Boring dead drama is boring and dead

[_MsJack]

Correction: I have since learned, from a reliable source, that the above is not correct. MsJack was banned for reasons unrelated to what she wrote in her PM.

The moderators put my account on "banned" within an hour of putting in a ticket with them to ask them to please remove my private correspondence from your signature. I had not posted or tried to post at the forum in over 6 months.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

MsJack,

I'm guessing the chances of you joining the Church just went from slim to none, due to the "dialogue" with this Melchizedek priesthood holder?

Great job representing how priesthood holders should interact with others, Pahoran.

I'm sure Jesus is giving you the thumbs up over this.

[_Bob Loblaw]

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.

People like Nemesis and Pahoran make my job much easier. If I didn't know better I'd say they were trying to make the church look bad and succeeding admirably. I'm sure as hell not going to stop them.

MsJack, may I just say that in my experience, you have been nothing but patient and fair. That they've treated you so disgracefully speaks volumes about the character of these alleged Christians.

[_MsJack]

I'm guessing the chances of you joining the Church just went from slim to none, due to the "dialogue" with this Melchizedek priesthood holder?

Not really. Chances of me joining the LDS church are "none" for reasons that have nothing to do with Pahoran. It's not like Joseph Smith really had the First Vision if Pahoran behaves, and suddenly didn't have it if he doesn't.

Many members of the LDS church have treated me kindly over the years. Some haven't. I try to give more credit to the former group than the latter group. Besides, it's not like my religion is without its misbehaving members, and yes, sometimes this has been me.

Hope your ward is doing well, Everybody Wang Chung.

[Guest]

Not really. Chances of me joining the LDS church are "none" for reasons that have nothing to do with Pahoran. It's not like Joseph Smith really had the First Vision if Pahoran behaves, and suddenly didn't have it if he doesn't.

Many members of the LDS church have treated me kindly over the years. Some haven't. I try to give more credit to the former group than the latter group. Besides, it's not like my religion is without its misbehaving members, and yes, sometimes this has been me.

That's how I see it. I choose to believe that the Pahorans are the tiny minority, and most Mormons are the kind of people I love and respect--because they are good people. But that has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the church. Fraud is fraud, no matter how nice the people who believe in it are.

I just enjoy watching these "defenders of the faith" showing their true colors. They are poisoning the LDS church from within, and I think they know it. But they don't give a damn.

Hope your ward is doing well, Everybody Wang Chung.

The church needs more bishops like him.

[_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.

You clearly have me mistaken for someone else. Your bosom buddy "Shulem" perhaps.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Bob Loblaw]

You clearly have me mistaken for someone else. Your bosom buddy "Shulem" perhaps.

Regards,
Pahoran

True. Shulem is far kinder and less prone to ad hominem than you are. I wonder sometimes how you manage to look yourself in the mirror.

[_Pahoran]

Is that the end of your current vendetta, then?

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 77#p634577

Evidently it wasn't.

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

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 94#p634794

And was I wrong?

This isn't even counting all of the examples from our 9/12/2012 private correspondence, of which there were quite a few.

You wouldn't be, um, "dropping hints" about the contents of that correspondence, would you?

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.

Still cheerfully oblivious to your own faults, I see.

Rather than get into a ridiculous "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" merry-go-round that would never end, I chose to remind you that your contributions were not as squeaky clean as you seem to imagine. That you chose to pounce on it and milk it as an admission shows just exactly how much of a good faith effort you are making here.

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.

Thank you for admitting that. So in fact you haven't practice what you tried to preach to me, have you?

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.

Of course not. In reality, you haven't been interested in discussing anything with me. You just wanted to say your piece; actually listening to what was said to you was never part of the program, was it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Bob Loblaw]

Of course not. In reality, you haven't been interested in discussing anything with me. You just wanted to say your piece; actually listening to what was said to you was never part of the program, was it?

Regards,
Pahoran

And you haven't been interested in discussing anything (there's that tu quoque again). Most people understand that posting private correspondence publicly is bad form. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that, by doing so, you engaged in bad behavior. No, it's all MsJack's fault, driven by her "vendetta." Who the hell do you think you are fooling? If you honestly believe what you've been writing, you make Wade Englund look positively brimming with self-awareness by contrast.

Sure, stupid people like why me will lap your crap up, but everyone else comes away from these exchanges wondering how low you will stoop next time.

[_Pahoran]

MsJack,

I'm guessing the chances of you joining the Church just went from slim to none, due to the "dialogue" with this Melchizedek priesthood holder?

Great job representing how priesthood holders should interact with others, Pahoran.

I'm sure Jesus is giving you the thumbs up over this.

Did someone just try to tell me you're a bishop??!!

Now there's a Tui Billboard moment!

Regards,
Pahoran