Ambushed

[_beastie]

alitd - I don't really care who you are. The only reason I began guessing was because the guessing game was more entertaining than your posts on nihilism. Ray seemed an obvious guess to me, for various reasons. Obviously you are someone who has followed my thoughts with enough interest to remember specific phrases I often refer to. There are not many believers that would fall in that category. Most seem to completely forget what the "other side" says almost as soon as they "read" over it. (and yes, the same is likely true for my "side", too)

Moreover, you came here and immediately attempted to engage me specifically, in particular about atheism. Again, this would be very in line with Ray. Very few believers manifest enough interest in atheism to think about it in particular. I know Ray has. And, after his recent behavior here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1673

if he returned, I would expect him to use a sock puppet.

I really can't think of another believer who fits so well in these parameters. If you are not Ray, then you are not Ray, and I was mistaken.

Obviously, you don't want us to know your "other" identity. That's ok with me. You don't have to tell. As I said, the guessing game was nothing more than momentary entertainment for me.

What is so predictable about all this is that you have engaged in the same behavior Wade chastises exbelievers for engaging in, and show the same preference for anonymity that plutarch, or whatever name he is using now, regularly rants about. Yet neither of them will make a peep in your direction, which is exactly why I don't take either with more than a grain of salt. Of course that is neither here nor there for you. What is here and there for you is your victimized stance, when you clearly came to this board and made aggressive, condescending posts from the get-go.

by the way, why does the label "bright" (which I never supported because I knew exactly how it would be perceived by believers) offend you so much and the label "saints" does not?

[_wenglund]

I think "verbal mine field" is not that inaccurate a description, especially compared with "sewer" and "cesspool." Either way its no "walk in the park," but I'm not sure I'd want it to be entirely: critical exchange needs a different metaphor than strolling, I think.

The anonymous nature of much internet exchange, coupled with the "sound byte" communication fostered by quick emails, I'm-ing and back-and-forths on BBS's encourages the flaming bon mot as the dominant internet rhetorical trope. I think that produces the "minefield" tendency of a lot of online discussion. Which is another way of saying I explain some of what goes on here as more determined by material conditions than individual's intent---but then you should know that I'd take that line, Wade ; )

I agree wholeheartedly. I said before that I thought the level of personal animus here was no different than that on MADB. And the difference between MADB and RfM is one of degree, not of kind. That earned me some serious wrath over there. But I still believe it's so and for the reasons you mention. It's a function of the way we communicate, and it would be no different if we were talking about politics, cars, or knitting.

I respectfully disagree with your equating the level of personal animus here vs. MADB, but that may just be because we have differing biases.

howeer, I take confidence in my own perception when concidering the apparent inclination of some to post there, but can't, and the disinlination of may there to post here, even though they freely can. But, again, that may be a functrion of my bias.

Whatever the case, I agree with both of you that the nature of internet lends itself more to "flaming" and personal animous than in-person interactions, though I am hesitant to use that as an excuse or inadvertantly use it to condon such behavior (not that either of you have), but I prefer instead to point to examples where people have gotten along wounderful in cyberspace, and to encourage that kind of edifying and productive behavior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I respectfully disagree with your equating the level of personal animus here vs. MADB, but that may just be because we have differing biases.

howeer, I take confidence in my own perception when concidering the apparent inclination of some to post there, but can't, and the disinlination of may there to post here, even though they freely can. But, again, that may be a functrion of my bias.

Well, all I can say, Wade, is that it wasn't personal animus that got me banned. Even back when I was a believer, I saw a lot of veiled and not-so-veiled hate on that site, and I tried hard then as I do now not to engage in attacks. MADB is not that different from here, other than people here swear more here. I got along with people on MAD, and I get along here. Some people can't get along here, and others can't get along over there. I don't think that you can take comfort in the banning of people like moksha and Bond and others, who I never saw doing anything untoward on FAIR/MAD. Being banned by those folks does not make one a hater.

Whatever the case, I agree with both of you that the nature of internet lends itself more to "flaming" and personal animous than in-person interactions, though I am hesitant to use that as an excuse or inadvertantly use it to condon such behavior (not that either of you have), but I prefer instead to point to examples where people have gotten along wounderful in cyberspace, and to encourage that kind of edifying and productive behavior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not using it as an excuse, Wade. I hope you would agree that I've been able to post without flaming or personal animus, as have many others. I'm just tired of people pointing over here and telling us what awful people we are, so awful in fact that we had to be banished from MAD.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I don't think that you can take comfort in the banning of people like moksha and Bond and others, who I never saw doing anything untoward on FAIR/MAD. Being banned by those folks does not make one a hater.

Let's not forget that in my last post over at MAD I said I'd rather burn in hell than go to any Heaven Juliann imagines. I knew that'd get me banned...you can't insult Mamma Bear in her very own cave.

[_Runtu]

I don't think that you can take comfort in the banning of people like moksha and Bond and others, who I never saw doing anything untoward on FAIR/MAD. Being banned by those folks does not make one a hater.

Let's not forget that in my last post over at MAD I said I'd rather burn in hell than go to any Heaven Juliann imagines. I knew that'd get me banned...you can't insult Mamma Bear in her very own cave.

I must have missed that. LOL

[_The Nehor]

I don't think that you can take comfort in the banning of people like moksha and Bond and others, who I never saw doing anything untoward on FAIR/MAD. Being banned by those folks does not make one a hater.

Let's not forget that in my last post over at MAD I said I'd rather burn in hell than go to any Heaven Juliann imagines. I knew that'd get me banned...you can't insult Mamma Bear in her very own cave.

I read that post and agree with you. Juliann's version of heaven sounds boring.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Ummm. He doesn't. The Constitution does. Minor difference, but a major flaw in your comment.

The president has referred to himself as the Commander and Chief. As he should, since he is. It's not arrogant when the title is an accurate reflection of the duties of your position.

[_marg]

Of course I don't have any solid "proof" of this suspicion, but I haven't been able to think of anyone else who would be so familiar with my previous thoughts to refer to them at least twice so far, who is familiar with the posters on this board, and would be interested in critiquing atheism.

Well I no longer follow the MAD crowd posts, but I suspect it's Kerry Shirts out of the people I know of.

[_beastie]

Well I no longer follow the MAD crowd posts, but I suspect it's Kerry Shirts out of the people I know of.

I doubt it. Kerry normally presents a friendlier tone, and he's never shown a particular interest in my thoughts. This poster has referred to specific thoughts I've mentioned over my posting history, particularly at Z, so followed me enough to remember specifics. I don't think Kerry has.

[_Runtu]

I doubt it. Kerry normally presents a friendlier tone, and he's never shown a particular interest in my thoughts. This poster has referred to specific thoughts I've mentioned over my posting history, particularly at Z, so followed me enough to remember specifics. I don't think Kerry has.

I don't much care who he or she is. I'll engage in civil and polite discussions as long as they are possible.