jskains wrote:Why is Juliann so highly regarded? She certainly creates a lot of talk. To me she is just an annoying attention whore who treats people who don't fall into her narrow box like trash.
JMHO.
JMS
You might want to post that on MAD and see where it gets you.
jskains wrote:Why is Juliann so highly regarded? She certainly creates a lot of talk. To me she is just an annoying attention whore who treats people who don't fall into her narrow box like trash.
JMHO.
JMS
Not a nice post, Josh. I have news for you. Virtually anybody who goes and posts on public blogs in controversial areas is screaming for attention. Especially you, by the way you like to start posts. You and the "joseph" on this board have extremely similar posting styles and patterns.
Dan G. wrote:[Dr. Shades's name] wants to continue to deflect responsibility that he harbors a culture of irresponsible attacks that did stem from his board mormondiscussions dot com as outlined in the opening thread.
Hey Nemesis: What are the "irresponsible attacks" that "did stem" from this board? Please be specific. Links would be nice.
I am fine with that, my name is not the one attached to a "hate site" dedicated to attacking a religion and its followers.
Neither is mine. This isn't a "hate site;" it is a site wherein Mormonism is discussed. If some people choose to disagree with one or more of its doctrines, it still doesn't qualify as "hate."
It's indicative of your myopia that any sort of critique equals "hate" in your world.
Please continue to attack the anonymous "Nemesis/Dang" I don't think it will ever have the effect you intend.
What is the "effect" you have in mind, and who intends it?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
It's rotten that Nemesis has chosen to post Shades' in real life name in his post. That really doesn't inspire anyone to extend the olive branch.
Even when we have been utilizing Dan G.'s name, Dan G. is simply another alias. No one actually knows who Dan G. really is.
Nemesis "outted" Shades outright, using his full real name.
Of course, Schryver did this with Tevor's submission situation on MDD as well.
I suppose publishing poster's in real life information is the type of environment Nemesis, and, since Juliann is the founder of the board, I suppose Juliann, too, wants to create.
Pahoran wrote:Actually "Dr" Scratch, a.k.a. Dan Peterson's Malevolent Stalker, is the poster child for mindless harrassment. In identifying him as a "mindless harasser," Simon's credibility is perfectly safe with anyone whose view of reality is not blocked by Scratch's intestinal wall.
Regards, Pahoran
And I believe that this set the tone of the board which has been capitalized upon by other posters here. These personal attacks should have been nipped in the butt when they first occured. But instead, these attacks against Dan were encouraged. Most LDS posters have been personally attacked here: droopy, nehor, simon, yahoo bot, bcspace etc. But it all originated with scratch and dan and the free speech policy of the board.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Pahoran wrote:Actually "Dr" Scratch, a.k.a. Dan Peterson's Malevolent Stalker, is the poster child for mindless harrassment. In identifying him as a "mindless harasser," Simon's credibility is perfectly safe with anyone whose view of reality is not blocked by Scratch's intestinal wall.
Regards, Pahoran
And I believe that this set the tone of the board which has been capitalized upon by other posters here. These personal attacks should have been nipped in the butt when they first occured. But instead, these attacks against Dan were encouraged. Most LDS posters have been personally attacked here: droopy, nehor, simon, yahoo bot, bcspace etc. But it all originated with scratch and dan and the free speech policy of the board.
Why Me wrote:Most LDS posters have been personally attacked here: droopy, nehor, simon, yahoo bot, bcspace etc.
Most of these posters have "given as good as they've gotten".
Droopy, Yahoo Bot, and BC have ALL personally attacked me, when they have disagreed with me (I do not consider myself a critic, but some might), and have also personally attacked out-and-out critics as well.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Not a nice post, Josh. I have news for you. Virtually anybody who goes and posts on public blogs in controversial areas is screaming for attention. Especially you, by the way you like to start posts. You and the "joseph" on this board have extremely similar posting styles and patterns.
LOL, that is a stretch. I fail to see any similarities between myself and Joseph but I am sure in your head that was a witty response.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein
liz3564 wrote: Most of these posters have "given as good as they've gotten".
Droopy, Yahoo Bot, and BC have ALL personally attacked me, when they have disagreed with me (I do not consider myself a critic, but some might), and have also personally attacked out-and-out critics as well.
It has always cut both ways here.
There is a massive difference between offensive and defensive action. I think often people can start out trying to be nice then get dragged in to the tone that does get set here. Ignoring that reality will simply propetuate that tone.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein
liz3564 wrote: Most of these posters have "given as good as they've gotten".
Droopy, Yahoo Bot, and BC have ALL personally attacked me, when they have disagreed with me (I do not consider myself a critic, but some might), and have also personally attacked out-and-out critics as well.
It has always cut both ways here.
There is a massive difference between offensive and defensive action. I think often people can start out trying to be nice then get dragged in to the tone that does get set here. Ignoring that reality will simply propetuate that tone.
I completely agree. In the instances I sighted, I was on the defensive end. Did I attack when I should have probably "turned the other cheek"? Yes. When it was brought to my attention that I really did go too far, as in the case with Bob, did I apologize? Yes.
