What the MADmods Don't Know

[_Ray A]

Here's the difference, Ray. I am uncomfortable with one person in particular - you. This thread should make it obvious why.

Well that's what you get when you want to play prosecuting attorney. I gave you my answers, in a fully rational way, and I wanted to do so without rancour. Your motives, however, became obvious to me, and your intent was to try to make me look stupid. You don't see this? You think I was born yesterday? That's why I called you a B****, because you had, from the start of your "prosecution", a motive to entrap me and "expose" me, so to speak. Go back to your "? for Ray A" thread. I clarified myself time and again, and yet you and Scratch distorted and ridiculed my replies. You were taunting me, and would not accept my replies.

You, on the other hand, talk about some vague "they" who are capable of heaven knows what. And then tell others, who have not engaged in malicious behavior, that we also have 'blood on our hands'.

I am not talking about some vague "they". The posters have user names, though most of them hide behind anonymity.

by the way, you never did tell me: are you prepared to have my blood on your hands should some irrational person be inspired by your rants?

This is precisely the sort of taunting I mean, and that's why I called you a B****. Have I called you the names DCP has been called, persistently, over years? You don't see it, do you? And you never will. Let's see you go on RFM and ask them about comments like this (a few I have collected):

Will they ever own up to lying? To promoting the biggest religious fraud and deceit in America’s history?

There is no truth, honor nor accountability in the Mormon faith because all along the religion has existed only to seemingly legitimize the sexual perversions of a very charismatic pawn.

Morg PIGS!!!

BYU is working overtime to show the world how stupid they are.

The morg needs to have this one stuck up its ass nice and tight.

MMM is exposing the Mormon Church for what it is: a cult and a fraud.

Whenever I watch The Office, it always strikes me that Dwight would be a perfect Mormon....He is socially retarded.

To all you apologists and GA's that say the church has nothing to hide and doesn't lie or cover up their history... F*** YOU!...I feel sorry for you apologists because you have to take a cluster f*** and make it look palpable.

BYU is a fascist police state.

And this was only a few from page one!

This is why I find your comments about me laughable, and your lack of reaction to them hypocritical. Go there, and tell them that you find them "irrational and frightening". This has been going since the late 90s.

[_Ray A]

All that is irrelevant to Ray, and, in fact, he prefers a Benson type to someone who says positive things as well as negative.

I don't like anti-Mormons, but I do like them to be up front.

[_beastie]

I give up. I formally give up. You think it's "taunting" when I ask you if you will accept responsibility for my, or other exmormon, blood on your hands due to the ingrained bigotry you admit exists, and comments by some volatile posters, yet it is completely reasonable for you to make the same assertion in reverse.

If you're not talking about some vague "they", why in the world have you told the rest of us, who haven't engaged in this behavior, that WE will have blood on our hands?

If it is simply a case that specific posters display irrational, and, at times, troubling behavior, you wouldn't be doing what you have been doing. To you, we are somehow responsible for their behavior, their future acts of violence, their irrational hate.

But I do give up. I have repeated this over and over, in various ways, and you refuse to hear it. So it's time to give up. Go on and continue your rants, Ray, and try to pretend there is some difference between you and those you detest.

one more comment:

This is why I find your comments about me laughable, and your lack of reaction to them hypocritical. Go there, and tell them that you find them "irrational and frightening". This has been going since the late 90s.

Since the late nineties!! Wow.

How long has the church been teaching its bigotry against apostates, Ray? And usually in the "Name of Jesus Christ".

[_dartagnan]

Challenge for the village idiot, rcroket:

Please provide for me:

1) Your full name
2) Current home address
3) Current employer and address
4) Date and place of birth
5) Social security number

Let's see how "courageous" you are.

[_dartagnan]

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.

You’re dodging the point. Why use pseudonyms at all? Last year I asked for your name and you wouldn’t provide. Instead you gave me the run-around and told me you had registered on my forum using your real name. But that told me nothing because at that time you were Plutarch and you had registered on my forum under both pseudonyms. Only when you felt the need to brag about you “publishing” accomplishments did you finally spill the beans. The difference between us is that I don’t allow my pride to get in the way of securing my identity.

I do so because I think it cowardice to do otherwise

If this were true you never would have used pseudonyms to begin with. Again, you’re just frustrated that you weren’t smart enough to secure you identity and now you’re trying to make your stupidity and pride sound like “courage.” Again, your history online tells a different story.

