What the MADmods Don't Know

[_Blixa]

Dr. Shades name is Dr. Shades?

I'm all for creating a climate in which people could post non-anonymously. But frankly, your posts have convinced me its in my best interest not to do so.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr. Shades name is Dr. Shades?

Nope. I'm not a doctor, and "Shades" is not my last name. I used my real name to make a Sunstone presentation, but I came to regret it when it earned me a cyber-stalker named "Mr. Itchy."

I'm all for creating a climate in which people could post non-anonymously. But frankly, your posts have convinced me its in my best interest not to do so.

Ray, what do you think of that last comment?

[_Ray A]

Dr. Shades name is Dr. Shades?

I'm all for creating a climate in which people could post non-anonymously. But frankly, your posts have convinced me its in my best interest not to do so.

And your post has convinced me that you will make up any excuse to spue your BILE anonymously. Who the hell is "Blixa"? Blixa!! You fit in very well with the rest of the anonymous attackers - gutless, and spineless.

[_Dr. Shades]

Ray, what do you think of the early versions of (I believe) the D&C wherein code-names were used for key players, such as "Gazelam" for Joseph Smith, etc.?

[_Ray A]

Ray, what do you think of that last comment?

Like I do of all the comments from the spineless mobbers on this board. Let me have their full names, backgrounds, academic achievements, etc.

What they are getting, "Shades" is a piece of their own sick medicine, and being exposed for the spineless hypocrites they are. That is why I said I now have a higher opinion of Steve Benson than I do of "beastie". Who the f*cking hell is "beastie"?

[_Jersey Girl]

Your continued cowardice with anonymous posts is astounding. How do you live with yourself? What would friends, business associates and church members think of you if they knew you traduced the reputations of persons hiding behind the cowardly wall of anonymity?

rcrocket

One thing I will give Dr. Shades is that he's not that anonymous. But as for the rest of these heaps of donkey dung backstabbers and mobbing traitors, I wish they would at least have the human decency to tell us who they are. They have no idea what backstabbers they are. They probably know, in their hearts, how despicable they are, and that's why they post anonymously.

What would you like to know?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

I'd like you to make a list of things you'd like to know about people who post on this board and state why you think it's relevant.

Jersey Girl

[_Blixa]

Are you fishing for my phone number, Ray?

[_dartagnan]

The simple fact of the matter is that anonymity for the cause of "safety" is no excuse to commit an immoral act -- to traduce the reputations of living persons

I couldn’t agree more. Yet, show me my “immoral” act.

You seem to think guilt is the only motive for using a pseudonym. This is absurd. If your mind is too small to absorb the basic common sense of online anonymity, then I doubt this much else I can do for you. The concept is well accepted and encouraged by anyone who knows about internet identity safety.

You seem hell bent on calling all critics, for whom you are unable to tattle on, “cowards,” no matter what. Your absurd analogies with rapists only work if you can prove the motivations behind using a pseudonym are malicious, but you cannot even prove any “immoral” act to begin with. You merely assume it because the Mormon mind is conditioned to see nothing but immorality in critics of the Church.

You don’t “buy” the internet safety response. Fine. I doubt any of us are impressed with your lame attempt to distance yourself from numerous Church defenders who likewise have the common sense to us a pseudonym. If you weren’t a hypocrite you’d be calling them out as cowards over at MAD, but consistency was never one of your strong points.

I think your real frustration lies in the fact that you weren’t smart enough from the start to hide your ID, and you are taking it out on those of us who were. But that is usually the case with the more arrogant and conceited posters. You give your ID only when you feel it is time for you to brag about what articles you’ve published.

those who also claim in their posts to be active temple recommend holders but whom also condemn living persons and the church are guilty of rank hypocrisy as well.

"Condemned" them to what.... fallability?

