MormonDiscussions.com: Guide To

[_Ray A]

So I am taking the liberty of making Justin aware of some things in order to improve in future (and hopefully short bios isn't all we're going to see on this entertaining blog):


First, If I recall correctly, Shades has quite an exceptional knowledge of Mormonism, judging by past quizzes, and his rating of 4 is based either on ignorance, prejudice, or both. "Justin" has a clear pro-Mormon bias. He rates DCP at 10 and beastie at 7, yet I feel quite confident that beastie would flog DCP into a stupor on both MMM and Mesomerica. 10!? You gotta be kidding, Jus.

And thus goes the train of inaccuracies. But to address my own.

Ray A: LDS Knowledge: 7; Trustworthiness: 4. A board addict. A dominant personality on the board. A prolific poster. Former LDS -- apparently a former bishop and now a cabbie in Australia. Writes and behaves occasionally like Droopy -- an addict in other ways or a recovering addict -- or at least it seems. Sometimes wild swings in mood or opinions. Not all that effective a writer although he says he has been published in Dialogue. Doesn't hold his own all that well against determined opponents, both pro- and anti-Mormon.

My knowledge is weak when it relates to Mormonism and US history, and events like MMM, but I wonder how many others have read more than 20 years of Dialogue and Sunstone, the seven volume History of the Church, the six volume Comprehensive History of the Church, most of the Journal of Discourses, almost all of the Tanners' publications, about 80% of Nibley's books, about 70% of FARMS publications up to 1995, including every FARMS Review between 1989-1996, etc, etc. But I think 7 is still realistic. DCP's 10 and Shades' 4 isn't.

I also note two spectacular omissions from the list of posters: Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel. (Take note, Justin, your work is only just beginning, and it's a larger than you think, unless you want your blog to remain a sort of lazy "blondie" version of "Who's Who's", which is actually my guess.)

I am not a recovering addict, and have several addictions, including beer, porn and Internet addiction (and no, Courtney Simpson isn't on my list, but you can google Lexi Matthews if it takes your, er, fancy. I shiver just at the mention of that name and her stunning looks. Where's that Genie lamp? And you all thought Nicole was my favourite. LOL). I have no addiction I feel guilty about, and might even be interested in discovering a few more - life is short.

I plead guilty to wild mood swings and opinions, but one thing I can guarantee you, Justin - I'll never be a Mormon again - though there are very few "nevers" in my vocabulary.

I also agree I'm not the best writer. I wouldn't even give myself the Donald Duck Award for Literature.

As far as "holding my own" against opponents, the truth is that I wouldn't have the stupidity to keep debating people when they come as thick as some do, and will never change. That's why I rarely post on MAD anymore, incidentally, or try to debate people like Wade and Will except for fleeting entertainment. You know what the definition of madness is? Debating a Mormon over and over and thinking that you'll ultimately hear something other than "I know it's true" and "I live the law of chastity and pay tithing" Ho Hum! In short, I get bored quickly with anything that doesn't affect me in real life.

[_solomarineris]

Ray A
apparently a former bishop and now a cabbie in Australia.

That's what happens, quicker than lightning,
riches to rags
Bish to Cabbie....
Ho told you to leave the Church?
Bad advice.

[_Gazelam]

That was super fun to read. I love lists like this.

Gazelman: LDS Knowledge: 6: Trustworthiness 5. A board addict. LDS believer. An idiot. I try not to read his posts.

I scored decently. At least as an idiot I can still spell my name properly. I get decent scores but am still considered an idiot?

I wish when people criticise me they were more forthcoming with their criticisms so I can know what areas of my character I should work on. A blanket statement of idiot is no help.

[_huckelberry]

Our reviewer cannot figure out what EAllusion thinks(!?) Perhaps he is a bit slow figuring out meanings that come from a different point of view than his own. In fact the characterization of Cinepro, Gadianton,and EAllusion are each pretty muddy. But then with insight he did find that Richard is evangelical.

If seeing intelligence in others results from others repeating ones own already established point of view then our reviewers high rating for Wade means, what? I wonder. Wade has Bcspaces fervent belief with less of the particual political obsession. I have been looking for an excuse to say that Wade is capable of the most amazing purple prose, but he has toned it down the past few years.

[_Nomomo]

I'm wondering why he has such a stick up his tush about cinepro. Whoa. Not at all cool. What did you do, cinepro?

I suspect he didn't care much for cinepro's posts over at MAAD. Perhaps an opponent? This may be a clue.

[_richardMdBorn]

Our reviewer cannot figure out what EAllusion thinks(!?) Perhaps he is a bit slow figuring out meanings that come from a different point of view than his own. In fact the characterization of Cinepro, Gadianton,and EAllusion are each pretty muddy. But then with insight he did find that Richard is evangelical.

Hi Huck,

No, he wrote that I "might be an evangelical". Why did he include the weasel word might? My beliefs are pretty obvious even if they're unfashionable on this board.

[_cinepro]

I wish when people criticise me they were more forthcoming with their criticisms so I can know what areas of my character I should work on. A blanket statement of idiot is no help.

Hang in there. This morning it said I was an "idiot", but I've since improved.

rcrocket: LDS Knowledge: 5; Trustworthiness: 3: Always arrogant and condescending. Others say he is currently an LDS bishop. They must cower in fear in his ward. A cyber bully. Occasional spurts of brilliant writing. Sarcastic, spiteful and needling.

Gee, I wonder who put this list together.

[_moksha]

I imagine there is a parallel to the reaction of MADites who read Shade's review of the posters over at that forum of righteous indignation.

[_bcspace]

bcspace: LDS Knowledge: 3; Trustworthiness: 5 An active Mormon who talks too much of his ultra-conservative politics. He takes a lot of abuse from the anti-Mormons but doesn't know all that much of Church doctrine. Prolific poster; Board addict.

Considering how some other people are rated, I'd say this means my LDS doctrinal knowledge is really a 10.

I'll bet this person can't give one example of where I might be defficient in doctrinal knowledge or can't be trusted. Smacks of Fortigurn's lazy research.

[_Droopy]

bcspace: LDS Knowledge: 3; Trustworthiness: 5 An active Mormon who talks too much of his ultra-conservative politics. He takes a lot of abuse from the anti-Mormons but doesn't know all that much of Church doctrine. Prolific poster; Board addict.

Considering how some other people are rated, I'd say this means my LDS doctrinal knowledge is really a 10.

I'll bet this person can't give one example of where I might be defficient in doctrinal knowledge or can't be trusted. Smacks of Fortigurn's lazy research.

bc has a knowledge rating of 3. Drooopy of 4, and Harmony...6.

The individual who had better check his knowledge of LDS doctrine - and with all dispatch - is Mr. Thames.

This whole thing is a set up, of course, and pretty much reflects the intellectual level of much that has traditionally gone on here.

If Mr. Thames has roughly twice the LDS doctrinal knowledge as Harmony, this would place him somewhere with both Harmony and Beastie in LDS special ed.