I get frustrated here because...

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm not trying to "appease" you, Ray. You're welcome to think whatever you want. I've already said why I have a problem with disclosing things to you. Take that for whatever it's worth. I already asked you once to PM me, and I PM'ed you when you first came back. (And you ignored that---your version of "shunning," I guess?) If you want to read those gestures as acts of hostility, there's not really anything I can do about that.

The lone thing I regret about your recent posts here is the effect it's had on one of our most beloved members. For me, that's been a real bummer. I hope his/her work has been more productive, at least, because it's been a loss for the board community.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm not trying to "appease" you, Ray. You're welcome to think whatever you want. I've already said why I have a problem with disclosing things to you. Take that for whatever it's worth. I already asked you once to PM me, and I PM'ed you when you first came back. (And you ignored that---your version of "shunning," I guess?) If you want to read those gestures as acts of hostility, there's not really anything I can do about that.



The lone thing I regret about your recent posts here is the effect it's had on one of our most beloved members. For me, that's been a real bummer. I hope his/her work has been more productive, at least, because it's been a loss for the board community.

You have a problem disclosing things to me because you well know I won't be a part of any dishonest cartels and vindictive character assassination groups. I never, for one moment, thought you'd trust me, and you shouldn't, because I'd treat surreptitious Mormons the same way. I’m an equal opportunity critic. I have indeed criticised DCP’s apologetics, but I’ve never tried to defame his character, and that’s what you are about. Discrediting by character assassination. I just wonder how much longer your dupes will keep sucking at the teat of your blatant lies and exaggerations.

Finally, who are you? What is your full name? Grow a gut, and tell us the truth.

[_Dr. Shades]

And you know this, how? Do you and the Administrator of this board have a "thing going", or what? Shades knows who you are . . .

For the record: I have no idea whatsoever what Doctor Scratch's real name is. Nor do I know his age, his marital status, or his degree of belief in the LDS church proper.

Of course, I've never asked, either.

. . . and has the temerity to write something like This, while he let's you totally try to destroy Daniel Peterson's character and reputation.

[Uncle Scratch: It degrades the spirit of the message board to "spoof" another poster or otherwise "leech" his or her reputation via a similar screen name. Please choose another one.]

He's concerned about your "reputation", not Daniel Peterson's.

That's not quite accurate, I'm afraid. "Username leeching" is a method that new posters use in order to piggyback on the reputation and name recognition of a known and established poster. It's a form of deception targeting not the person being spoofed, but the community at large.

Remember the poster "Gadianton Plumber?" Same thing. I decided not to allow it after that. Ergo, if someone registered, say, the username "Doctor Peterson," I would require that person to choose a different username, too.

[_why me]

I do like coming and reading here. I often come to read comments from those who are just so different than I am. I enjoy understanding other folks a little. its been delightful.

But what really is annoying...what gets me a little....

I don't know if there is much point in raising legitimate points regarding LDS. When I do it seems inevitable some posters here will complain about me (like calling me a liar for effect), or worse yet run to the very next criticism of LDS that they have marked on their list ignoring and bypassing LDS comments--shooting shot guns right in my face. Its absurd to me that many posters here for whatever reason rarely if ever concede much positive about LDS when it gets down to the "nitty-gritty".

I get there are some annoying LDS posters out in cyberspace. I get that its fun to pick apart LDS posters and do whatever it takes to make them appear evil, duped, or whatever is the goal. Its probably a little cute. Its probably quite a refreshing feeling for so many posters here. I don't' know. But its pathetic. Its conversation inhibiting and its childish.

There I said it. Feel free to offer me feedback.

You have posted a lot of posts since you have been on the forum. You have been here only a few monts and already have racked up well of 2000 posts. Plus, you are a prolds poster. This is gives you a lot of unwanted attacks and bashing and gang ups. The critics see you as a target and a necessary target to give them release from their life anxieties.

The only thing critics can do on boards such as this is to gang up on the LDS poster and belittle that poster. It comes with this turf. However, there is no easy solution to the problem except not to take it all seriously. Just post and respond and stick to what matters---not critic fluff but the defense of the LDS church.

[_jon]

I do like coming and reading here. I often come to read comments from those who are just so different than I am. I enjoy understanding other folks a little. its been delightful.

But what really is annoying...what gets me a little....

I don't know if there is much point in raising legitimate points regarding LDS. When I do it seems inevitable some posters here will complain about me (like calling me a liar for effect), or worse yet run to the very next criticism of LDS that they have marked on their list ignoring and bypassing LDS comments--shooting shot guns right in my face. Its absurd to me that many posters here for whatever reason rarely if ever concede much positive about LDS when it gets down to the "nitty-gritty".

I get there are some annoying LDS posters out in cyberspace. I get that its fun to pick apart LDS posters and do whatever it takes to make them appear evil, duped, or whatever is the goal. Its probably a little cute. Its probably quite a refreshing feeling for so many posters here. I don't' know. But its pathetic. Its conversation inhibiting and its childish.

There I said it. Feel free to offer me feedback.

You have posted a lot of posts since you have been on the forum. You have been here only a few monts and already have racked up well of 2000 posts. Plus, you are a prolds poster. This is gives you a lot of unwanted attacks and bashing and gang ups. The critics see you as a target and a necessary target to give them release from their life anxieties.

The only thing critics can do on boards such as this is to gang up on the LDS poster and belittle that poster. It comes with this turf. However, there is no easy solution to the problem except not to take it all seriously. Just post and respond and stick to what matters---not critic fluff but the defense of the LDS church.

