Banned to the Bone

[_selek]

In other words, you're the analog.

More like the evil Spock with the goatee...

[_Yahoo Bot]

You may want to try to clean up your aggressive posting style. It does come across as extremely bitter toward the people you are responding too. And it is this bitterness that gets you banned from threads.

Despite all the bannings he's had over the years, he doesn't realize that he's just an offensive poster. Everybody's an idiot and a moron. Oops, I actually like and appreciate his style, but I'm in the minority.

[_Kevin Graham]

Care to list my history of "bannings" over the years?

I mean you wouldn't want to give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about, right?

[Guest]

-

[_why me]

Care to list my history of "bannings" over the years?

I mean you wouldn't want to give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about, right?

Now what kind of tone do you have in this post? Not a good tone. You are aggressive and hostile. And that is the point. You do not come across very well. And after a while it becomes tiring. Then people complian and gone you can be.

[_Kevin Graham]

Now what kind of tone do you have in this post? Not a good tone. You are aggressive and hostile. And that is the point

Thanks for illustrating your warped sense of perception. Here we have you and Crockett attacking me, by accusing me of having a history of X. I simply asked him to back up this statenment with evidence of X. He has repeated this charge numerous times and I have always asked him to back it up. He refuses to do so and it seems you can't support it either.

So, which one of us has a "bad tone"? Well in your world, me of course! For you, there is nothing wrong with your tones because, well, you're LDS simply defending God's one true Church. So you think you get to make sweeping generalizations without having to back them up. You think that is your privilege. But I am simply pointiing out your refusal to produce evidence. Attacking me for pointing this out is typical of those who cannot argue issues intelligently. Apologists only pretend to engage the issues when they think they have it rigged from the beginning; when they think they can get away with every logical fallacy in the book.

You do not come across very well.

I come across very well to those who are not guilty of the above. For this reason I have credibility and you do not. Your problem is that you hate self-reflection, and this is generally what I force apologists to do. Self-reflect. As a former apologist, I know the tactics and deficiencies in your methods, and it really ticks you off when I point them out and force you to walk around naked.

And after a while it becomes tiring. Then people complian and gone you can be.

Gone I can be? Who are you, master Yoda? Again, the only people who complain are those who are guilty of the above. I did teh same thing when I was an apologist and the lot of you loved me for it. Your problem now is that you cannot debate me on the issues, so you have to create straw man arguments to give the impression you're winning. It is the oldest trick in the book.

[_Yahoo Bot]

When I think of the word "Banned" I think of Kevin Graham. One of the most frequently banned posters in any subject, and that probably isn't counting sock puppets. When you inspect this board's history with the word "banned," Kevin is usually in the middle of it, defending his conduct or boasting of his bannings. In fact, should Kevin move to Banning, California?

[What does that really reveal? A hopeless board addict, on a quest to have his name splashed everywhere.]

When I think of the phrase "oblivious" I think of Kevin Graham.

When I contemplate someone who is on the low road to hell, I think of Kevin Graham.

When I want to learn who the current idiot and moron might be, I'm hoping Red Graham will inform me.

"You're such a predictable moron Will." Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:39 am

"Look, moron. You are the one who has a serious problem comprehending here. And comprehension isn't even your main problem. Your main problem is that your mind is just too simple." Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:13 pm

"There is a difference between apologists like Bokovoy and complete morons like yourself." Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:44 pm

"Who the hell ever said anything about "academic-style" translation, moron?" Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:38 pm

"I see you're back to the usual falsehoods Dan. Do I need to list all the people I have disagreed with, whom I have not accused of being a "liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetemt [sic], and/or a hypocrite"? " Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:16 am

Now, the last quote above is priceless. Here, Islamic Hater Red Graham calls Peterson a liar for, well, what? For having the foolishness to claim that Red Graham calls people with whom he disagrees a liar, a moron, and idiot etc.

[_MsJack]

I did the same thing when I was an apologist and the lot of you loved me for it.

This is the real problem with any complaints about Kevin's behavior now. Kevin was an apologist for years and people seldom expressed concerns about his behavior, nor was he banned from the FAIR message board or MAD or ZLMB at the time. So long as his anger and aggression were directed at critics, few cared, and those few who cared generally kept their concerns low-key. The only exception I can think of was when he was kicked off of the FAIR e-list, and that happened largely because it was the one time that he directed his anger and aggression at fellow apologists. Even after that incident, he was allowed to write articles for the FAIR Web site.

