Kevin Graham Resorts to Intimidation Tactics

[_Buffalo]

My first thought about that is: in the almost identical words?

I agree that "critics of Mormonism" would be likely to uncritically swallow any suggestion that the Church might be rorting the system. Indeed, I can see them giggling madly about it and happily passing it around amongst themselves -- and so it stays under the radar for six months?

Okay, I don't have eyes and ears everywhere -- maybe it surfaced somewhere else when I wasn't looking -- but here's the breakdown of the key elements of the two statements:

Kevin: "So the LDS arm is a foreign non-profit organization"
Magdalena: "So they're a foreign non-profit organization"

Kevin: "milking millions from British tax payers."
Magdalena: "bilking millions of dollars from the UK government and tax payers."

Kevin: "This is funding that should be going"
Magdalena: "Money that should be going"

Kevin: "to British farmers who depend on it for their livelihoods."
Magdalena: "to British farmers who depend on it for their livelihoods."

The same two sentences, with almost but not quite identical wording.

Looks like the product of the same mind to me.

Regards,
Pahoran

Wonderful. Now apply those same analytical skills to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. ;)

[_Kishkumen]

Seriously, a casual perusal of her posting history would quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that we are one and the same. She frequently says things I never say, such as "God bless you" and preaches an Evangelical tune, which to me, is just as horrific as the Mormon tune.

I didn't figure the theory had any legs, but I preferred having Pah prove it over investigating it myself. Life is too short for chasing down every wacky speculation.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you think about it, what Pahoran suggests is borderline impossible. I mean seriously, has anyone ever been found to speak on a subject and then six months later, speak on it again using precisely the same sentence structure and almost exactly the same words that were used the first time?

No, I was simply transcribing an oral dictation from the other side of the room, and I started typing only after he had nearly finished with the citation. So I was zipping through it at 70 words per minute, going from memory and trying to catch up at the same time, which explains why some words were either absent or different. It also explains why I wrote "milking" and Magdalen wrote "bilking." The error was auditory.

[_Kishkumen]

If you think about it, what Pahoran suggests is borderline impossible. I mean seriously, has anyone ever been found to speak on a subject and then six months later, speak on it again using precisely the same sentence structure and almost exactly the same words that were used the first time?

No, I was simply transcribing an oral dictation from the other side of the room, and I started typing only after he had nearly finished with the citation. So I was zipping through it at 70 words per minute, going from memory and trying to catch up at the same time, which explains why some words were either absent or different. It also explains why I wrote "milking" and Magdalen wrote "bilking." The error was auditory.

I am just amazed that Pahoran wasted his time on this. One would think that you were trying to publish something with NAMIRS, and Pahoran were determined to prevent it.

What does any of this have to do with the subject of Will Schryver, a topic which is, in and of itself, essentially dead? The publication is not happening, and our hopes to the contrary will not change that fact. Furthermore, it really amazes me that Pahoran essentially agrees with us that Will's work should be published, and yet he is here tearing into us like we were responsible for Schryver's predicament.

What ever happened to Will's responsibility, or the responsibility of those who made these decisions regarding his work? What have we to do with any of that? Very little I would wager.

If Pahoran wants Will's work to be published, ripping into people here is probably not going to get that done. Maybe he should spend his time making an eloquent argument in writing to the folks at NAMIRS on Will's behalf.

I find the whole thing puzzling.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

ROFL! You've already been "outed." There isn't a single person on this forum who doesn't know your in real life identity. But I know you hate it when we mention it because you're afraid of friends and family googling your name and associating you with the Pahoran persona.

I was thinking the same thing. I've known who the pseudonym represented since the zlmb days.


Phaedrus

[_Inconceivable]

Trying to run distraction tactics, are you?

Regards,
Pahoran

Your OP is the distraction tactic.

So back to the substantive issue, was Kevin accurate in his representation of your church's behavior?

I thought so. Kinda sucks for the roaches trying to get their work done when someone flips on a light.

[_Runtu]

I was thinking the same thing. I've known who the pseudonym represented since the zlmb days.


Phaedrus

I've known his in real life identity for a good 15 years or so, since back in the a.r.m. days.

[_Pahoran]

This thread was yet another red herring to help Pahoran avoid the uncomfortable topic that haunts him: his client's propensity for sexually repulsive innuendo.

You really must give up your mind-reading act, Kevin. You fail every time you try it.

To address your obsession on this point: Will is not my "client." I have no responsibility to defend anything he did or did not say. I did not come here to defend him. I simply dropped in for a visit, as I do from time to time, and saw the dog-pile thread. I took issue with matters that seemed questionable.

