I honestly believe...

[_Scottie]

that Crocket sits at his computer and purposefully composes his posts to be as infuriating to the critics as possible.

Then he sits back and laughs at the incredulation and frustration on how he continues to miss the point post after post after post after post!

I think Coggins does this to an extent as well, but he will at least sometimes engage in serious debate.

[_Some Schmo]

that Crocket sits at his computer and purposefully composes his posts to be as infuriating to the critics as possible.

Then he sits back and laughs at the incredulation and frustration on how he continues to miss the point post after post after post after post!

I think Coggins does this to an extent as well, but he will at least sometimes engage in serious debate.

Well, if that's the case, then the joke's on those who actually take him seriously. I can't remember a time when I have... but then, jokes aren't meant to be taken seriously.

[_moksha]

We need Charity back.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

We need Charity back.

Oh yeah, she was easy pickins!

[_beastie]

Yes, bob does have a strong element of troll about him. But I think he genuinely is not capable of recognizing he's wrong about something, and all the subsequent bizarre contortions are the product of that handicap. He does have some interesting characteristics, and I've lately grown to conclude that his obsessive focus on anonymity may indicate how important appearances are to him. In other words, the damage of appearance (by, in his world, of attaching one's real name to amoral comments) is the most important consequences to critics, and it bugs him to no end that critics post anonymously and hence, avoid what he thinks should be the consequence to their comments. He's obviously extremely competitive and cannot tolerate being bested in an argument. (related to the inability to admit he's wrong) And while he's very willing to sling insults right and left, he is hyper sensitive to being criticized himself, and often blows past criticisms or comments all out of proportion (like his former accusations that posters were "stalking" him). All these traits add up to maddening posting habits.

I think coggins has never been fully active in the LDS church. He may have been marginally "active" (to be "active" you only have to attend sacrament meeting X number of times), but I'm really suspicious that he was ever fully involved.

[_antishock8]

I think he's a little of both. He attempts debate, but falls apart pretty quickly when his argument is typically picked apart. Devolution is inevitable with the Mormon apologist since they have no recourse but the ad hom, insult, and outright obfuscation. They are, after all, defending a clear fraud by a notorious con man. It's a hard job to do.

[_Scottie]

Wow, Beastie!

That was worthy of a Scratch dossier!!

[_beastie]

Maybe, but you're probably more right than I am. He may just be a slightly different form of a troll.

This comment of his on another thread seems to verify your suspicion:

crocket:

And, the Maya did not have a written language. Let's see you lose your temper once again.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 735#155735

Unless he is delusional in some way, he must realize, by now, that he's simply wrong, and the Maya did have a written language. So he's willing to look like a fool of some sort simply in the hopes of provoking other posters. Yes, that is the definition of a troll. So I probably over-analyzed him above. He's just a troll.

[_rcrocket]

Well, I am here for the fun of it; nothing more, nothing less. It is incorrect to say that things "bug me" or that I am sensitive to criticism. I am in a profession where half of the persons I meet criticize my work product, so I have to have a thick skin. Nothing bugs me here. I want to learn things. When I first started posting on the board I thought it odd that people would act so apparently hypocritically in their real lives, but that has no meaning to me now except to point out the weakness of one's argument. (Why do you need to be anonymous to say such a thing? Rather than, shame on you for holding a temple recommend and saying those things today.)

I find some of the posters here challenging and interesting; Rollo because he is always cool headed and has some very good facts and sources at his disposal; Scratch because he writes well; Guy because he is in academia -- where I would rather be but can't afford to be; Trevor, who knows his Classics -- which I have tried to study but have never mastered. So, I keep coming back to see what they will say.

Jason and John (when he was here) are fun to read but they aren't all that provocative or confrontational.

The rest of you are really a little thin, including my fellow believers. I try and respect what Beastie says about MesoAmerican stuff but I think it is hard to have an informed opinion in the area without being read in many other subjects. And she so plainly isn't. I wish Blixa had more things to say but she just comes across as tired.

I admit to being provocative, intentionally. I see nothing wrong with that if it will elicit information which I seek.

Some my other battle-tested maxims formed from participating on this board:

If you lose your cool, you lose.

If you correspond with a moron on the board, you are gettin' in the mud with the pigs. So, I try not to do so. But, I sometimes can't resist.

If you claim victory, it means that you doubt your position.

If you must write anonymously, it means you have something to hide.

Most on this board don't know really what an ad hominem is; attacking one's message is not such an attack. [Example, when a reply post says: "You're illogical," that is not an ad hominem because it really is an attack on the message.]

But, on the other hand, a finely-placed ad hominem will have a good effect. I just think they should be very sparingly used.

If you have to insult, you may really be losing your argument; otherwise, why would you insult? I certainly admit that I must work on this one and have committed myself to do so but, like all sins, they are too enjoyable to commit, usually.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]The rest of you are really a little thin, including my fellow believers. [...]

I would like to take all of the credit for my being "thin," but the bulk of the credit should go to $5 foot-long sandwiches at Subway.