You are a despicable person

Because I have you pegged, your emotion is unleashed. It just burns you up inside huh?

a coward who chooses not to put his reputation on the line to say the evil things that he says.

You might have a point if it were not for two stubborn facts:

1) My anonymity as an apologist lasted far longer than as a critic.
2) I have not said any “evil” things about Church.

Ray tried to hunt down something I said about the Church and couldn’t do it. It is a common assumption that you have to agree with everything in the Church or else you are an anti-Mormon.

My anti-Mormon opponents never cared that I used a pseudonym. The only person who does is you. This tells me you’re one of those creepy clowns you do background checks on critics. You’re one of those “despicable” Mormons who finds out dirt on critics as a means to compensate for a lack of intellectual rebuttal.

Like the creep who called the police dept to find out how Walter Martin really died, just so he/she could spill the beans on the apologetic web that he died, not in prayer, but rather, on the toilet. I was guilty of spreading that crap too.

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

But you’re too much of a coward to go over and tell them that. That was the point.

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.

Uh huh, and Jesus concealing his resurrection must have been cowardice as well. You’re an idiot because one thing has nothing to do with the other. You have not demonstrated hypocrisy. I would only be a hypocrite if I condemned others for doing what I do.

I don't care if you are a JW, an SDA or a Catholic; my reaction would be the same.

Please show me this “reaction” when you posted at MAD. What’s the matter coward?

You use your cowardly platform as a basis to traduce the reputation of living persons

This would only be a valid claim if there were in any sense some kind of repercussions I would expect if my identity were revealed. What are those repercussions “Plutarch”?

[_Yoda]

One thing I don't understand....

It sounds like most of your upset comes from posters on RfM. Although there are a few posters here who post on both boards, it is a very small percentage.

It seems like you're using Shades' board as a platform for your ire since it's agains RfM's board rules for you to do so.

However, I think you're going to be frustrated because you're really missing your target audience.

I support you 1000% for being angry regarding posters on RfM calling your kids names. I would have been angry, too....Furious, in fact. There is no justification for it.

But, Ray...you have consistently been ugly in your rantings to posters here...far worse, in my estimation, than what those very posters have said about others.

You saw how successful Wade was when he attempted to "mirror" behavior. That what I feel like you're trying to do here.

As Wade discovered, it doesn't give the desired result.

Since Wade has changed his tactic in posting, I have noticed that he has been taken more seriously. And, frankly, whether I agree with his stance or not, I'm more likely to defend him if someone is inadvertantly ugly to him, because it's obvious that his post is sincere.

I really don't understand why there is a necessity to be ugly with each other. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree on issues of belief, but still be able to treat each other with respect.

I'm not just picking on you here with my last statement. I would like to see everyone do this.

[_moksha]

Beliefnet's policy (the largest religious internet board in the world) is that users should not reveal any personal information about themselves. The reason for this is that they are concerned about the personal safety of their participants. They know through reports of the resulting harm, that has occurred to internet participants, when their personal information became public.

[_Yoda]

Beliefnet's policy (the largest religious internet board in the world) is that users should not reveal any personal information about themselves. The reason for this is that they are concerned about the personal safety of their participants. They know through reports of the resulting harm, that has occurred to internet participants, when their personal information became public.

Then...according to Bob a.k.a. Plutarch's definition, that would make all who participate there hypocrites.

;)

[_moksha]

Beliefnet's policy (the largest religious internet board in the world) is that users should not reveal any personal information about themselves. The reason for this is that they are concerned about the personal safety of their participants. They know through reports of the resulting harm, that has occurred to internet participants, when their personal information became public.

Then...according to Bob a.k.a. Plutarch's definition, that would make all who participate there hypocrites.

;)

He might say that, but at least they would be safe hypocrites.

[_beastie]

He might say that, but at least they would be safe hypocrites.

And I sincerely, sincerely hope he teaches his children to be safe hypocrites.

I think anyone who posts with his/her real name is taking an unnecessary risk.

Obviously, people with a published body of work somewhere that they want to refer to and claim as their own may have a compelling reason to use their own name, but the vast majority of posters have no such compelling reason.

The popular TBM rhetoric that critics ought to be discredited in some way for posting anonymously is one of the more desperate and silly manifestations of the very old approach of discrediting the critic rather than dealing with the critic's message.