When EA mentioned yesterday that Pahoran had alerted his MAD audience that I was posting at CARM as "Magdalena" I just laughed, and never went to go find out what his reasons were.

Actually you complained bitterly about it, as I reported in the OP.

However, to label me a woman for no apparent reason and accuse me of using multiple identities, all the while you are hiding behind a pseudonym (and the protection of the Mods, who refuse to allow anyone to reveal your in real life identity) ... there is just something annoyingly hypocritical about that.

You are manufacturing artificial justifications for your faux indignation. There is no-one who has more sockpuppets than you. You regularly show up on MD&D with new sockpuppets, and then come back here and brag about them. You've even had multiple identities here, or do you deny being "Dartagnan?"

And I did not "label you a woman." You know that to be false. I asked -- legitimately -- whether you used "Magdalena" as a posting handle on CARM. Recall that "Athanasius" on CARM really is a woman, but she uses a male name; why couldn't the same thing be done in reverse? The fact that you are so dramatically overstating your case is suspicious.

As far as my so called "intimidation" goes, I merely said I would make Pahoran's in real life identity known to a wider audience if he persisted with this nonsensical accusation against me. How the hell is that intimidation? Pahoran quotes me so far as I say he will regret it" but he doesn't explain why he'll regret it. He'll regret it because he absolutely hates it when his real name is associated with his Pahoran persona.

I realise you are counting upon your audience, and fellow-members of the Malefaction, to uncritically accept your version of the discussion you are so freely misrepresenting; but you clearly have no respect for their intelligence. If they scroll back just one page to the OP, they'll see the very first passage I quote from you, to wit:

If you call me Magdalena again, I promise you'll regret it. Especially if you care anything at all (and I know you do) about keeping your real life identity separate from your hideous online persona as "Pahoran." I'm going to be starting my own blog soon, and this will be one of the first topics I'll be writing about.

So I explicitly included the portion you explicitly accused me of leaving out.

Oh dear.

Now, as I've stated, I haven't posted at CARM since Matt Slick banned MsJack as a moderator some ten years ago. As to why my remark is so similar to hers, the reason escaped me for a second until I remembered the circumstances in which this reference was googled. But relax, the reason for this is simple, and not nearly as malicious as some of you might hope. What happened is that I was here working with a buddy of mine who is also an "apostate." He never posts on the forums but he follows what goes on. He was reading through the Italian welfare thread when he decided to google "Mormon - subsidy." I was on the other side of the room on my laptop when he said, "Kev, check this out..." And he then began to read off the remarks made on the website he was reading. So I just started transcribing more or less what he read off, but obviously not exactly as he said it. I then said "shoot me a link" which he did via yahoo messenger. He sent me the link to the original article posted by the Guardian, not the link to the website where he was reading the summary by "Magdelena."

Well there we have it.

So Pahoran has a choice.

Either I can do a Kevin Graham, and accuse you of being a "proven liar," and on that basis simply brush aside everything you've said, or else I can be better than that, and accept your explanation as the only actual evidence before us.

Well, it's not much of a choice, is it? I am better than that.

So I accept your explanation.

Kevin Graham doesn't post on CARM as Magdalena,

But I maintain the question was worth asking.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

..... Either I can do a Kevin Graham, and accuse you of being a "proven liar," and on that basis simply brush aside everything you've said, or else I can be better than that, and accept your explanation as the only actual evidence before us.

From earlier material in this thread, it would appear that there is other evidence than Kevin Graham's assertion.

It should be easy to check, for instance, whether, as has been asserted, 'Magdalena' does habitually show signs in her posts of being a believing evangelical Christian, something which Kevin Graham clearly is not.

I don't think Pahoran will find that readers of his posts accept that he is admitting that he is wrong in this case simply because he has this really, really big warm heart and hates to make people feel bad.

[_Pahoran]

I am just amazed that Pahoran wasted his time on this. One would think that you were trying to publish something with NAMIRS, and Pahoran were determined to prevent it.

What does any of this have to do with the subject of Will Schryver, a topic which is, in and of itself, essentially dead?

It has nothing to do with Will Schryver. It never had anything to do with Will Schryver.

It is a spin-off of the "Italian Welfare" thread, which likewise had nothing to do with Will Schryver.

I realise that Kevin will never let go of his monomaniacal obsession with Will Schryver, but I keep hoping your performance will someday live up to your self-promotion.

Regards,
Pahoran