Banned to the Bone

[_gramps]

Boring day at church today, huh, Droopy? Or the sacrament didn't quite have the effect it is supposed to have on you for some reason?

Maybe you should think about going to the afternoon block, as well. Get a double dose, as it were.

[_Droopy]

But compared to Droopy ...

It won't wash, Chap, it just won't wash. Its a grand effort, however, but unfortunately there is no irony at all in what I say about Graham that I can see. Its the difference between a posting history of 10%-15% personal jousting to one of probably 90% venting of self justificational spleen against a world of self generated enemies. If Graham is Godzilla, then I'm Bambi by comparison.

You're view is just the overall in-group bias of this board showing through. Any apologist who, on occasion, gives as good as he get's here, and doesn't take the abuse, slander, and debasement of the Church, its leaders, teachings that are sacred to many, and themselves, get's tagged as a Big Blue Meanie, even if, like Will, the counter-punches are very few and far between.

Someone like Kevin, however, can embark on an Internet career of witch hunting, demagoguery, and crusades of personal venom aimed at specific personalities, sometimes going on for years on end, and their conduct will be whitewashed and sanitized in the name of the good work they otherwise do trashing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

Well, as I said, nice try, but that's as far as it can go.

[_Chap]

But compared to Droopy ...

... Its a grand effort ... nice try ...

I knew that if I kept on including Droopy in my loving-kindness meditation sessions something would eventually get through. See how nice he can be? I know he just wants to help Kevin the best way he can.

[_Droopy]

It is interesting, as well, to see how many sycophants Ronald McGraham actually has here. First Jack, herself still fresh from the collapse of her personal credibility during the Will Schryver witch hunt she fomented earlier this year, shows up to defend the most extreme, demagogic, and alienating personality on this board (or most others of a similar kind). Why? Precisely because of that. Graham's bizarre views, both regarding the Church and other issues of concern, as well as the inner rage that festers within him directed at specific posters and LDS scholars with whom he disagrees, are the default mental set of most anti-Mormon posters here. Its all a part of the committed apostate mentality (as well represented historically by figures such as Ezra Booth, Philastus Hurlbut, Ed Decker, and so many others).

Next E. shows up to pour further sugar on the churning cauldron of vituperation that is Kevin Graham. The sugar is absorbed, but the cauldron continues to churn.

Then Chap, and gramps...all among the usual suspects.

Kevin is just their favorite court jester. Whether he makes a fool of himself doesn't matter, and his continual creation of ill will and bad blood is just what the doctor ordered, as far as his faithful defenders are concerned.

Some of them, of course, approach things the same way themselves, but, save perhaps for Scratch, without Graham's single minded preoccupation.

[_Yoda]

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.

Not just "any" reaction, but a reaction calculated to reveal the utter hypocrisy evident here.

I think you and your friends need to be more thin-skinned. You offer enormous rebuke of faithful Latter-day Saints and of the greater church. Learn to endure the criticism. Don't be so cowardly.

I'm assuming you meant "thick skinned".

CFR on where I have "offered enormous rebuke of faithful Latter-Day Saints and of the greater Church".

[_Chap]

It is interesting, as well, to see how many sycophants Ronald McGraham actually has here.

And if everyone had agreed with you, you would have said ... ?

[_MsJack]

First Jack, herself still fresh from the collapse of her personal credibility during the Will Schryver witch hunt she fomented earlier this year

With whom has my personal credibility collapsed? Can you please name some names?

shows up to defend the most extreme, demagogic, and alienating personality on this board (or most others of a similar kind). Why?

My only "defense" of Kevin consisted of pointing out that he has not been banned from a significant number of message boards or e-lists, and that when he was an LDS apologist, he was just as rude (if not worse) and yet he was always tolerated by his peers. If Kevin were still an apologist today, I have little doubt that you'd be among the most voracious defenders of his tone and style.

And unlike you, I cited actual facts and events to back up my points.

I'm glad that you're back though, Droopy. I'll have some questions just for you in a new thread later tonight.

[_Chap]

I'm glad that you're back though, Droopy. I'll have some questions just for you in a new thread later tonight.

[_MsJack]

You forgot the caption, Chap:

"After ordination to the priesthood, a Mormon woman makes short work of a Mormon man."

"In order to attempt to get the male somewhere near even, the Heavenly Father gave him the Priesthood or directing authority for the Church and home. Without this bequeath the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence in fact would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider.

Therefore the Lord has made plain by revelations both ancient and modern that the male rules over the female but always with love and great respect …" —HARTMAN RECTOR, JR., Mission President, California San Diego Mission, August 29, 1978 (As cited in Women & Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, p. 118-19)

[_Yahoo Bot]

My only "defense" of Kevin consisted of pointing out that he has not been banned from a significant number of message boards or e-lists, and that when he was an LDS apologist, he was just as rude (if not worse) and yet he was always tolerated by his peers. If Kevin were still an apologist today, I have little doubt that you'd be among the most voracious defenders of his tone and style.

I don't believe in hypotheticals.

Kevin was an embarrassment to apologetics in the mid or late 90s; when I saw him banned on a list in which I participated. His fellow apologists just didn't like him. You're wrong.