This is one of those areas where current apologetics cannot maintain the line they sell to critics. When critics cite leaders who seem to indicate disagreeing with leaders anf even "thinking" is a sin, they pull out the Conference citations which seem to indicate the opposite. Yet, in practice, you act and believe exactly as the critics claim. You don't really belive it is OK to disagree with Church leadership. That is just somwthing you say whenever critics use conference citations to make Mormonism seem like a brainwashing factory.

Talk about cowardice. Show one face to an audience of fence-straddling members or investigators, and show a different face when you sense some Mormon has the audacity to believe the apologetic to begin with; namely that it is OK to disagree with Church leadership.

Obviously, in practice it isn't OK.

[_rcrocket]

The simple fact of the matter is that anonymity for the cause of "safety" is no excuse to commit an immoral act -- to traduce the reputations of living persons

I couldn’t agree more. Yet, show me my “immoral” act.

You seem to think guilt is the only motive for using a pseudonym. This is absurd. If your mind is too small to absorb the basic common sense of online anonymity, then I doubt this much else I can do for you. The concept is well accepted and encouraged by anyone who knows about internet identity safety.

You seem hell bent on calling all critics, for whom you are unable to tattle on, “cowards,” no matter what. Your absurd analogies with rapists only work if you can prove the motivations behind using a pseudonym are malicious, but you cannot even prove any “immoral” act to begin with. You merely assume it because the Mormon mind is conditioned to see nothing but immorality in critics of the Church.

You don’t “buy” the internet safety response. Fine. I doubt any of us are impressed with your lame attempt to distance yourself from numerous Church defenders who likewise have the common sense to us a pseudonym. If you weren’t a hypocrite you’d be calling them out as cowards over at MAD, but consistency was never one of your strong points.

I think your real frustration lies in the fact that you weren’t smart enough from the start to hide your ID, and you are taking it out on those of us who were. But that is usually the case with the more arrogant and conceited posters. You give your ID only when you feel it is time for you to brag about what articles you’ve published.

those who also claim in their posts to be active temple recommend holders but whom also condemn living persons and the church are guilty of rank hypocrisy as well.

"Condemned" them to what.... fallability?

This is one of those areas where current apologetics cannot maintain the line they sell to critics. When critics cite leaders who seem to indicate disagreeing with leaders anf even "thinking" is a sin, they pull out the Conference citations which seem to indicate the opposite. Yet, in practice, you act and believe exactly as the critics claim. You don't really belive it is OK to disagree with Church leadership. That is just somwthing you say whenever critics use conference citations to make Mormonism seem like a brainwashing factory.

Talk about cowardice. Show one face to an audience of fence-straddling members or investigators, and show a different face when you sense some Mormon has the audacity to believe the apologetic to begin with; namely that it is OK to disagree with Church leadership.

Obviously, in practice it isn't OK.

I've published in my own name on the internet since around 1994. I may use pseudonyms but I also, at the same time, give my name out. I do so because I think it cowardice to do otherwise, not because I am stupid to not have thought of anonymity or because I want to brag about my publications.

You are a despicable person; a coward who chooses not to put his reputation on the line to say the evil things that he says. And, your post simply changes the subject to talk about people whom I have no interest in defending -- apologists. The whole lot of them should take a hike if they hide behind anonymity.

As to your subject change, I have said nothing about disagreeing with Church leaders or the sin in doing so. Do it. Be vocal. Bray it to the rooftops, but if you do so anonymously, you are a despicable coward. If you claim in your private life to be an active member of the Church, you are also a hypocrite. Read your New Testament; the Lord decried the sin of hypocrisy more than any thing else -- murder, adultery, steading, anything. I don't care if you are a JW, an SDA or a Catholic; my reaction would be the same. This isn't a board about photography. You use your cowardly platform as a basis to traduce the reputation of living persons.

[I might add that because of my non-anonymity, denizens of the predecessor of this board threatened to turn me into my partnership or my stake president for the things I have said. But I fear not them nor you.]



rcrocket