Boring dead drama is boring and dead

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Chap »

I think this is how Pahoran sees himself in his battle with Dr Scratch (I do like Beatrix Potter!)

Image

But will he really succeed in putting him into a pie, do you think?
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.
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

Pahoran wrote:Your screenname is well chosen.

When have I written about "real missionaries?" To what do you refer?


How.soon you forget your own rot, whether it is real missionaries, real missionary, real latterday saint, real saint...or whatever other your pull from your backside to stroke your own ego.

I'm approaching the status you mentioned by dint of having almost one tenth as many posts here as I do on my home board.

And as I pointed out earlier, in true douchebag hypocrisy, as with William schryver, you rely on statistics in a vain unrighteous attempt to promote your own ego.

When was the last time.you read the Book of Mormon, as you have forgotten or chosen to ignore the little tidbit about those who say "sin alittle for God will beat us with a few stripes" or in modern terms "sin less than undefined percent"

I haven't posted here in months, and I am posting now only because, just in case you were too drunk to notice, this thread is about me. I realise that there is so little to talk about in this echo chamber that you have to obsessively talk about MD&DB participants behind our backs, but that doesn't mean we have no right of reply. Exactly how does that mean that I have "no morals to defend?"

Regards,
Pahoran

You are a hypocrite plain and simple, you have no moral ground to stand on.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I have to admit, Pahoran, that's I'm still not entirely clear on the purpose of your "hints." Would you care to enlighten me? (Or is this the part when *I* am supposed to start dropping "hints"?)
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Pahoran »

Doctor Scratch wrote:I have to admit, Pahoran, that's I'm still not entirely clear on the purpose of your "hints." Would you care to enlighten me? (Or is this the part when *I* am supposed to start dropping "hints"?)

You do whatever you like, Scratchy. I just wanted you to know.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:I have to admit, Pahoran, that's I'm still not entirely clear on the purpose of your "hints." Would you care to enlighten me? (Or is this the part when *I* am supposed to start dropping "hints"?)

You do whatever you like, Scratchy. I just wanted you to know.

Regards,
Pahoran


Well, I was trying to decide whether or not to tell you if you and your pals are correct, but as you've already noted--with noticeable conviction, I might add--it is "known." And since I'm all about creating a space for faith to flourish, I think it's best that I stay silent, so that you can press on, shoulder to the wheel, even in the face of doubt.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Pahoran »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Well, I was trying to decide whether or not to tell you if you and your pals are correct, but as you've already noted--with noticeable conviction, I might add--it is "known." And since I'm all about creating a space for faith to flourish, I think it's best that I stay silent, so that you can press on, shoulder to the wheel, even in the face of doubt.

Good for you, Scratch. You keep right on trying to brazen it out.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Chap »

Pahoran wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:Well, I was trying to decide whether or not to tell you if you and your pals are correct, but as you've already noted--with noticeable conviction, I might add--it is "known." And since I'm all about creating a space for faith to flourish, I think it's best that I stay silent, so that you can press on, shoulder to the wheel, even in the face of doubt.

Good for you, Scratch. You keep right on trying to brazen it out.

Regards,
Pahoran


I really don't see much evidence that Scratch is worried.

On the contrary, he seems to be trying to wind Pahoran up in order to make him do a display of his "I hate you! You shall DIE! Be very scared!!!!!!!" routine. Seems to be working.
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.
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Reading Pahoran's posts leads me to believe that one prerequisite of being a mopologist is having a total lack of self-awareness and introspection.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _MsJack »

Pahoran wrote:I search this thread in vain for examples of me doing that.

You must not have searched very hard. Your exchange here has been full of you accusing me of having motives apart from and/or contrary to the ones I have plainly stated.

Pahoran wrote:Yes, the "sincerity" just oozes.

viewtopic.php?p=634446#p634446

Pahoran wrote:So you keep saying.

viewtopic.php?p=634482#p634482

Pahoran wrote:foolishly and naïvely taking you at your word that that was what you really wanted

viewtopic.php?p=634507#p634507

Pahoran wrote:why not break down and admit that it's really the case that it is acceptable to quote private correspondence whenever it suits the expediency of Ms Jack?

viewtopic.php?p=634577#p634577

Pahoran wrote:Is that the end of your current vendetta, then?

viewtopic.php?p=634577#p634577

Pahoran wrote:Evidently airing your grievance is now more important to you than bringing the dispute to an end.

viewtopic.php?p=634794#p634794

This isn't even counting all of the examples from our 9/12/2012 private correspondence, of which there were quite a few. I could pull several more from further back in your posting history if I thought you were worth the effort, but I have better things to do today.