Why Me forgot to mention that you should avoid responding on questions to which you have no answers...

why me wrote:
Women have power in the church.



jon wrote:
CFR

What 'power' do Women have in the Church in relation to the males of the Church?
Some women have 'power' within the female only parts of the Church organisation - but I can't think of a single example of where any women have 'power' in relation to males?

Women final speakers at Sacrament?
Women presiding at mixed sex meetings?
Women being able to offer prayers at Conference?
Women being able to show their faces during the proper way to pray?

Still waiting Why Me, still waiting...

[_Buffalo]

I do like coming and reading here. I often come to read comments from those who are just so different than I am. I enjoy understanding other folks a little. its been delightful.

But what really is annoying...what gets me a little....

I don't know if there is much point in raising legitimate points regarding LDS. When I do it seems inevitable some posters here will complain about me (like calling me a liar for effect), or worse yet run to the very next criticism of LDS that they have marked on their list ignoring and bypassing LDS comments--shooting shot guns right in my face. Its absurd to me that many posters here for whatever reason rarely if ever concede much positive about LDS when it gets down to the "nitty-gritty".

I get there are some annoying LDS posters out in cyberspace. I get that its fun to pick apart LDS posters and do whatever it takes to make them appear evil, duped, or whatever is the goal. Its probably a little cute. Its probably quite a refreshing feeling for so many posters here. I don't' know. But its pathetic. Its conversation inhibiting and its childish.

There I said it. Feel free to offer me feedback.

You have posted a lot of posts since you have been on the forum. You have been here only a few monts and already have racked up well of 2000 posts. Plus, you are a prolds poster. This is gives you a lot of unwanted attacks and bashing and gang ups. The critics see you as a target and a necessary target to give them release from their life anxieties.

The only thing critics can do on boards such as this is to gang up on the LDS poster and belittle that poster. It comes with this turf. However, there is no easy solution to the problem except not to take it all seriously. Just post and respond and stick to what matters---not critic fluff but the defense of the LDS church.

Stem is attacked a lot less than you are - because Stem is a reasonable person.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who, besides the biggest idiot, is going to buy what you're saying?

I expect that any and all reasonable people here -- and, yes, even "the biggest idiot" here (whoever that may be) -- will be able to see through your amazingly shameless pretense on this matter.

You didn't "stay out of it" at all.

As a matter of fact, I did. I made one comment, I said that I would not engage in the discussion, and I never made another comment in the thread after that.

Conveniently, you too made only one comment, and you too never returned.

Both comments are recorded here, in their entirety:

Am I alone in finding it appalling that Simon Belmont would try to exploit this situation for apologetic purposes?

Responding directly to you, I wrote:

Don't compound the problem by seeking to exploit it against apologetics.

Just stay out of it. I'm going to.

Here, now, is your characterization of my comment:

You popped in for the sole purpose of defending Simon Belmont's post. You showed zero interest or sympathy for the sentiments in the thread apart from trying to score a point and trying to defend your "protege" Simon Belmont.

Let's compare your comment and mine.

* You plainly criticized Simon Belmont's post (at which, you say, you were "appalled"). By contrast, I said nothing about Simon Belmont's post.

* My post says nothing directly about Mercury's family situation, it's true. It expresses no interest or sympathy, but also expresses no criticism of him. Just as yours expresses neither interest nor sympathy nor criticism.

* You popped in for the sole purpose of scoring a point against "apologetics." I suggested that neither side seek to exploit Mercury's woes for partisan advantage, and pledged that I would not.

Thus, it's plainly obvious even to "the greatest idiot" here that your depiction of my comment in that thread is flatly false, and, most probably, a brazen lie:

Do you remember what you said? Your lone comment was a defense of Simon Belmont's attempt to engage in Mopologetics and make light of Mercury's situation.

You misrepresent me and lie about me constantly. You've been doing it for half a decade. Five full years.

This is a very small illustration of the way you distort what I say and do in order to advance your obsessive, hate-fueled crusade against me. Helpfully, though, it's also a particularly clear and obvious one.

[_Simon Belmont]

Ray:

Why don't you send me a PM and find out?

Why do it in a PM? If you're friends with Dr. Quinn, ask him and quote him here. Better yet, invite him to post here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Let's compare your comment and mine.

* You plainly criticized Simon Belmont's post (at which, you say, you were "appalled"). By contrast, I said nothing about Simon Belmont's post.

Your reply was made in response to my comment, Dan. Was it not?

* You popped in for the sole purpose of scoring a point against "apologetics." I suggested that neither side seek to exploit Mercury's woes for partisan advantage, and pledged that I would not.

If that was the case, then *you* would have stepped in to call Simon on the carpet. But that's clearly not what happened. I thought Simon's inquiry was in extremely bad taste, and there is absolutely nothing wrong in my pointing that out. Face it: you weren't popping into the thread in order to play the role of neutral and objective moderating influence.

But what I'm realizing is that your latest burst of logorrhea is likely a direct result of my calling attention to Lamanite's remark. You've been on a rampage ever since I made note of the fact that Lamanite said that MI apologists "test out ideas" here on MDB. Why this would send you into such a tizzy is anybody's guess, but, hey---there it is.

[_Simon Belmont]

But what I'm realizing is that your latest burst of logorrhea is likely a direct result of my calling attention to Lamanite's remark. You've been on a rampage ever since I made note of the fact that Lamanite said that MI apologists "test out ideas" here on MDB. Why this would send you into such a tizzy is anybody's guess, but, hey---there it is.

Changing the subject when your position is weak, and you have no argument.

L'habitude.