Happy Valley Photo Essay

[_Darth J]

Simon Belmont:

Sock Puppet already provided the quotes.

I'm sure you would like to save face by trying to make it appear as if you knew all along what the difference is between a nuclear meltdown and a nuclear explosion, but it is the process of how a nuclear meltdown happens that gives meaning to the metaphor Scratch employed.

You consistently make baffling "Nuh-uh!!!" arguments by assertion in the presence of contrary evidence. You did it recently when you suggested that Blixa is an anti-Mormon because she does not find a website that some Mormons like to be appealing. You did it in your endless straw-man jihad where you claimed that I think the Church teaches that Jesus would have needed to be violated by trillions of penises to understand the pains of women who have been raped. You did it in a thread where you said that I was making a straw man argument about Moplogist talking points that both Moplogists and you frequently spout. And so on. To paraphrase what Quasimodo once said of BCSpace, I admire your tenacity in the face of objective reality.

The quotes, and the impression they create for outside observers, have already been explained. How many pages, roughly, of "Nuh-uh!!!" will the board be subjected to from you this time?

Have you ever retracted your statements about my supposed "straw men" in the Moplogist assertions thread? Have you ever retracted your claim that I am quote mining, even after the guy who runs the FAIR wiki told you I am not, and even after you have failed for over a year to back up your claim? Have you ever retracted your suggestion that Blixa is an anti-Mormon on the sole basis that she doesn't like a website that some Mormons do?

Anyone want to place bets on whether Simon Belmont ever will retract any of these idiotic claims?

[_Doctor Scratch]

You're not interested in anything beyond being a low-grade troll, Simon. If you were sincere, you'd complete those two lists.

[_Kishkumen]

What I find amusing is when mopologists try to ditch an individual's Mormon experience by chalking up certain aspects to that individual's "rogue" local LDS leaders.

I don't find it amusing. I find it highly offensive. If there is one thing that I hate, it is the disingenuous downgrading of many LDS people's personal experience in the Church to some isolated quirk, when we all know what we have lived. It is one of the things I truly hate about apologetics. We have people on this forum that do it all the time, and I lose respect for them every time they take this tack.

[_sock puppet]

You did it in your endless straw-man jihad where you claimed that I think the Church teaches that Jesus would have needed to be violated by trillions of penises to understand the pains of women who have been raped.

The quote that just keeps giving it--to Simon and to Jesus.

[_schreech]

I just want you and others to see how pointless the five+ year obsession with DCP has been. When readers actually check your exaggerated comments about what DCP has supposedly done, they see that they are almost always blown way out of proportion (i.e. nuclear-grade meltdown/meltdown of epic proportions, etc.). I mean, you can't even pinpoint exactly why you are so enthralled/angry with the guy. I asked you sincerely, and when it was clear that you just wanted to play games instead of answer, I finally gave up.

That's what you do, just play games until someone gives up.

But, of course, your 2+ year long obsessions with BOTH DCP and Scratch is not pointless...lol! You are not only [personal attack deleted] that has ever posted on the board (actually why me might have you beat) but you are also just [personal attack deleted]....

When [Telestial-caliber comment deleted], you are chasing scratch around and commenting on his posts about the peter(son)...The paragraph above demonstrates, perfectly, that you have some major issues, including:

1) that you are [personal attack deleted] (but I have been saying this for a while now....).

2) That you think ANYONE actually cares about what you have to say. Do you look at your posts here as some kind of audition to be accepted into the MI inner circle or something? Maybe you need them to accept you in order to give your pathetic, confused life some kind of meaning...

3) That you don't actually read anything that you are replying to - once you see "DCP" mentioned, you jump in with both feet and don't care how much of a fool you make of yourself.

4) You have a very sad, fulfilling life - you just need a real hobby.

[_Darth J]

Mopologetics is the practice of denuding that which once made Mormonism a rich religious and social culture, a peculiar people. It is also the act of paring down to the unfalsifiable--something mainstream Christianity had honed for centuries, resulting in the unfalsifiable religious product that the LDS Church now hankers for. It is an intellectually dishonest exercise that when all is said and done, leaves Mormonism as nothing but an allegiance to the COB. The pace at which this has been achieved in the last 27 years is remarkable.

