormon (The most correct Bookk fully condemns the Practice of Polygamy (having many wives)?
Please Check Out And See (again):

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130379

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130528

And:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#131172[/quote]

[_rcrocket]

Here's my problem with your posts, and Harmony's. To claim special status and authority for your posts, you claim to be active members of the Church.

How would you feel if I, to claim special status and authority for my posts, claimed to be the son of a General Authority (I am not) or a bishop? You would deride that.

Similarly, I find your and Harmony's continued resort to your standing in the Church as an irrelevant deflection.

Hey Bob,

How come you suddenly left the Discussion Thread about Plural Marriages (Polygamy)? This Discussion Thread = Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question. How come you are not able to deal with the Fact that the Book of Mormon (The most correct Bookk fully condemns the Practice of Polygamy (having many wives)?
Please Check Out And See (again):

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130379

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#130528

And:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... ht=#131172

[/quote]

One problem I have is that I just don't follow the Celestial subboard and just want to follow this one; sorry. I also practice law and have a very full schedule and am really unable to "get the last word in" on every thread, much as I would wish.

Repost your challenge here on a separate thread. But, the specific question you pose in this thread has been answered so many times by hack Mormon apologists I really don't see a reason to plough the same ground here. But I will respond to whatever you want to ask me about most other subjects.

[_rcrocket]

Here's my problem with your posts, and Harmony's. To claim special status and authority for your posts, you claim to be active members of the Church.

Really? Where. Examples please.

How would you feel if I, to claim special status and authority for my posts, claimed to be the son of a General Authority (I am not) or a bishop? You would deride that.

No.

Similarly, I find your and Harmony's continued resort to your standing in the Church as an irrelevant deflection.

In regards to me I ask once again, example please. All I claim is to be an LDS member that actively participates. I claim no other special status then that.

One thing I find troublesome is the demand that one person research the posts of the demander. I just won't do it. My impressions are formed after time and experience on this Board. But, if you believe that none of you posts are attacks against known and living persons or against the Church, then you have my most sincere apologies. Indeed, I will take that as a given here without qualification and you have my apologies and I won't lump you in with the likes of the rest.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

One wonders why almost every thread Bob posts one becomes, well, about Bob.

How odd.

You are indeed correct. Suggestions directed in my direction?

[_Yoda]

Indeed, I will take that as a given here without qualification and you have my apologies and I won't lump you in with the likes of the rest.

rcrocket

The apology is deserved, and Jason, I'm sure, is classy enough to accept it. Not that my opinion I'm sure matters to you, but I do vouch for Jason. He has not done any of those things in his posts.

I'm impressed, Bob. I knew you could be a nice guy if you tried. ;)

[_rcrocket]

In your above post, you condemn me for being a bishop and not a very good representative of the Church. That is a direct attack on somebody's character and public standing -- something calculated to injure and totally unrelated to a particular discussion. That is an ad hominem. That is anonymous demonstrates a number of other problems which I can explain if need be.

Not so. You opened the door. I was responding to a post which you made regarding mean-spiritedness, and how you didn't understand how people here who oppose the Church could conduct themselves in such a mean-spirited way. I was pointing out that you, who have openly discussed the fact that you are a bishop for your ward, have also conducted yourself in a mean-spirited way on the board.

Edited to add---Please explain to me how that is not the topic of discussion. Also please explain to me how I "condemned" you. As I stated in a previous post, I have a great respect for the office of bishop, and when I see someone abuse that office, or act out of character in regards to what that office should represent, you can be damned sure that I'm going to call you on it.

You're just asking me to repeat myself. When I make a statement about somebody's argument, and you respond by reminding me that I am a bishop and telling me that my posts are inconsistent with how Latter-day Saints think and act, it is an irrelevant insult. But, as you can tell after many months on this board, I never lose it and insults don't trouble me in the least. [I indeed have the utmost respect for those on this board who never show signs of sweating]. At least your insults come from a nice person.

Similarly, when I make a point, and somebody makes an aside like -- well, he's a lawyer, we know lawyers lie, and his argument is a lawyer's trick -- that too is irrelevant. It is all the same.

I assure you that I act the same here as I do in my real life -- the same. No difference. My life is what it is.

[_Yoda]

When I make a statement about somebody's argument, and you respond by reminding me that I am a bishop and telling me that my posts are inconsistent with how Latter-day Saints think and act, it is an irrelevant insult.

We'll have to agree to disagree. For the record, my comment was not meant as an insult, and it was relevant to the conversation. You are the one who is always calling the majority of posters here hypocrites. Then, you turned around and stated that you didn't understand why posters here felt the need to act mean-spiritedly. I pointed out that I felt this was an odd statement coming from someone who also acts in a mean spirited way toward posters. And furthermore, these actions are hypocritical based upon what is expected of you in your role as a bishop of the LDS Church, which you, yourself, have acknowledged to be.

Similarly, when I make a point, and somebody makes an aside like -- well, he's a lawyer, we know lawyers lie, and his argument is a lawyer's trick -- that too is irrelevant. It is all the same.

I agree that this statement would be irrelevant to the conversation. Based on the context of the conversation being had, however, I believe that my comments were relevant. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

At least your insults come from a nice person.

LOL Thanks, Bob! I basically think you're a nice person, too. ;)

[_Pokatator]

Bob,

In all seriousness (and I mean this from a really good place), you really need to re-think advocating posting personal information on the Internet. With websites like www.zabasearch.com one is very accessible to unknown types. We all have probably placed too much information out ther at one time or another, but, in your case, you don't really need to advertise that fact as often as you do.

-antishock8

Bob is and has been incredibly stupid about identity issues and the internet. Misery loves company, his goal is to have everyone be as incredibly stupid as he was and is. He wears this stupidity like a badge of courage while everyone else with an ounce of common sense and anyone who values professional advice views his badge as a badge of stupidity.

The saying goes that a lawyer that represents himself has an idiot for a client, Bob needs a real attorney.