Is "Scratch" a fitting name?

[_Who Knows]

What are your thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The more you post, the more I understand why you are single.


Chris <><

Bwaahhaaaahhaaaahaaa! Too funny man!

[_wenglund]

Wade's most predictable personality trait is to blame the other person for his bad behavior. (that is, when his bad behavior is so bad that even he can't pretend otherwise)

The irony in your saying so is not lost on me, though evidently lost on you.

At least I have the personal integrity to admit to some of the flaws in my approach. You have yet to publically acknowledge even a single flaw in the way you behave and discuss, even though your many flaws have been glaring and explicitly pointed out to you on numerous ocassions. Unlike me, there seems to be no limit to which you seem willing go in pretending otherwise. And, you aren't alone in that particular character flaw. In fact, it seems epidemic on this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Weggy

Is that the only thing you can find to pick on is someone's screen name... is that all you have left????

You really are mental and self deluded aren't you now.....I knew you were in the Mental Ward a Long time ago

and you keep on proving it

[_asbestosman]

knew you were in the Mental Ward a Long time ago

I wonder who the Bishop of the Mental Ward is, what stake they're in and who the Stake President is.

[_wenglund]

Wow! So why don't you tell me how you really feel, Wade? It really sounds like your heart is full of hate... I thought that was an affliction that was only specific to apostates.

That is facinating. I treat you like you treat others, and somehow you see my actions as a "heart full of hate" rather than as a "clear indication that I do indeed care a great deal about" you.

In all honesty, I don't feel that I am doing anything fraudulent. Nor do I feel that my criticism of the Church is fundamentally "uncharitable." To my mind, such criticism is clear indication that I do indeed care a great deal about what goes on vis-a-vis the Church. As for people who, in my view, only retard the progress of the Church in fulfilling its mission, and those who seek to sweep genuine problems under the rug, well, I really see no reason to be any more "charitable" towards them then they are to me.

You don't see yourself as fraudulent or "uncharitable" because you are far more charitible in the way you view yourself than in the way you view the Church. It is the o'l double standard. You are fine with sweeping your own genuine problems under the rug and unwittingly retarding the progress of the Church in fulfilling its mission. And, not for a second would you heap onto the Church the kind of praise you frequently heap on yourself and your fellow critics.

Were you to ever view and treat the Church with even half as much charity as you view and treat yourself, then you and I and others will no longer be in disagreement.

How about giving it a try today...or even now for that matter. All parties concerned will be benefitted thereby.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

The irony in your saying so is not lost on me, though evidently lost on you.

At least I have the personal integrity to admit to some of the flaws in my approach. You have yet to publically acknowledge even a single flaw in the way you behave and discuss, even though your many flaws have been glaring and explicitly pointed out to you on numerous ocassions. Unlike me, there seems to be no limit to which you seem willing go in pretending otherwise. And, you aren't alone in that particular character flaw. In fact, it seems epidemic on this board.

Oh, the irony, the irony. I just posted this on MAD, and have certainly made statements like this before.

I think some of you are mis-attributing certain negative behaviors to possessing a religious belief or lack thereof, when it may be more correctly attributed to the questionable nature of internet debates in general.

Internet interactions tend to be problematic because we do not have access to the moderating effects of real life interactions, such as facial expression, tone of voice, being forced to recognize the real human being behind the argument, etc.

I would venture to guess it would take an extraordinary fanatic to treat the "other" in real life as we regularly do on the net. With one notable exception of a member who was rude and arrogant to everyone, including other members, I've never been treated rudely by real life Mormons that I recall. And nor have I ever attempted to "debate" or be rude to a real live Mormon the way I sometimes do on the net.

Whether that's a good or bad thing, I have no idea. At this point I just view it as a "thing" that ought to be recognized in a conversation such as this.

In addition, all it takes is a few very vocal and very unpleasant internet personalities who post frequently to make an entire board "feel" unpleasant (or whatever other adjectives one wishes to include)

And what is even funnier is that I have flat out told wade, in some of my replies to him, that I treat him rudely and know it.

Perhaps you and Juliann can form a little study group and research "confirmation bias".

[_wenglund]

Weggy

Is that the only thing you can find to pick on is someone's screen name... is that all you have left????

You really are mental and self deluded aren't you now.....I knew you were in the Mental Ward a Long time ago

and you keep on proving it

If your posts are supposedly the mark of critical thinkging, sanity, witticism, and the hieght of maturity and depthy thinking to which you think others should aspire, then I am fine with being considered as "mental and self deluded".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

One of the participants here, who cowardly and lyingly operates under the guise of "Mr. Scratch", if fond of using the phrase "fittingly named" in relation to the MAD board, and "not-so-fittingly named" in relation to the FAIR board.

What are your thoughts? Is the screen name "Mr. Scratch" fitting or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My first thought is that you're not being particularly charitable.

But he's God's chosen, endowed with the power of the holy priesthood! This makes everything ok, kind of like the fundie concept of grace.

Look, Wade and his other two asenine counterparts on this forum will never look in their own spiritual mirrors and see that their spitefulness is what is poisoning their missionary wells. It's the whole mote and complete lumber supply of Home Depot issue.

[_Sam Harris]

One of the participants here, who cowardly and lyingly operates under the guise of "Mr. Scratch", if fond of using the phrase "fittingly named" in relation to the MAD board, and "not-so-fittingly named" in relation to the FAIR board.

What are your thoughts? Is the screen name "Mr. Scratch" fitting or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My first thought is that you're not being particularly charitable.

That is intentional. My more charitable and diplomatic approach, which appears, after considerable time and effort, to have failed miserably in affecting a more charitable and fair approach in others towards my faith and fellow members, I thought I would return the disfavor for a time, and see how they like it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Bovine fecal matter. Your idea of being charitable is peering down at folks from your wet soabox whilst trying to convince them they're mental, so that you can manipulate them.

God help any individual who finds themselve a recipient of your so-called "therapy".

[_Sam Harris]

What are your thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The more you post, the more I understand why you are single.


Chris <><

Bwaahhaaaahhaaaahaaa! Too funny man!

I laughed at that too.