MsJack wrote:Pahoran wrote:Based upon my experience with you, I'll be sure to double-check all your assertions. The fact that you assert that I've got something wrong means that it's probably right.
You seem to have me confused with someone else.
Don't worry. I know
exactly who and what you are.
MsJack wrote:Pahoran wrote:When I said he was one of "your lot" I meant ideologically, not in terms of his forum membership. He and I are both still members here, but I certainly don't count myself as one of "your lot."
Well, I've never been a purveyor of erotica in any form, so I regret to inform you that he still wasn't one of "my lot" in any sense of the term.
No, you're a dedicated attacker of LDS defenders.
He was one of your lot.
MsJack wrote:Pahoran wrote:Note that I've corrected your gratuitous expression of spite.
Not gratuitous, and explained in full by me
here.
Yes, you've explained the reasoning behind your gratuitous spite.
Not to mention your egregious hypocrisy. I draw your attention to
this post. Apart from the fact that your feigned "confusion" was as insincere a pretext to drag my in real life name into the thread as I would expect from someone as fundamentally dishonest as yourself, I point to your high dudgeon when I called you "Auntie Jack."
If we accept that SeattleGhostWriter does continue to write inappropriate material, I point out that at least he doesn't spend hours on end raking up dirt to use against people he hates.
In other words, if you think you deserve any respect at all, he deserves
at least as much, because he's nowhere near as loathsome as you are.
Is that clear?
MsJack wrote:by the way, red text is for moderators only. Please do not impersonate the moderators by using it.
Impersonate who? Since I immediately said that it was my editing, I attempted to impersonate precisely
nobody. You ought not to project your own fundamental dishonesty onto others.
MsJack wrote:Pahoran wrote:And once upon a time I would have taken it as a given that a self-proclaimed "Christian" would never pursue spiteful little vendettas against an array of ideological targets.
Well then, you're in luck, because I've certainly never done anything of the sort.
Umm, Jackie? I've seen your hate posts; if your latest anti-Schryver thread is not a spiteful little vendetta, then there's no such thing.
MsJack wrote:I have taken a stand against those who espouse misogyny in their writing,
You're lying, as you habitually do. Will's ad hoc insults did not target women as a class; and thoughtful people understand that message board discussions are far too informal to represent a participant's "writing."
I'll grant that a lot of the snippets you dredged up were insulting. The most frequently cited insult, the "circle jerk suite" actually insults
men. Your attempt to make a case for "misogyny" therefrom was utterly and cynically dishonest.
MsJack wrote:but I see nothing un-Christian or spiteful about doing so. If anything is un-Christian or spiteful, it's misogyny.
And misandry. And false witness-bearing.
MsJack wrote:Pahoran wrote:As I recall, that individual openly apologised for that, and has not since repeated the error. As a self-proclaimed "Christian," I might have expected that repentance might mean something to you.
I never saw this apology---got a link for it? And please note that I don't consider a promise to apologize or an "expression of regret" to be the same thing as an apology.
Really? You quoted him:
I stand corrected. I did not recall having said that (although I do recall having thought it on occasion).
So, I am guilty of calling Emma Smith a champion bitch.
Certainly a little harsh on my part. I sincerely apologize to Emma. Upon reflection, I would merely say she was an emotionally volatile, high-maintenance woman who would have been a royal pain in the ass to deal with as a wife, and I admire Joseph Smith all the more for having put up with her all those years.
And subsequently:
Your posts have induced reflection on my part, and I have concluded that you make some very valid points, and that I need to seriously back off from my harsh criticism of Emma Smith.
It is therefore unreasonable and unChristian -- but entirely Jack-worthy -- to continue to fling that in his face.
MsJack wrote:I figured you meant me, but here's why I was giving you the benefit of the doubt: on the thread in question,
I specifically denounced Polygamy Porter's decision to link to a picture of
SeattleSmutWriter's family and asked him to remove it. Point in fact, that was my
only participation in the original thread. Surely, I thought,
Pahoran wouldn't be so "maliciously dishonest" as to try and link me with behavior that I had specifically spoken out against on the very thread under discussion?
I stand by what I said: PP was following your example. Did he do it in his style, not yours? Perhaps so, but that frequently happens. The example in question was starting dog-pile threads targeting a specific (Mormon, of course) individual.
MsJack wrote:But no, it turns out, you were being that "maliciously dishonest." How about that.
You are projecting.
Regards,
Pahoran