Pahoran: Make your case for libel against DCP or shut up

[_Kishkumen]

Would your respectable academic colleagues approve?

So, you are threatening me now.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Your "claim" consists of extravagant and baseless assertions about my thoughts and feelings, something you are entirely unqualified to judge.

It is called a reasonable inference, and it is based on the plentiful evidence we have, including this thread, that you do enjoy lashing out at others.

Which one of us is prepared to defy majority opinion, Kish?

You are the coward; no contest. Hiding under the protection afforded you by your self-professed desire to defend Mormonism, you mercilessly judge and attack anyone who criticizes the LDS Church in any way, justly or not, because you enjoy attacking people. Oh, it takes a "big man" to use his Church to bully other people in its name, no doubt. And you are that tough guy who attacks, threatens, bullies, and then holds up his faith as his excuse to do it all.

It's really quite repulsive, but that's what you do.

Snip something you love to kiss.

I didn't post the invitation to your disciplinary council, but I hope to someday.

Do me a favor and scan it for posterity's sake, would you?

I admit that at times I could do better.

Which is not to say that you have any intention of doing anything differently, because you don't.

No wonder you're so delighted with it.

I never said I was delighted by it. I am repulsed by it, just as I am repulsed by most of your online behavior. The problem is that it is so close to your other shenanigans that it is not unbelievable.

I am not impressed by the evidence I have seen for it. And, with all that you have done, the question of whether you did that specific thing is of little concern. Your behavior on this very thread condemns you.

I don't have to. The accuser bears the burden of proof.

So, you have accused them of lying. Prove it.

So you admit that what you can "imagine" is based entirely upon your personal animosity and not upon any actual examples. Thank you for that admission.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "admit." "Admit" does not mean that you get to attribute anything you want to the other person, regardless of what the other person wrote, and then expect that to come off like some kind of witty rejoinder.

It's actually painful to observe you engage in the same tired, silly tropes.

No, you see, when you threaten, bully, and lash out at people, as you do, and have done even in this thread, then it is not difficult to imagine you insinuating something about another man's wife. It is entirely plausible that someone like you could do that.

[_Pahoran]

Would your respectable academic colleagues approve?

So, you are threatening me now.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

And you talk about my reading comprehension!

You have attempted to argue that my Church connections would disapprove of my posts. Since you don't value your Church connections, I'm simply responding in like manner. I didn't interpret your vacuous blatherings about a "disciplinary council" as a threat because I'm not experiencing a Proverbs 28:1 moment, but they were exactly parallel with what I wrote.

Your "claim" consists of extravagant and baseless assertions about my thoughts and feelings, something you are entirely unqualified to judge.

It is called a reasonable inference, and it is based on the plentiful evidence we have, including this thread, that you do enjoy lashing out at others.

Every now and then I have seen you post something reasonable; not often, and not on this thread.

Which one of us is prepared to defy majority opinion, Kish?

You are the coward; no contest. Hiding under the protection afforded you by your self-professed desire to defend Mormonism,

How? You are making that up completely out of thin air, aren't you?

you mercilessly judge and attack anyone who criticizes the LDS Church in any way, justly or not, because you enjoy attacking people. Oh, it takes a "big man" to use his Church to bully other people in its name, no doubt.

CFR that I have ever invoked the name of the Church to justify criticising people here.

Permit me to anticipate your response. You will cite NO EVIDENCE, because there is none. Instead, you will try to weasel out with a vague hand-wave at everything I post.

Well, if I invoke the Church in all of my posts, it follows that I must have invoked it in at least one of them. Name one. Point out the passage.

Or stand convicted as the shameless liar you are.

And I am not "bullying" anyone in any sense. There is still only one of me, taking on a group of people none of whom respect the Church, the name of which I have not invoked anyway.

And you are that tough guy who attacks, threatens, bullies, and then holds up his faith as his excuse to do it all.

It's really quite repulsive, but that's what you do.

The most "repulsive" thing about it is that you fabricated it entire.

Snip something you love to kiss.

I didn't post the invitation to your disciplinary council, but I hope to someday.

Should I construe that as a "threat?" Dream on!

No wonder you're so delighted with it.

I never said I was delighted by it. I am repulsed by it, just as I am repulsed by most of your online behavior. The problem is that it is so close to your other shenanigans that it is not unbelievable.

I am not impressed by the evidence I have seen for it. And, with all that you have done, the question of whether you did that specific thing is of little concern. Your behavior on this very thread condemns you.

So it doesn't matter to you whether the accusation is just; you can justify writing me of as a disgusting person, therefore I'm fair game for false accusations.

I don't have to. The accuser bears the burden of proof.

So, you have accused them of lying. Prove it.

They get to go first.

So you admit that what you can "imagine" is based entirely upon your personal animosity and not upon any actual examples. Thank you for that admission.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "admit." "Admit" does not mean that you get to attribute anything you want to the other person, regardless of what the other person wrote, and then expect that to come off like some kind of witty rejoinder.

Shall we review what you wrote?

No, you see, when you threaten, bully, and lash out at people, as you do, and have done even in this thread, then it is not difficult to imagine you insinuating something about another man's wife. It is entirely plausible that someone like you could do that.

And yet, in all your interactions with me, you've never seen me do it.

And neither has the worthless Scratch.

And neither has the hateful Graham.

If they did, they wouldn't have to rely upon the untestable second-hand accusations of someone who is so conveniently untraceable.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Welp. We know for a fact that Pahoran has been fed information about Darth J by a Church insider. We also know he's scared. My take is if he were to reveal the informant, IAW his own standard of demanding others (Dr. Scratch) reveal their informants, there would be repercussions.

