Why I am not a Mormon

[_Mahonri]

The best reason I can think of for not being a Mormon is having lived in Utah and seeing the reality of what they are like when not on public display outside 'zion'. Politicians are more honest.

[_Sam Harris]

*snarky comment at stupidity*

**Much better than you're misuse of yet another word**

Do you feel better now?

No. I'm hungry, hot, and sleepy.

Then I'll pray that a Slurpee, your favorite food and a bed materialize for your comfort.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wow. I had forgotten about this. You were actually keeping tabs on GoodK to his father?!

I'd say that you were blowing this way out of proportion, but, since that's standard operating procedure in Scratchworld, I don't think that it would be worth the effort.

I was reading this public board.

I realized that GoodK was my friend's son.

GoodK said something about his father that I thought his father might want to be aware of.

So, on 9 March 2008, after some hesitation, I sent GoodK's father a link to this board in a note responding to a note that GoodK's father had sent to me the previous day.

(It was an infamous deed that will reverberate through history as an act of villainy virtually without compare.)

Between that vile act on 9 March and 28 March, my files contain four additional notes to GoodK's father, none of which mentions GoodK at all. During this time, if I'm not mistaken, I was paying no attention to this board.

On 28 March, I sent a second note to GoodK's father, one that will guarantee my disgrace forever. I had just looked at the board again, and I thought, mistakenly as it turned out, that GoodK had taken a new moniker, as "Chap." I didn't know whether GoodK's father was looking in on the board at all, nor whether he cared much, but thought that, if he was or did, he might want to know that "GoodK" was now (as I mistakenly thought) "Chap."

This clearly shows that your forwarding GoodK's message to his dad was not an isolated incident.

That's correct. There were, count 'em, two (2) posts.

I remember you once accused Mr. Scratch of "stalking," but that's precisely what you've been doing to GoodK (on this bb, at least) by keeping his father updated on what he says here.

Two private posts altogether, nearly three weeks apart, one with a link, totalling eleven sentences between them, only seven of which have anything even remotely to do with GoodK, and I'm the equivalent of Scratch?

Dan, you've got some real issues, and that you don't recognize any problem with your behavior speaks volumes. . . . you certainly appear "unstable" when it comes to GoodK.

How amusingly apropos, considering what I wrote in the second Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle:

"What I admit that I don't understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I'm wrong but that I'm either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who've never met their patient, they're discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It's really pretty funny."

(Incidentally, the three sentences above are included in my total of seven sentences concerning GoodK, distributed between Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles 1 and 2. As you can see, my criteria for including them were quite generous.)

Watch your back, GoodK -- the good professor thinks his behavior is normal and acceptable.

That's right. And with a pathology this deep-seated and severe, mass murders are likely the next step.

You guys can probably keep this nonsense going for another five pages or so without me. Good luck!

[_marg]

Sam Harris, I sent you a private message respectfully asking you to refrain from your off topic posts, I sent one to Chap and Bond as well. I noticed GoodK made a public request as well. Can you please stop posting non relevant posts in this thread.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was reading this public board.

I realized that GoodK was my friend's son.

GoodK said something about his father that I thought his father might want to be aware of.

So, on 9 March 2008, after some hesitation, I sent GoodK's father a link to this board in a note responding to a note that GoodK's father had sent to me the previous day.

(It was an infamous deed that will reverberate through history as an act of villainy virtually without compare.)

Between that vile act on 9 March and 28 March, my files contain four additional notes to GoodK's father, none of which mentions GoodK at all. During this time, if I'm not mistaken, I was paying no attention to this board.

On 28 March, I sent a second note to GoodK's father, one that will guarantee my disgrace forever. I had just looked at the board again, and I thought, mistakenly as it turned out, that GoodK had taken a new moniker, as "Chap." I didn't know whether GoodK's father was looking in on the board at all, nor whether he cared much, but thought that, if he was or did, he might want to know that "GoodK" was now (as I mistakenly thought) "Chap."

It appears that during the aforesaid timeframe, you were on the lookout for GoodK to snitch to his father.

This clearly shows that your forwarding GoodK's message to his dad was not an isolated incident.

That's correct. There were, count 'em, two (2) posts.

Before it appeared there was just one ... now it has doubled to two. Any others you'd like to fess up to?

I remember you once accused Mr. Scratch of "stalking," but that's precisely what you've been doing to GoodK (on this bb, at least) by keeping his father updated on what he says here.

Two private posts altogether, nearly three weeks apart, one with a link, totalling eleven sentences between them, only seven of which have anything even remotely to do with GoodK, and I'm the equivalent of Scratch?

It's not the number of letters, words or sentences used in those posts, but the purpose behind them and to whom they were sent. You should have butt out.

Dan, you've got some real issues, and that you don't recognize any problem with your behavior speaks volumes. . . . you certainly appear "unstable" when it comes to GoodK.

How amusingly apropos, considering what I wrote in the second Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle:

"What I admit that I don't understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I'm wrong but that I'm either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who've never met their patient, they're discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It's really pretty funny."

Just as I suspected -- somehow all this comes around to you and FARMS, and your/its slight by GoodK. You were upset about GoodK's mocking FARMS, not his dad.

You guys can probably keep this nonsense going for another five pages or so without me. Good luck!

Picking up your bucket and leaving the sandbox again, eh? How apropos.

[_beastie]

There’s a pattern that some relationships tend to follow. Person A feels harmed or hurt by something person B did or said. Person A brings this to Person B’s attention by saying something like “I’d like to discuss what you did. It was hurtful and wrong.” Person B responds by saying “Oh, I know, I’m the worst person in the world. I never do anything right. I’m a horrible person.”