Pahoran wrote:You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

You seem to misunderstand English syntax. If I say, "Your room is a mess," and you reply, "As is yours," that means you are agreeing that your own room is a mess, but trying to deflect the charge with a tu quoque.

So, a review: I said, "your abusive behavior will stay between the two of us," to which you replied, "As will yours." That you were abusive towards me is correct, but your tu quoque is false.

Pahoran wrote:Have a look back over this thread. Re-read your PM's to me. Then tell me: should I take your writings as an example of soft answers that turn away wrath?

Because of our tumultuous history, I was very careful to make sure that my initial PM (and the two edits that I made to it) were polite and clinical. If I recall correctly, my ticket to the moderators at MDDB in May was polite and clinical as well. So yes, my initial PM to you and at least the one that followed it absolutely represent examples of soft answers meant not to incite.

That wasn't the case for either this thread or my blog post. While inciting was not my goal, peacemaking was not it, either. With my blog post, I wanted to note that the outcry over Scratch's posting of Dan's correspondence represented a bit of hypocrisy where Dan's friends are concerned. With this thread, I wanted to set the record straight on what I really said to you in private over the summer of 2010 (and what you said to me to provoke it).

You are of course free to keep responding, but as far as the main issue of your posting of my private correspondence goes, I don't feel that we have anything further to discuss.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Pahoran's Abuse of Private Correspondence

Post by _MsJack »

Pahoran wrote:So, having issued a 24-hour ultimatum in a forum you knew (or at least had good reason to suspect) I had not visited for months, you took no chances, but got in early. Understood.

Yes. I created this post on Saturday, August 4, at 12:49 AM. I remember that date well because I went to bed shortly thereafter and when I woke up, I was feeling nauseous, dizzy, and had a creeping pain in my neck. I threw up for the first time in probably 2 years. I was pretty miserable throughout the day and by evening, I didn't feel like staying up an extra hour for the official deadline, so I posted early and went straight to bed.

By Tuesday of the following week, the nausea had faded but the pain in my neck had escalated to a 4, so I went to the emergency room. They prescribed a muscle relaxant (which proved useless) and sent me home. By Thursday the pain in my neck was at an 8 and I was literally sobbing in bed all day, unable to find a position that would make the pain stop, so I went to the emergency room again and they put me on narcotic painkillers.

Or in other words, when I said "I'm feeling under the weather today," I really meant it. I know you're accustomed to seeing insincerity behind everything I say, but it was the truth and I have the medical records to prove it. I'm sorry I cut your deadline by an hour because of the onset of a crippling medical malady, but I figured if you hadn't seen it in 23 hours, you weren't going to be seeing it in 24 hours.

And I was right.

Pahoran wrote:You have?

What were those "numerous good-faith efforts", and why, previous to last week, did I hear nothing but that you wanted the one-sentence quote removed from my sig?

The following efforts were made to resolve this quietly:

  • I sent an extremely polite PM to you at MDB on 5/17, asking you to please remove my correspondence from your signature.
  • I messaged the moderators at MDDB and nicely asked them to remove it from your signature. I noted that it was a violation of their own rules for you to have it there. They responded by promptly banning my account, not removing it from your signature, and (apparently) not notifying you that I had asked.
  • Our mutual friend Calmoriah contacted you and asked you to remove it from your signature, which you did (she did this without me asking her to). Your update to your signature indicated that you knew privacy was at issue ("People who gain delight and satisfaction by quote mining from online discussions to make others look bad really ought to ensure that their own contributions, whether public or private, are not going to embarrass them if brought to the attention of others"). So I was surprised and disappointed when you went on to discuss the exact same material under you "Pahoran" account a few days later.
  • I asked a mutual friend one more time if s/he would get in touch with you and ask you to stop sharing my private correspondence. This person was worried that s/he would get in trouble for doing this, so s/he checked with Nemesis first. Nemesis forbade him/her from contacting you on my behalf under threat of banning---yes, that's right, Nemesis was going to read the PMs of anyone who contacted you on my behalf and ban them. He also used the occasion to IP-block my account to try and stop me from even viewing the forum.
  • I started a thread at MDB making a public plea for someone to get in touch with you on my behalf. Apparently, no one did.

I don't know what else you think I should have done to get in touch with you. I feel like I exhausted all of my options.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
Post Reply