Banned to the Bone
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21663
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am
Re: Banned to the Bone
Bob is troll. Jesus, people.
V/R
Dr. C
V/R
Dr. C
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
gramps wrote:Tell the bot - pologist to f*** off. He keeps bringing up the same s*** just to get a rise from you. He is an asshole.
Point made again.
The means do not justify the ends here.
If you all are going to be so damned self righteous about the lack of civility among those hated apologists, that they're all liars, then quit using the most vile of tactics and language to condemn them. I've proven time after time the nasty tactics you've used against them and anonymously as well. You people are, simply, nasty and this place is fetid.
All you can lay at my feet is that I am an "asshole" for not accepting occasional apologies.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Bob is troll. Jesus, people.
V/R
Dr. C
I can assure you that they are not "Jesus people."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: Banned to the Bone
Yahoo Bot wrote:...
The means do not justify the ends here.
...
Ha! A philosophical jeu d'esprit? No, just a mangled cliché, I fear.
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.
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.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Bob is troll.
Yup!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
When I think of the word "Banned" I think of Kevin Graham.
Sorry Crockett, but your "feelings" don't count as evidence. Is this really the best you can offer? LOL! I specifically asked you for examples of these numerous "bannings." All you have done is reassert the same claim in a repacked format, appealing to your personal belief or feelings, as if they carry authoritative weight. Well, they don't. So try again counselor.
One of the most frequently banned posters in any subject, and that probably isn't counting sock puppets
Such as? Oh, you don't know do you. You're just asserting without evidence again.
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?
Again, CFR. The only message forum I have ever been banned from is MAD, which means I have been banned from as many forums as LDS apologists like Nomad, Loyd Ericson or Loran Blood. Of course, I did venture over there a couple times over the past six years knowing perfectly well I'd be banned again, but this is still one example of being banned. And anyone familiar with the original banning knows it wasn't for calling anyone an idiot. In fact, several apologists disagreed with the moderator decision to ban me. I have participated on forums such as theologyweb, ZLMB, Answering Mormonism, and various political and Muslim related forums. I've been banned from none of these.
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.
It is amazing that someone with Crockett's education can fail to grasp a very comprehensible assertion by DCP. Dan's lie is based on his claim that everyone with whom I disagree, is labeled in such a way. Now Bob, could you do everyone a favor, yourself included, by spending the next few minutes trying to wrap your mind around the concept of "everyone"? Dan's claim is demonstrably false, and because he repeats it profusely in teh face of clear refutation, it deserves to be called a lie. The fact is I enjoy friendly relationships with many people, both LDS and non-LDS, despite previous (and possibly future) confrontations. I've had heated debates with people like Tarski and Trevor, both of whom are reputable scholars in their own field. And yet we call each other friends. I've never called them morons or liars because they've never demonstrated moronic behavior and I never had a reason to believe they've lied to me. I've also had very heated debates with people like Schmo, Dr. Shades and John Stuart Mill, etc. From what I can tell, we've been on friendly terms for quite some time now.
Compare this with die-hard, old school apologists like Dan, who almost always categorize certain people to be enemy or ally from the get-go. If considered a friend, you're friendship is dependent on your continued support and loyalty to him and the Church. If an enemy, well, in more than ten years of online observation I've never seen anyone do anything to earn their way back into his good graces. I think this says more about Dan than it does the critic. I'm proof positive that critics and apologists can get along fairly well despite confrontational exchanges. And this pisses off people like you and Dan and Will, because you like to keep things small, wanting to be able to put people in one pocket or the other.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
This thread isn't about me. You're all weepy about my tactics here when, indeed, I'm one of the very few so-called apologists willing to wade in here and point out the intense foolishness of some of the posters here.
No, you're just one of the few apologists willing to make a fool of himself. I'd be hiding behind a pseudonym too if I were you.
No, this thread is about Kevin Graham, the hater of all things Islam
There is no evidence I hate Islam. In fact, I don't think I've said anything on that topic in the past four years. You're getting pretty desperate, huh?
the arch right-wing hater of all things good and civil, one who would trammel the civil rights of the oppressed.
