So I take it you can't show any examples of me doing what I am here deploring? Not even all those years ago on ZLMB?
Because, based upon your own posting history, I venture to suggest that if you could, you would.
But even if I had done such a thing, why would that mean that not doing it any more would be a terrible idea, or that the fact that I had suggested it should automagically disqualify it from consideration?
So I take it you can't show any examples of me doing what I am here deploring? Not even all those years ago on ZLMB?
Because, based upon your own posting history, I venture to suggest that if you could, you would.
But even if I had done such a thing, why would that mean that not doing it any more would be a terrible idea, or that the fact that I had suggested it should automagically disqualify it from consideration?
Regards, Pahoran
One thing you can't generally be accused of is careless typing--yep, your goat has been got and your panties in a uproar now!
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
Pahoran wrote:.... what do you think about my suggestion that the forum should discuss ideas and events, instead of dog-piling upon individual Mormon (of course) participants?
Regards, Pahoran
So, let's go back to your OP:
Chap wrote:
Pahoran wrote:In the meantime, I have a question; two, actually:
Who was the MDB moderator (or "upper echelon someone" ) who offered drugs for sexual favours? And who orchestrated the cover-up?
Regards, Pahoran
Dunno. You tell us.
Nobody has ever offered me drugs for sexual favors, on this board or in real life. I have never offered anyone drugs for sexual favors, on this board or in real life.
I have never, ever, heard any rumors that anyone did anything of the kind in association with activities on this board. I think you will get that answer from pretty well every other poster here, and it would be sincere.
So unless you are going to play the wenglund 'You all have to deny doing anything bad before I say anything' game (yawn ...), how about cutting to the chase and telling us all:
1. What exactly it is that you believe happened on this board, and when.
2. What grounds you have for thinking that such a thing occurred.
3, What relevance the alleged event has to discussions about Mormonism. We never, after all, said that the posters are perfect, to coin a phrase.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
what do you think about my suggestion that the forum should discuss ideas and events, instead of dog-piling upon individual Mormon (of course) participants?
I think you're exactly right. I don't think that anyone should be "dog piled" on regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Pahoran wrote:MsJack started the Rita Skeeter thread because she was "concerned" about how terrible it would be if someone she didn't want to talk to got to publish about his own religion.
No. Read it again, this time for clarity. Publishing Will's apologia had nothing to do with Jack's concern.
As a result of this, the target of her campaign didn't get to publish about his own religion.
As a result of his comments, MI will not be publishing him. Some other publishing house could, or he could self-publish. If his arguments are that good, any number of publishing houses should be knocking on his door.
Harmony, maybe you can explain to me why neither Droopy nor Pahoran, both of whom clearly think that the Maxwell Institute people were tragically misled by the 'hagocracy' on a minor message board, show any signs of either:
(a) Complaining in any way about the MI's supposed misjudgement. How could these clever priesthood holders have let themselves be misled by a whining flibbertigibbet like MsJack?
or
(b) Trying to persuade the MI to undo their mistaken decision, which should be easy, seeing how flimsy is the evidence against Schryver.
Am I missing something? Not a word of explanation comes from either of them: perhaps there is some special feature of male LDS mental processes that I am unfamiliar with.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Pahoran wrote:But even if I had done such a thing, why would that mean that not doing it any more would be a terrible idea, or that the fact that I had suggested it should automagically disqualify it from consideration?
Regards, Pahoran
One thing you can't generally be accused of is careless typing--yep, your goat has been got and your panties in a uproar now!
Google is your friend. Look up "portmanteau words."
I should probably clarify my thoughts about group guilt sometime. It's a bit tricky and I'm not completely clear on it myself. Obviously you can't simply blame everyone who participates on this board, but I don't think even Nemesis has that in mind. Nemesis even extended the olive branch to Kevin in what I think is a great move of good faith. I think for the time being, that should be celebrated.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Pahoran wrote:Google is your friend. Look up "portmanteau words."
You're welcome, Pahoran
Well, looks like I stepped in a freshie twice ... 1st for not recognizing automagically as a word-of-sorts, and second for saying panties. Luckily, I don't mind a bit admitting when I'm wrong, and "automagical" is so downright cute ...
But as far as having your gar ... underwear in an uproar, that started with your OP. Has anyone mentioned how very, very wrong your version of events is in most every detail? And nothing cute about it either.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
So I take it you can't show any examples of me doing what I am here deploring? Not even all those years ago on ZLMB?
Because, based upon your own posting history, I venture to suggest that if you could, you would.
But even if I had done such a thing, why would that mean that not doing it any more would be a terrible idea, or that the fact that I had suggested it should automagically disqualify it from consideration?
Regards, Pahoran
I must have missed your challenge to share examples of where you focus on the person rather than simply discuss events and ideas. I suggest you just do a simple search of your posts here. I have no doubt you will find an example in the majority of your posts.
Of course it's not a bad idea. It's a good idea. But the fact is that even on a thread where you suggest it, you are also insulting. Take "hagarchy" for a start.
It's hard to take you seriously when you decry the tendency to focus on personalities via insults rather than ideas and events.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.