Who deserves to be banned from MAD?

[_Runtu]

Where is your integrity, Sir?

I have none, except my good name. It is a war my friend.

Hmmm. Does that mean that you believe that anything goes in defending the truth? I would imagine that the moment I have to sacrifice truth to defend it, I've lost.

[_why me]

As a loyal defender of the faith, I hereby vote for none. All those listed are loyal to the cause of defending the LDS church from blackards and perverts. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the just cause of defending the truth against all harmsayers and bearers of false witness.

WE WILL DEFEND is our motto.

This demonstrates one of the fundemental differences in thinking between you and me. Your statement above, if it wasn't meant as a joke, demonstrates a clear "end justifies the means" thinking, which I cannot accept. You may have common cause with Pahoran, but you should abhor his methods and actions on the board. You clearly are OK with someone acting like an effing prick to others just because he claims to believe in the same religion you do.

I have followed Pahoran's post for quite some time. And I owe him a great deal during my early days at FAIR when I was trying to make sense of it all. He defended the church well and I am grateful to him.

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill. And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

[_why me]

Where is your integrity, Sir?

I have none, except my good name. It is a war my friend.

Hmmm. Does that mean that you believe that anything goes in defending the truth? I would imagine that the moment I have to sacrifice truth to defend it, I've lost.

It means to defend truth with truth as I perceive truth to be. I see myself as a polite sort of guy over at MAD. I take a humanist approach in my discussions. And very few critics have gotten the best of me because of it. I have my philosophy behind me. It contains a little of Karl Marx and a little of humanism in defending the LDS faith.

[_Yoda]

I have followed Pahoran's post for quite some time. And I owe him a great deal during my early days at FAIR when I was trying to make sense of it all. He defended the church well and I am grateful to him.

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill. And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

I agree that Pahoran has great debate skills. His ideas are always well-founded, and his documentation is always spot-on. What I don't understand is his need to snipe even when he has the upper-hand in a debate. Why can't he let his argument stand on its' own merit? BC does it, and quite successfully.

[_Runtu]

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill. And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

I have known Pahoran for 11-12 years now, and I haven't seen any change in his posting style. So I'm not convinced that he's battle weary.

And it frankly worries me that you see no need for integrity in defending the church.

[_Fortigurn]

As a loyal defender of the faith, I hereby vote for none. All those listed are loyal to the cause of defending the LDS church from blackards and perverts. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the just cause of defending the truth against all harmsayers and bearers of false witness.

Why does 'defending' involve constant abuse, slander, personal attacks, and a general standard of behaviour which is utterly unChristlike?

WE WILL DEFEND is our motto.

Shouldn't your motto be 'We will turn the other cheek'?

[_Fortigurn]

I have followed Pahoran's post for quite some time. And I owe him a great deal during my early days at FAIR when I was trying to make sense of it all. He defended the church well and I am grateful to him.

How can you praise him for 'defending the church' when he's so abusive he brings Mormons into disrepute?

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

I don't agree. I think he's just naturally nasty. But if he is suffering from 'battle fatigue', he should be pulled out of the battle for some serious R&R.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill.

No he can't. He hardly takes the time to reads people's posts. He commits numerous logical fallacies, his posts consist largely of abuse, he footshoots his fellow Mormons sometimes because he doesn't read their posts properly either and ends up arguing against their position, and he is generally a public relations nightmare.

Another Mormon from that forum (Sargon), not only apologized to me for Pahoran's offensive behaviour, but urged me not to take MAD as representative of the LDS community, because he knows that forum is so grossly unChristlike in its behaviour:

I disagree with the way that many of the LDS present their arguments, and agree that many of them should be banned. I encourage you to not make the mistake of considering that a fair introduction to LDS culture. That site is home to what many LDS would consider a small minority, as far as culture is concerned.

As for Pahoran, I think he is terribly rude and not at all representative of the attitudes our church strives to stand for.

Emphasis mine.

And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

In other words, you approve of his methods.

[_Mercury]

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill. And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

I have known Pahoran for 11-12 years now, and I haven't seen any change in his posting style. So I'm not convinced that he's battle weary.

And it frankly worries me that you see no need for integrity in defending the church.

Its hard to see a need for something they can not comprehend.

[_moksha]

I like Beliefnet's Rules of conduct which says no members may insult or use ad hominem attacks at one another. It further excludes the excessive use of profanity. Under their rules, a lot of the conduct at MAD and MD would need to be changed. Most everyone would be okay, but the ones that continually abuse these rules would be banned. Personally, I think it is alright to be huffy, but I have seen it carried to an extreme where folks were being abused.

When I first came to the FAIR board, I was in for a rude awakening. When I was first insulted by Pahoran, I complained to the moderator, since I was certain that this was not sanctioned behavior. What I got back from Dunamis was a notice to quit my whining since I brought it on myself and hence I deserved it, and to quit taking up her time. This was a learning experience for me, since it constituted internet cultural shock.

Would I want to see Juliann or Pahoran banned? No, I would like to extend the Golden Rule toward them. It would be nice however, it they could refrain from being so pissy - but that is just my preference and I would allow them the freedom to be themselves as long as they are not abusing others.

[_Mister Scratch]

As a loyal defender of the faith, I hereby vote for none. All those listed are loyal to the cause of defending the LDS church from blackards and perverts. And I stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the just cause of defending the truth against all harmsayers and bearers of false witness.

WE WILL DEFEND is our motto.

This demonstrates one of the fundemental differences in thinking between you and me. Your statement above, if it wasn't meant as a joke, demonstrates a clear "end justifies the means" thinking, which I cannot accept. You may have common cause with Pahoran, but you should abhor his methods and actions on the board. You clearly are OK with someone acting like an effing prick to others just because he claims to believe in the same religion you do.

I have followed Pahoran's post for quite some time. And I owe him a great deal during my early days at FAIR when I was trying to make sense of it all. He defended the church well and I am grateful to him.

But I think that he has been on edge lately. I contribute this to battle fatique. And it happens to apologists. We become battle wary and shell shocked.

But pahoran can pick a part a critic's post with skill. And because of this, when he is in fine fighting spirit he is a force to be reckoned with. I give Pahoran a thumbs up.

Pahoran is a genuinely bad and evil human being. In his zealous efforts to defend "his" precious Church, he has put people's lives in jeopardy. He very callously "outed" a critic named JP Holding, who had adopted a pseudonym after working in a prison for some time. Obviously, Holding had adopted the pseudonym in order to protect himself and his family. How odd that a "TBM" like Pahoran seemed totally uncaring about any of this. And, how odd that you would defend him.