Is "Scratch" a fitting name?

[_Sam Harris]

Wade, I think you've hit an all time low, criticizing Runtu just because he was smart enough not to fall prey to your McTherapy. Seriously, do people only have value to you, so far as they are willing to do what you want them to? Does your Christ preach conditional love? Goodness.

And yes, the above ingrate does definitely blame others for his behavior. Much like Coggins on his apology thread to Jason. Cog probably thought Jason was not LDS, hence deserving of scorn. When he went back to apologize, he gave his reason for being a butthole, being angry at other people on the thread. They did it! They made me mad, and I hit you by mistake. Not, "I was out of line".

Yet these individuals, and a few others who insist on trying to make us think we're fools, liars, hateful (what next, murderous?), etc. want us to handle them with kid gloves.

[Physics Guy]

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.

You said that I was the "least charitable" person you have ever encountered on the whole entire Internet, Wade. That's a bit extreme, no? Anyways, that's the way it sounded to me. Further, I wasn't referring to your "actions." I was referring to a very specific post of yours. Finally, can you demonstrate anywhere that I've "treat[ed] others" in this way?

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.

Oh, really? Well then, perhaps you can tell me: How do I view myself, Wade? Are you actually claiming that you know? Or are you assuming? Can you provide any specific examples to back up your claim?

It is the o'l double standard. You are fine with sweeping your own genuine problems under the rug

What "genuine problems"?

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.

Sure I would! Please provide me with an example of "praise [I] frequently heap on [myself] and [my] fellow critics," and I'll gladly go ahead an provide an equivalent for the Church. However, I should add that I don't see how maintaining the status quo in the Church really contributes in any meaningful way to "Perfecting the Saints."

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.

Were you to ever view the Church with even half as much clarity as I view and treat the Church, 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-

Sure. No problem. In fact, as you finish reading this, I am viewing the Church with more charity than you could ever imagine. How's this working for you?

[_wenglund]

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.

The only irony I can see here is your flawwed supposing that an explicit statement of your NOT being "rude" or "debating" in real life, somehow equates to a public acknowledgement of a personal flaw in how you DO approach discussions on the internet.

Even your telling me that you are purposely rude to me, does not qualify as an acknowlegdement of a personal flaw, particularly when you go on to claim that I deserve it. It simply waxes hypocritical in light of your statement about me above--not that you may be willing to publically acknowledge this flaw. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.

You said that I was the "least charitable" person you have ever encountered on the whole entire Internet, Wade. That's a bit extreme, no? Anyways, that's the way it sounded to me. Further, I wasn't referring to your "actions." I was referring to a very specific post of yours. Finally, can you demonstrate anywhere that I've "treat[ed] others" in this way?

My comment had in mind me calling you a liar because you had called the Church a liar. Do I need to demonstrate where you called the Church a liar, or is your admission to that affect in your previous post here sufficient?

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.

Oh, really? Well then, perhaps you can tell me: How do I view myself, Wade? Are you actually claiming that you know? Or are you assuming? Can you provide any specific examples to back up your claim?

I had in mind all the times on this board and others where you have charitably (to the point of self-delusion) declared yourself the victor in a variety of discussions, as well as when you have charitably (again in delusionmal ways) held yourself up as worthy and able to judge the words and actions of scholars and members. If you don't recall where you have done so, then just search for when I have made note of the Black Knight scene of Monty Python infamy, and check out the 25 threads that you have started since the 1st of December, in which you presumed to criticize, from your remote perch on mount ego, those at MAD/FAIR.

I also had in mind all the threads and posts you have made that were self critical, compared with the 25 threads and innumerable posts where you have been critical of the Church, its members, and those defending the faith (the ratio being zero to innumerable, giving me a clear indication of the wealth of charity you have extend towards yourself versus what you have extended to others). If your recollection of what you have written doesn't suffice as evidence, then feel free to read through all your threads and posts and tally the ratio yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

The only irony I can see here is your flawwed supposing that an explicit statement of your NOT being "rude" or "debating" in real life, somehow equates to a public acknowledgement of a personal flaw in how you DO approach discussions on the internet.

LOL! This is so funny, given the confirmation bias references.

Did you notice how you completely ignored this sentence in my post:

And nor have I ever attempted to "debate" or be rude to a real live Mormon the way I sometimes do on the net.

Even your telling me that you are purposely rude to me, does not qualify as an acknowlegdement of a personal flaw, particularly when you go on to claim that I deserve it. It simply waxes hypocritical in light of your statement about me above--not that you may be willing to publically acknowledge this flaw. ;-)

What???? So you think that saying one deserves bad behavior is absolution? Hmmm. I thought you were a Christian, and Christians had a different moral paradigm, not tit for tat.


I LOVE IT!! Usually religionists adamantly deny following the the Tit for Tat moral script, but you flat out embrace it!!

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

You said that I was the "least charitable" person you have ever encountered on the whole entire Internet, Wade. That's a bit extreme, no? Anyways, that's the way it sounded to me. Further, I wasn't referring to your "actions." I was referring to a very specific post of yours. Finally, can you demonstrate anywhere that I've "treat[ed] others" in this way?

My comment had in mind me calling you a liar because you had called the Church a liar. Do I need to demonstrate where you called the Church a liar, or is your admission to that affect in your previous post here sufficient?

Yes, you need to demonstrate were I called the Church a liar.

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.

Oh, really? Well then, perhaps you can tell me: How do I view myself, Wade? Are you actually claiming that you know? Or are you assuming? Can you provide any specific examples to back up your claim?

I had in mind all the times on this board and others where you have charitably (to the point of self-delusion) declared yourself the victor in a variety of discussions,

Was I not the victor, even if by default?

as well as when you have charitably (again in delusionmal ways) held yourself up as worthy and able to judge the words and actions of scholars and members.

