UPDATE ON MODERATORIAL POLICY

[_Ray A]

Ray other people are wrong making comments inaccurate when they don't know the facts. You on the other hand are underhanded. In other words your actions were a function of other issues besides true interest in the S/R thread and that you had noted mod bias. I think male chauvinism played a role, your inabililty to discuss with me using reasoning, and you resorted to a smear against me because of your inadequacies and I guess it made you feel better.

Male chauvinism?

How much more desperate are you going to get?

And I suppose you'll find abundant evidence for this, I have no doubt, the prime evidence being that:

a) marg is female

b) Ray disagrees with marg,

c) therefore Ray is a male chauvinist.

Sounds like your reasoning, actually.

[_Ray A]

So what... that's your last post. You said the S-R theory deserves contempt. That does not indicate a person passive about the theory, it indicates a person who would wish the theory be shown disrespect.

I gave my frank opinion. I've also said that I think the idea of Book of Mormon historicity is ridiculous, and I've offended Mormons by saying that and other things, which led me to being banned from By Common Consent.

The thread can go on unhindered as long as it can, and I won't try to stop it.

[_marg]

So what... that's your last post. You said the S-R theory deserves contempt. That does not indicate a person passive about the theory, it indicates a person who would wish the theory be shown disrespect.

I gave my frank opinion. I've also said that I think the idea of Book of Mormon historicity is ridiculous, and I've offended Mormons by saying that and other things, which led me to being banned from By Common Consent.

The thread can go on unhindered as long as it can, and I won't try to stop it.

I'm not saying you personally would do anytrhing however you do wish it be shown disrespect, that's what contempt is Ray.

[_Ray A]

I'm not saying you personally would do anytrhing however you do wish it be shown disrespect, that's what contempt is Ray.

No more than I've shown the idea that Book of Mormon historicity is deserving of contempt (and I've done it numerous times in the past few months here and on my blog). But I nevertheless personally have high opinions of both Dale Broadhurst and Daniel C. Peterson. Hopefully, they can see beyond my personal opinions on matters of theology and apologetics.

[_marg]

And I suppose you'll find abundant evidence for this, I have no doubt, the prime evidence being that:

a) marg is female

b) Ray disagrees with marg,

c) therefore Ray is a male chauvinist.

Sounds like your reasoning, actually.

Marg and ray carry on discussion on board, ray feels marg is insulting ray's intelligence by not agreeing with him, and rejecting NDE's and he even openly expresses that. He's not getting respect and admiration, he's getting disagreement of views. He thinks she thinks he's gullible and he expresses that.. Ray can't think of good ways to argue for the issue he wishes to defend, and he find it a personal afront and deep down is concerned he's probably wrong and he'll be exposed. He attacks her personally again and again instead saying she's biased and closed minded and hasn't spent nearly the time he has in reading books on the subject of NDE's. Ray doesn't like being challenged or his intelligence insulted especially by a female. He is angry at that. He is tired of being made to feel inferior by others..but by a woman...it's even worse.

[_marg]

I'm not saying you personally would do anytrhing however you do wish it be shown disrespect, that's what contempt is Ray.

No more than I've shown the idea that Book of Mormon historicity is deserving of contempt (and I've done it numerous times in the past few months here and on my blog). But I nevertheless personally have high opinions of both Dale Broadhurst and Daniel C. Peterson. Hopefully, they can see beyond my personal opinions on matters of theology and apologetics.

You may have high opinions of Dale but you don't of the S-R theory. You have contempt for it, maybe you view this as another afront to your intelligence. If the Spalding theory gets respect, if it eventually gets accepted by more and more people ..once again it would show you were wrong.

You are emotionally tied to the Smith as sole author, it's tied to how your perceive your intelligence. If the Smith as sole author is wrong then so are you. It's not just this but it's the Book of Mormon, joining the church and the wrong choices you make are adding up and you take it personally. You do not want that theory to be right or accepted and respected, that's an afront to your intelligence. Where other people would not look at something like that as personal you do.

[_Ray A]

Marg and ray carry on discussion on board, ray feels marg is insulting ray's intelligence by not agreeing with him, and rejecting NDE's and he even openly expresses that.

Not at all. It was your ignorance of NDE studies in general, and your "science has explained it all" approach. I can respect someone who's really done their homework. Not someone who reads a couple of studies then declares it all "a waste of time".

He's not getting respect and admiration, he's getting disagreement of views. He thinks she thinks he's gullible and he expresses that..

I said you were uninformed.

Ray can't think of good ways to argue for the issue he wishes to defend, and he find it a personal afront and deep down is concerned he's probably wrong and he'll be exposed.

I've been debating about NDEs on Mormon-related boards since 2000. I have never been afraid of being "exposed" for views I've purposely posted on those boards.

He attacks her personally again and again instead saying she's biased and closed minded and hasn't spent nearly the time he has in reading books on the subject of NDE's. Ray doesn't like being challenged or his intelligence insulted especially by a female.

Then perhaps you'd better talk to some males who've crossed paths with me in the past. Begin with Daniel C. Peterson on ZLMB in 2003.

He is angry at that. He is tired of being made to feel inferior by others..but by a woman...it's even worse.

And just remember that you're the one bringing sexism into this. I didn't. Maybe someone like Moniker can confirm with you that I'm an awfully sexist, male chauvinistic pig.

[_Ray A]

You may have high opinions of Dale but you don't of the S-R theory. You have contempt for it, maybe you view this as another afront to your intelligence. If the Spalding theory gets respect, if it eventually gets accepted by more and more people ..once again it would show you were wrong.

And if the evidence is there, I'll accept it. If Dale's hypothetical connections become reality, I'll have an even higher opinion of him.

You are emotionally tied to the Smith as sole author, it's tied to how your perceive your intelligence. If the Smith as sole author is wrong then so are you.

Wrong. I'm "tied" to the available evidence. Contrarily, I see no solid evidence to believe the Book of Mormon to be history, and much that is against it, so I reject that too. Not because of "emotion".

It's not just this but it's the Book of Mormon, joining the church and the wrong choices you make are adding up and you take it personally. You do not want that theory to be right or accepted and respected, that's an afront to your intelligence. Where other people would not look at something like that as personal you do.

On balance, I have had a very difficult and trying life, but I'm happy and content with my past now, who I was, who I am today. And I enjoy beer very much too.

[_marg]

On balance, I have had a very difficult and trying life, but I'm happy and content with my past now, who I was, who I am today. And I enjoy beer very much too.

I can understand why you'd have a difficult and trying life. Someone can think poorly that's not a big deal, but your actions were shallow, showed poor character.

[_Ray A]

I can understand why you'd have a difficult and trying life. Someone can think poorly that's not a big deal, but your actions were shallow, showed poor character.

I am by no means Robinson Crusoe. And as they say, learning from the past is what's important, and not repeating it again.

And what do you define as "poor character"?