I think Kevin was banned from an evangelical message board or two, but that's hardly noteworthy. Evangelical message boards often have a hair trigger for banning non-evangelical opponents every bit as capricious as the one operating at MDDB now. I was banned or disciplined at several evangelical Web sites for speaking too favorably of Mormonism back in the day.

Now, I don't disagree that Kevin's style can be aggressive, confrontational, angry, and/or hostile. It can be. It often is. I've had my share of disagreements with Kevin over the years, told him I never wanted to speak with him again, told him I wanted nothing to do with him, etc.

But his posting style isn't any worse than it was when he was an LDS apologist. If anything, he's mellowed considerably since leaving the LDS church. And it certainly isn't worse than the styles of any number of apologists that I could name whose behavior is never publicly questioned by their peers.

Until LDS apologists start policing and speaking out against the poor behavior coming out of their own ranks, no one is going to take them seriously when they complain about poor behavior in their opponents. Kevin Graham is a textbook case of someone who's style only draws complaints now because he plays for the other team. Gospel truth, folks.

[_Yahoo Bot]

This is the real problem with any complaints about Kevin's behavior now. Kevin was an apologist for years and people seldom expressed concerns about his behavior, nor was he banned from the FAIR message board or MAD or ZLMB at the time.

I recall list bannings.

So long as his anger and aggression were directed at critics, few cared, and those few who cared generally kept their concerns low-key.

You're just recalling what you want.

Until LDS apologists start policing and speaking out against the poor behavior coming out of their own ranks, no one is going to take them seriously when they complain about poor behavior in their opponents. Kevin Graham is a textbook case of someone who's style only draws complaints now because he plays for the other team. Gospel truth, folks.

Untrue. At least I don't call you a liar because I disagree.

Do you think that Mormon apologia is so monolithic that there will be a police agency?

I frequently criticize the behavior of LDS apologists and editors and authors for bad behavior. When I post on MAD board, I'm frequently torched by the likes of Pahoran and others. But there isn't a master police agency.

The difference between this board and the MAD board, in terms of behavior, is that the MAD posters throttle back their criticisms, rarely making intensely personal attacks on one's livelihood or reputation --- because the board is moderated. Not true here.

Kevin has amazed me over the years as to his utter oblivion. He damn well thinks he is right all the time; he rarely is. Witness how he responds to attacks as to his style. He can't help himself; he just lashes out in an attempt to vilify his critic. I don't get it. He can't stay on topic -- he has to attack one's character at every turn

Really, Kevin, if you want to make fun of me or my profession, start another thread. But I condemn you and the horse you rode in on.

[_MsJack]

I recall list bannings.

I recall a solitary list banning, which I already named (and played an integral role in, for that matter). Can you name any others?

You're just recalling what you want.

No, Yahoo Bot, my recollections are sincere. I have journals from eleven or twelve years ago peppered with accounts of how angry and frustrated Kevin would make me, and I remember feeling pretty shocked that his fellow apologists never said a word in public about his behavior.

And no, I don't recall any bannings outside of the FAIR e-list and a possible evangelical board or two. If there are others, I did not know about them. I was also on the moderation team for ZLMB, and I don't recall Kevin being one of our headache cases. He got in trouble a few times, sure, but he wasn't the most frequent offender. Pahoran got far more wrist-slaps than Kevin ever did (and was only saved from banning because Pacumeni wouldn't allow it).

Untrue. At least I don't call you a liar because I disagree.

Never said that you did. Other LDS apologists have falsely accused me of lying quite a few times, especially as of late. Do I need to start naming names and citing examples?

And, oddly enough, I don't hear Dan Peterson complaining about them.

Do you think that Mormon apologia is so monolithic that there will be a police agency?

No, but I think that Mormon apologists---as individuals---can and should speak up against behavior from their own ranks that is not in harmony with the standards of their religion. Few of you do. You're one of the rare exceptions in that regard, and it's one of the reasons I've come to have respect for you in spite of our head-butting when we first met.

Granted, I do believe that it's better to confront a brother or sister in private about poor behavior---that one has a better chance of changing said behavior if the offending person is not publicly embarrassed on the matter. But with some individuals, if there's any private confrontation going on, clearly it isn't helping.

The difference between this board and the MAD board, in terms of behavior, is that the MAD posters throttle back their criticisms, rarely making intensely personal attacks on one's livelihood or reputation --- because the board is moderated. Not true here.

That board is moderated so that only select posters can make attacks on one's livelihood and reputation---so yes, there's less of it, but it still happens. Here, anyone can do it.