Cult?

Quite possibly, yes.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Pahoran]

Welp. We know for a fact that Pahoran has been fed information about Darth J by a Church insider.

You misspelt "like to daydream."

We also know he's scared.

You misspelt "wish."

My take is if he were to reveal the informant, IAW his own standard of demanding others (Dr. Scratch) reveal their informants, there would be repercussions.

Hey, this is getting good.

Keep going; I'm enjoying the entertainment.

Cult?

Quite possibly, yes.

What? Is that as good as it gets?

How disappointing.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

And you talk about my reading comprehension!

Yes! I do! For obvious reasons! I am sorry they don't penetrate your thick skull.

You have attempted to argue that my Church connections would disapprove of my posts. Since you don't value your Church connections, I'm simply responding in like manner. I didn't interpret your vacuous blatherings about a "disciplinary council" as a threat because I'm not experiencing a Proverbs 28:1 moment, but they were exactly parallel with what I wrote.

No, they are not exactly parallel. I did not frame mine as a question. By framing yours as a question, you are implying that you might help them find these things out. I merely said that I wished you would be disciplined, and it is clear that people in the LDS Church are already well aware of what you are doing, unless you are asking me to believe that no LDS leader has ever read your published work.

Furthermore, you assert that I do not value my Church connections, but that is false. I do. I attend my meetings weekly, and I value my membership in the LDS Church.

Every now and then I have seen you post something reasonable; not often, and not on this thread.

LOL.

How? You are making that up completely out of thin air, aren't you?

You don't lash out at people who criticize the LDS Church or its apologists? You don't do this to defend the LDS Church?

As for your enjoyment of the exercise, that is self-evident.

CFR that I have ever invoked the name of the Church to justify criticising people here.

You're joking, right? What do you invoke when you defend the LDS Church as a member of that Church who is endowed and holds the priesthood, your patriotism as a Kiwi?

Permit me to anticipate your response. You will cite NO EVIDENCE, because there is none. Instead, you will try to weasel out with a vague hand-wave at everything I post.

Well, if I invoke the Church in all of my posts, it follows that I must have invoked it in at least one of them. Name one. Point out the passage.

OK, so you claim that your posting is not done on the basis of your membership in the LDS Church, your temple covenants, and your duty as a priesthood holder, as well as the admonition to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause."

We can just throw out all of the usual motivations that inform a person's decision to pursue apologetics as you do, because you have some special reason that is unique to you and has nothing to do with the above factors.

Or stand convicted as the shameless liar you are.

Because in the Bizarro World of Pahoran, any reasonable inference that cannot be supported by a specific quote like, "I Pahoran, acting as a holder of the priesthood of Melchizedek and a defender of the Kingdom of God, do, in accordance with my solemn temple covenants, hereby withstand your criticisms of the LDS Church and call you a liar" is, well, a lie.

And I am not "bullying" anyone in any sense. There is still only one of me, taking on a group of people none of whom respect the Church, the name of which I have not invoked anyway.

Except when you, as an agent of the LDS Church who holds its priesthood and has taken out your endowments, bully people. Which you do all the time.

The most "repulsive" thing about it is that you fabricated it entire.

Wow. That's some trick. You are accusing me of having come up with this story about you having called some guy's wife a whore?

Interesting. Are you smoking wacky tabaccy? Mentally ill? Lying? Delusional?

Should I construe that as a "threat?" Dream on!

Well, it wasn't framed as a threat.

Here's another similar statement. Take it as a threat if you like:

I dream of the day when Pahoran gets a proper haircut.

So it doesn't matter to you whether the accusation is just; you can justify writing me of as a disgusting person, therefore I'm fair game for false accusations.

I don't know that the accusation is false. This isn't a court of law, Pahoran. You either did it, or you didn't. Based on what I have seen, I am not persuaded that you did. Still, I don't find it implausible that a person who behaves as you do could do such a thing.

Now, in your dreamworld we all have to play by your special rules in which only explicit quotations from you are admitted into evidence that you did something. Not even reasonable inferences are allowed in Pahoran World. Well, I am sure it is nice to feel like your own set of rules are self-evident to everyone and show that you always win. It is a fun fantasy, I'm sure, but it's not how the bulk of people generally view things.

They get to go first.

They did go first. They presented what they recalled. You called them liars. So...

And yet, in all your interactions with me, you've never seen me do it.

And neither has the worthless Scratch.

And neither has the hateful Graham.

If they did, they wouldn't have to rely upon the untestable second-hand accusations of someone who is so conveniently untraceable.

Well, memory is often the only evidence of something we have of an event. We weren't present when Joseph Smith had the First Vision, yet we trust that it happened. So, "Thunderchops" claimed that you insinuated that his wife was a whore. OK. I am not placing great weight on that claim, but I can't say it didn't happen. I guess you could ask me to trust you. But, I don't, and I won't, and you have given me absolutely no reason to trust you in all the time we have known each other. Rather, I am inclined to think that you are capable of such things based on what I have seen of your behavior.

Sorry.

[_Darth J]

Welp. We know for a fact that Pahoran has been fed information about Darth J by a Church insider. We also know he's scared. My take is if he were to reveal the informant, IAW his own standard of demanding others (Dr. Scratch) reveal their informants, there would be repercussions.

Cult?

Quite possibly, yes.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Well, we know he has been fed information about me by someone who knows who I am in real life. We know that because he could not have figured it out on his own.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Thank you for asking. The answer is -- because I don't care.

You do care, I don't think for a second you wouldn't post a wall of text to show up a critic, you live for that kind of game. No, I think the more honest answer is simply because you can't and apathy is a convenient excuse.