But keep in mind DCP and your mopologetic minions, if there was anything once worth having faith in (believing in the absence of evidence), you are chopping it down like the fanciful story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Only you all are lying to yourselves about what you're accomplishing there at NAMIRS.

Yep.

[_Kishkumen]

I look at Simon's objections like passionate disagreements over American Idol contestants. One person has a subjective opinion, and another disagrees. Give Simon what he asks for and you get a "nuh-uh" in reply. It is a giant waste of time, and everyone, including Simon, knows this. The truth of the matter is that he does not want anyone to express negative opinions about the LDS church or its apologists. As long as they defy him and continue to do so, he will stick around to harass them.

[_Kishkumen]

You're not interested in anything beyond being a low-grade troll, Simon. If you were sincere, you'd complete those two lists.

There is no question in my mind about Simon's troll status. That characterizes his behavior on this board perfectly.

[_sock puppet]

I look at Simon's objections like passionate disagreements over American Idol contestants. One person has a subjective opinion, and another disagrees. Give Simon what he asks for and you get a "nuh-uh" in reply. It is a giant waste of time, and everyone, including Simon, knows this. The truth of the matter is that he does not want anyone to express negative opinions about the LDS church or its apologists. As long as they defy him and continue to do so, he will stick around to harass them.

That's right. Others of us, ex-Mos and critics alike, discussing Mormonism online keeps Simon from practicing his chosen religion in peace. It haunts him at night to think that anyone, anywhere might be saying something negative about his beloved Mormonism. If this goes unchecked, he might end up a serial murderer, attacking ex-Mo patrons in a bar that might be saying something negative about Mormonism overs a couple of pints of ale. Sort of like Batman fighting crime in Gotham.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon Belmont:

Sock Puppet already provided the quotes.

Sock puppet provided some quotes, yes. I wanted the "nuclear-grade meltdown" and "vicious gang attack" quotes, not those mild sarcastic ones.

Can you provide them, or was Scratch simply wrong (again)?

I'm sure you would like to save face by trying to make it appear as if you knew all along what the difference is between a nuclear meltdown and a nuclear explosion, but it is the process of how a nuclear meltdown happens that gives meaning to the metaphor Scratch employed.

A nuclear meltdown can cause a nuclear explosion. The point of the picture was to show Scratch that nuclear catastrophes are no laughing matter -- they are not to be taken lightly.

You consistently make baffling "Nuh-uh!!!" arguments by assertion in the presence of contrary evidence. You did it recently when you suggested that Blixa is an anti-Mormon because she does not find a website that some Mormons like to be appealing. You did it in your endless straw-man jihad where you claimed that I think the Church teaches that Jesus would have needed to be violated by trillions of penises to understand the pains of women who have been raped. You did it in a thread where you said that I was making a straw man argument about Moplogist talking points that both Moplogists and you frequently spout. And so on. To paraphrase what Quasimodo once said of BCSpace, I admire your tenacity in the face of objective reality.

Try to stay on topic.

I just want one example of DCP from the comments section of the Happy Valley Essay that constitutes a "nuclear-grade meltdown" or "vicious gang attack" -- just one, DJ! Can you provide it?

The quotes, and the impression they create for outside observers, have already been explained.

Yes, it has. I didn't need them explained, I just want one example of DCP from the comments section of the Happy Valley Essay that constitutes a "nuclear-grade meltdown" or "vicious gang attack" -- just one, DJ! Can you provide it? Can anyone?

How many pages, roughly, of "Nuh-uh!!!" will the board be subjected to from you this time?

Have you ever retracted your statements about my supposed "straw men" in the Moplogist assertions thread? Have you ever retracted your claim that I am quote mining, even after the guy who runs the FAIR wiki told you I am not, and even after you have failed for over a year to back up your claim? Have you ever retracted your suggestion that Blixa is an anti-Mormon on the sole basis that she doesn't like a website that some Mormons do?

Anyone want to place bets on whether Simon Belmont ever will retract any of these idiotic claims?

I will not retract true claims. Again, try to stay on topic.

But, of course, your 2+ year long...

It's only been a year. Try to stay on topic.

You're not interested in anything beyond being a low-grade troll, Simon. If you were sincere, you'd complete those two lists.

A low-grade troll? Would you say I am a nuclear-grade troll?

I just asked for one simple thing... If you can't answer it, perhaps you should retract your statements.