Hmmm. What makes me "unworthy", Wade?

If you don't recall where you have done so, then just search for when I have made note of the Black Knight scene of Monty Python infamy, and check out the 25 threads that you have started since the 1st of December, in which you presumed to criticize, from your remote perch on mount ego, those at MAD/FAIR.

I did not "presume" to criticize. I did criticize.

I also had in mind all the threads and posts you have made that were self critical, compared with the 25 threads and innumerable posts where you have been critical of the Church, its members,

Which members? Still no specifics, eh my dear friend Wade?

and those defending the faith (the ratio being zero to innumerable, giving me a clear indication of the wealth of charity you have extend towards yourself versus what you have extended to others). If your recollection of what you have written doesn't suffice as evidence, then feel free to read through all your threads and posts and tally the ratio yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope. I'm not going to do that. Sorry.

[_wenglund]

The only irony I can see here is your flawwed supposing that an explicit statement of your NOT being "rude" or "debating" in real life, somehow equates to a public acknowledgement of a personal flaw in how you DO approach discussions on the internet.

LOL! This is so funny, given the confirmation bias references.

Did you notice how you completely ignored this sentence in my post:

And nor have I ever attempted to "debate" or be rude to a real live Mormon the way I sometimes do on the net.

I was clearly wrong to say that you hadn't acknowledge even a single flaw in the way you behave and discuss (se how easy that was Beastie?). You were able to provide a single example of where you made a passing reference sometimes debating and being rude on the internet, which you blame on "questionable nature of internet debates in general".

Does this somehow negate the irony in your saying: "Wade's most predictable personality trait is to blame the other person for his bad behavior"?

Funny indeed.

Even your telling me that you are purposely rude to me, does not qualify as an acknowlegdement of a personal flaw, particularly when you go on to claim that I deserve it. It simply waxes hypocritical in light of your statement about me above--not that you may be willing to publically acknowledge this flaw. ;-)

What???? So you think that saying one deserves bad behavior is absolution? Hmmm. I thought you were a Christian, and Christians had a different moral paradigm, not tit for tat.

Huuuhhh!!!??? As expected, you read that exactly backwards (let;s see if you admit it). I said that YOU were the one claiming I deserved your rudeness. In other words, YOU, ironically, were using me to excuse your bad behavior towards me. NOT the other way around.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.

You said that I was the "least charitable" person you have ever encountered on the whole entire Internet, Wade. That's a bit extreme, no? Anyways, that's the way it sounded to me. Further, I wasn't referring to your "actions." I was referring to a very specific post of yours. Finally, can you demonstrate anywhere that I've "treat[ed] others" in this way?

My comment had in mind me calling you a liar because you had called the Church a liar. Do I need to demonstrate where you called the Church a liar, or is your admission to that affect in your previous post here sufficient?

Yes, you need to demonstrate were I called the Church a liar.

What good would that do if you can't even except your own word?

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.

Oh, really? Well then, perhaps you can tell me: How do I view myself, Wade? Are you actually claiming that you know? Or are you assuming? Can you provide any specific examples to back up your claim?

I had in mind all the times on this board and others where you have charitably (to the point of self-delusion) declared yourself the victor in a variety of discussions,

Was I not the victor, even if by default?

No.

as well as when you have charitably (again in delusionmal ways) held yourself up as worthy and able to judge the words and actions of scholars and members.

Hmmm. What makes me "unworthy", Wade?

Your having yet to demonstrate worthiness.

If you don't recall where you have done so, then just search for when I have made note of the Black Knight scene of Monty Python infamy, and check out the 25 threads that you have started since the 1st of December, in which you presumed to criticize, from your remote perch on mount ego, those at MAD/FAIR.

I did not "presume" to criticize. I did criticize.

..as if that makes a difference.

I also had in mind all the threads and posts you have made that were self critical, compared with the 25 threads and innumerable posts where you have been critical of the Church, its members,

Which members? Still no specifics, eh my dear friend Wade?

The titles of your threads and the contents of your posts provide the specificity. If you don't know specifically who you have criticized, then that is your problem, not mine.

and those defending the faith (the ratio being zero to innumerable, giving me a clear indication of the wealth of charity you have extend towards yourself versus what you have extended to others). If your recollection of what you have written doesn't suffice as evidence, then feel free to read through all your threads and posts and tally the ratio yourself. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope. I'm not going to do that. Sorry.

Exactly. You are unwilling to do what you demand of others. Again, the o'l double standard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Is it common for mental health professionals to mimick the pathological behavior of their patients for demonstrational purposes? If Mister Scratch buries money in his back yard and smears feces, are you going to do the same in order to teach him a lesson? Or are you willing to admit that your interlocutors are perfectly sane and that your interest from the beginning has been to launch personal attacks on people who in your mind are morally culpable and deserve retribution for bad internet behavior?

Wade, you ignored this post by Grayskull. I'd like you to address the points in it, please.

[_Sam Harris]

Is it common for mental health professionals to mimick the pathological behavior of their patients for demonstrational purposes? If Mister Scratch buries money in his back yard and smears feces, are you going to do the same in order to teach him a lesson? Or are you willing to admit that your interlocutors are perfectly sane and that your interest from the beginning has been to launch personal attacks on people who in your mind are morally culpable and deserve retribution for bad internet behavior?

Wade, you ignored this post by Grayskull. I'd like you to address the points in it, please.

He won't, as it hits too close to home. If he does, he'll say that grayskull is a numbskull (sorry, GS), and that he is grossly misinterpreting the wonderful work Wade is trying to do here.