rcrocket wrote:I like to validate my particular views formed, from fifteen years of posting on the internet or its variegated predecessors, that almost (but not all, there are notable exceptions, such as Dr. James White, Dan Vogel, Bret Metcalfe, Tal Bachman) persons who post attacks against the Church and its leaders fall into the following discrete categories, which might overlap:
1. They are hypocrites, pretending to be one thing in public here and another thing in the church they attend.
Well, I'm a hypocrite in many ways, but I don't pretend to be anything at church, except maybe a husband and father.
2. They are cowards, hiding behind anonymous names to attack and impugn people and their reputations and livelihood.
I don't post anonymously, and I don't attack and impugn.
3. They are uneducated in the subject matter upon which they post; ill-read, shallowly-read and simply follow the crowd to mock and point fingers. They are often uneducated generally; read few books; can't put together coherent sentences.
I guess it depends on what you mean by uneducated and ill-read. I've read a ton of books over the years, especially when I was working for the church, but currently, my church-related book library consists of the LDS scriptures and Rough Stone Rolling. I guess I'm just too cheap to buy stuff. I check things out of the library.
4. They are hedonists. Their beef is really with Christianity and not really Mormonism, because their interest in vulgarity, fornication and profanity really isn't acceptable among any thinking Christian. But, because they were or are Mormons, they have nowhere else they think they can post.
Yes, I admit it. I just want to revel in profanity and fornication.
5. They are depressed and want to lash out anonymously.
You guessed it. I do suffer from depression. I missed the lashing out part, though.
Typically, in 15 years, this person fits into the following formula.
----------a. Often, but not always, divorced.
Not divorced here.
----------b. If not divorced, have a spouse who is faithful and wants to keep her (and it is usually, but not always, "her") promises to God
Yep, that would be my wife.
----------c. Have little better to do than to spend hours on boards; they hate their jobs or have no jobs.
I like my job.
----------d. They contribute little to nothing to society -- no good works, simply very self-centered and self-focused.
Yes, in between the profanity and fornication, I sit and admire myself.
6. They are poseurs. Pretending to be members of the Church when they are not.
I'm a poseur, but I don't pretend to believe in the church, though I'm technically a member.
As to those who tend to post posts favorable to the Church and who claim to be faithful, these fall into the following categories:
1. True believers who want to support and defend. They almost always ill-educated and shallowly-read.
2. Academics who waste their time and their employer's money spending time in posts defending the Church. But, they have the intellectual horses to do so and contribute occasionally.
3. The witty and urbane, who post merely to see their witicisms rather than contribute anything.
4. The smug, the self-righteous.
5. The dillettante, the accomplished in some profession or field, who contributes, but who is an amateur in academics. I frankly cannot see why such a person would spend any time on a board like this, but they do.
6. The mean, the malicious, the combatant.
rcrocket
Which one are you, Bob?