Uh, I haven't been a Right Winger since the 2008 election.
The declarer of lies.
Old habits die hard, but I learned this from my apologetic mentors at FAIR/FARMS.
How's that for hyperbole.
Makes you appear unhinged, that's for sure. But go ahead and have your little meltdown.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
I recall list bannings.
Bob Crockett claims to "recall" multiple bannings from "lists" but he refuses to name them. That's because he recalls no such thing. He's lying. He probably just heard about my banning from the FAIR e-list which took place way back in 2003. But what he won't tell you about that banning, is why I was banned. The reason I was banned had nothing to do with name-calling. In fact, the e-list was comprised of nothing more than other apologists who pretty much agreed with one another. Rarely was there and argument or the opportunity for one.
What happened was we were discussing the past racism in the Church. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of some Evangelicals with a story about how my racist step-father was taught, by his Baptist minister, that black folks came from apes. He was very explicit in his teaching, claiming that the Bible supports this with the story of Cain. He said Cain was banished to the land of Nod but at the same time the Bible says he "multiplied." Since Cain was supposedly alone, they reasoned that he must have multiplied with apes. Hence, the Negro race.
Well, at the time there was a black apologist posting named Rene Olsen. She misunderstood the point of my post and pretty much implied that I was a racist for even mentioning it. I clarified my reasons for posting it and apologized if she was offended. The FAIR conference took place a month later and I was unable to attend. I heard through the grapevine that during the conference chatter sessions, someone asked if I was going to attend the conference, to which Rene responded in a negative way, something along the lines of "oh, he better not show his face around here." At this point I felt the need to defend myself so I decided to express my concern on the e-list, discussing the importance of adhering to Ezra Taft Benson's counsel regarding gossip and how this poisons things in negative ways.
I didn't mention any names in the email, and it brought praise from numerous apologists who had felt the same exact way, including the President Scott Gordon, who called my post "excellent." The only person who expressed a concern with it was Juliann, who simply posted, "Kevin, you're out of line."
That was it. Of course I knew Juliann was one of the women involved, so it was no surprise she responded the way she did. So, after Scott Gordon posted to the list thanking me for my contribution, exactly 47 minutes later he emailed me privately to tell me he was being forced to ban me because he had received phone calls from several women who had complained that I would mention this on the e-list. He apologized for his decision, praised me and reminded me how highly he thought of me as a FAIR contributor, that it was nothing personal, etc etc.
Shortly after I was sent emails from various members who shared with me their attempts to protest this decision. Those include people like Marc Schindler, Ben McGuire and a few others I can't remember.
So that was it. Was I banned from the e-list? Sure.
Was I banned for being an "offensive poster"?
Of course not. This is what Crockett won't tell you because, well, he isn't really interested in truth. He's only interested in what he can spin.
I was banned because I pissed off Juliann, who was one of the cackling hens guilty of the gossip. Suffice it to say, our relationship continued to deteriorate in the ensuing years, and her subsequent antagonism towards me was shaped by her bitterness over this matter.
Re: Banned to the Bone
Yahoo Bot wrote:gramps wrote:Tell the bot - pologist to f*** off. He keeps bringing up the same s*** just to get a rise from you. He is an asshole.
Point made again.
The means do not justify the ends here.
If you all are going to be so damned self righteous about the lack of civility among those hated apologists, that they're all liars, then quit using the most vile of tactics and language to condemn them. I've proven time after time the nasty tactics you've used against them and anonymously as well. You people are, simply, nasty and this place is fetid.
All you can lay at my feet is that I am an "asshole" for not accepting occasional apologies.
You don't seem to recognize that YOUR tactics are just as vile and insidious. You are purposely, by your own admission, pushing people's buttons just to get a reaction.
If you really feel that this place is "fetid", and that the posters here are all "nasty", then why do you bother coming here? After all, if this board really is a vile, anti-Mormon board, then you are blatantly disobeying the Brethren by coming here at all. That's pretty poor judgment for a former bishop to display.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Banned to the Bone
That's pretty poor judgment for a former bishop to display.
Former Bishop?
ROFL!