Doctor Scratch wrote:Then quit futzing around and tell your side, Dan.
It's not "my" side. And, no, I won't get involved with this.
You're simply
drooling at the thought that you might have some new basis on which to assault my character. Tough luck, though. Your trap is absurdly obvious.
I content myself by pointing out the obvious and undeniable fact that those who know only Eric's version of things are being overhasty and at least potentially unfair when they pronounce judgment on the situation. (Is there anybody out there to whom this really isn't undeniably, intuitively, apparent?)
Analytics wrote:One of the ways it is risky is that while you happily believe the one side you got your story from, you might inadvertently drive away a child who committed the “sin” of examining the issue more broadly.
As I thought was obvious, the "issue" to which I was referring was not the issue of the truthfulness of Mormonism, but the issue of who and what is to blame for Eric's situation, and to what extent.
Some Schmo wrote:Yeah, right Dan. It was just an innocuous little comment that had nothing to do with you. We should all just ignore the elephant in the room: your personal history on this board with Eric. Is that it? Are there any sane critics out there that don't know about it? Give me a break.
You might have a point if you didn't constantly seek attention, try to make threads about you, and insist on feeding your persecution complex.
Exactly
who is it who's trying to make this thread about me, again?
Simple point: In a contentious dispute between A and B, those who have heard only A's side or only B's side run considerable risk of failing to understand the situation completely and, if they presume to pronounce judgment on the dispute, of judging incorrectly.
Simple and obvious. Even in cases involving Mormons.