I’m quite familiar with this game, my ex-husband used to play it all the time. It is a deliberate attempt to avoid addressing the actual issue. Person B really has no interest in whether or not he/she hurt or caused harm to Person A in the first place. Person B has no desire to hear anything about it. If Person A brings up the incident, Person B will manipulate the conversation to ensure that no meaningful dialog about the incident can occur.

It really isn’t worth anyone’s time to talk to Person B about a possible harm or hurt he/she may have caused. It will only result in more frustration.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It appears that during the aforesaid timeframe, you were on the lookout for GoodK to snitch to his father.

I expressly said that I wasn't -- that, in fact, I hadn't even been looking in on the board in the interim.

If it doesn't matter what I say, why should I stick around to say anything?

If you're going to insist, no matter what I say, that I act with malice and/or with disreputable intent, what point is there in my repeatedly denying that I act with malice and/or with disreputable intent?

If you're going to persist in insinuating that virtually everything I say is calculated to deceive, why should I continue to say anything?

Before it appeared there was just one ... now it has doubled to two. Any others you'd like to fess up to?

Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 2 was actually copied to GoodK, who, if I'm not mistaken, immediately commented on it here. There has never been any secret at all about the existence of the sinister second Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle.

If you nonetheless prefer to believe that I'm lying and hiding things, why should I, a presumed liar, bother to say anything?

You should have butt out.

You've said that many times. I've stated my disagreement just about as many times. Is there any point in continuing this silly exercise? None that I can see.

Dan, you've got some real issues, and that you don't recognize any problem with your behavior speaks volumes. . . . you certainly appear "unstable" when it comes to GoodK.

How amusingly apropos, considering what I wrote in the second Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle:

"What I admit that I don't understand about his posts and those of his cheering section there is their overpowering urge to believe not merely that I'm wrong but that I'm either a stunningly incompetent idiot or pathological, or some combination of the two. With all the profundity of casual consumers of pop psychology who've never met their patient, they're discussing possible explanations for my crippled psyche. It's really pretty funny."

Just as I suspected -- somehow all this comes around to you and FARMS, and your/its slight by GoodK. You were upset about GoodK's mocking FARMS, not his dad.

The passage above never mentions FARMS.

If it doesn't actually matter what I say, why should I bother saying anything?

I've repeatedly said, though, that it was GoodK's remark about his father that I found troubling.

If you're firmly convinced that I virtually always post in bad faith, that I almost never tell the truth, that I'm always dissembling, why does it actually matter that I continue to post here?

You guys can probably keep this nonsense going for another five pages or so without me. Good luck!

Picking up your bucket and leaving the sandbox again, eh? How apropos.

If the contest is simply about who can outlast the other -- which, frankly, it often seems to be, with you and your Master -- you win. And you've got me beat in numbers, too.

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

If you and your supporters will simply mentally supply my response every time, over the next several pages, whenever you repeat your claim, that will minimize the waste of valuable electrons.

[_GoodK]

What else would you expect from somebody of my ilk?

The self-patronizing, no body likes me, "if it is a good morning" attitude has already been noted. I know you feel like a victim here.

It is wholly irrelevant to your pattern of attempting to shame me for what I've said on this board - by being a tattle tale.

I once felt priveleged to interact with you at the old FAIR boards, but I won't respect or even sympathize with your assertion that you did nothing wrong. You did.

You could have handled it better even if you still decided to forward the post to him instead of hoping that your bad timing would reflect poorly on my character. Bob out-bishoped you in this situation. He proved he had more character by simply sending me a PM.

The point of all this really isn't the emails, but it is that the original statement I made is true, and a contributing factor as to why I cannot be a Mormon, no matter how much I would like to be.

Breaking away from Mormonism is harder than it should be. Look at me. I can't post annonymously here without having a Professor at BYU tattling on me, and then trying to justify it as if he had some moral obligation to do so.

I considered posting under another identity because the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at a prestigious University figured out my personal identity. Need I say more?

[_Chap]

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

In itself, no.

It depends why you do it ... I think most people have heard DCP on that subject often enough to form an adequate estimate of the value of his attempts at self-justification.

He may well be the nice person at heart that he claims to be. Indeed, he probably is. (DCP may care to accept the italicization as an hommage.)

If so, that is just another strike against the CoJCoLDS for making him act and talk the way he does.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It appears that during the aforesaid timeframe, you were on the lookout for GoodK to snitch to his father.

I expressly said that I wasn't -- that, in fact, I hadn't even been looking in on the board in the interim.

If it doesn't matter what I say, why should I stick around to say anything?

If you're going to insist, no matter what I say, that I act with malice and/or with disreputable intent, what point is there in my repeatedly denying that I act with malice and/or with disreputable intent?

If you're going to persist in insinuating that virtually everything I say is calculated to deceive, why should I continue to say anything?

Fine, I'll agree not to try and read your intent in connection with this; however, I still think you screwed up big time in sending those messages to GoodK's dad.

If you're firmly convinced that I virtually always post in bad faith, that I almost never tell the truth, that I'm always dissembling, why does it actually matter that I continue to post here?

I never said this one way or the other. I simply am skeptical of some of your posts, as you are of mine.

You can repeat your claim as often as you care to do so. It won't change my fundamental response, which is that there's nothing even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

Fair enough, since that's your view; I obviously think differently on the subject. I'm willing to leave it at that.