Congratulations DCP

[_Mister Scratch]

Obviously, somebody else (and maybe many others) had already figured out that JasonH was really Kevin Graham. I didn't "out" Kevin. I didn't tattle on him to the mods. (It has to have been either David Bokovoy himself or a moderator who modified David's thread subtitle, since, unless I'm mistaken, nobody else has the power to do so.) I didn't demand that Kevin be banned. I didn't hint that he be banned. I didn't know that he hadn't been unbanned. I didn't know that he had been banned when he was banned. I'm not responsible for his being banned. I'm not responsible for his thinking that I had him banned. I don't really think all that much about him.

I don't think you're being altogether honest here, Prof. P. You intimated to me in an email that you had the power to get people banned or re-instated. You told me that you had "considered" getting my banning lifted, and then said that you were "disinclined." This all came after a long back-and-forth in which you first denied having any responsibility whatsoever (as you are doing in the above post to Kevin), and then finally admitted that yes, in fact, you do have the power to determine who stays and who goes. You may as well just admit it. Or, if you'd like, I can go get the email and post it here.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Obviously, somebody else (and maybe many others) had already figured out that JasonH was really Kevin Graham. I didn't "out" Kevin. I didn't tattle on him to the mods. (It has to have been either David Bokovoy himself or a moderator who modified David's thread subtitle, since, unless I'm mistaken, nobody else has the power to do so.) I didn't demand that Kevin be banned. I didn't hint that he be banned. I didn't know that he hadn't been unbanned. I didn't know that he had been banned when he was banned. I'm not responsible for his being banned. I'm not responsible for his thinking that I had him banned. I don't really think all that much about him.

I don't think you're being altogether honest here, Prof. P. You intimated to me in an email that you had the power to get people banned or re-instated. You told me that you had "considered" getting my banning lifted, and then said that you were "disinclined." This all came after a long back-and-forth in which you first denied having any responsibility whatsoever (as you are doing in the above post to Kevin), and then finally admitted that yes, in fact, you do have the power to determine who stays and who goes. You may as well just admit it. Or, if you'd like, I can go get the email and post it here.

I say Scratch him!
Post the damming email already.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think you're being altogether honest here, Prof. P.

How shockingly unexpected.

You intimated to me in an email that you had the power to get people banned or re-instated. You told me that you had "considered" getting my banning lifted, and then said that you were "disinclined." This all came after a long back-and-forth in which you first denied having any responsibility whatsoever (as you are doing in the above post to Kevin), and then finally admitted that yes, in fact, you do have the power to determine who stays and who goes. You may as well just admit it. Or, if you'd like, I can go get the email and post it here.

Scratch thought that I had gotten him banned. That was not true, though his exchanges with me had, no doubt, gotten him banned.

I had accused him of lying on the board. (I'm still inclined to think he did, although I admit that I cannot prove it.) The moderators plainly agreed with me. It was, I believe, for that reason -- a good and sufficient one, if true -- that they banned him.

I said that, if I were convinced that he was innocent, I would try to intervene with the moderators to get his banning reversed.

I'm not convinced that he was innocent. So I didn't try.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch thought that I had gotten him banned.

This isn't exactly true/accurate. I felt, as Kevin has stated above, that mere interaction with you (particularly interaction which causes you to get huffy) results in banning. My banning was obviously done as a kind of "favor" to you.

That was not true, though his exchanges with me had, no doubt, gotten him banned.

No, I got *queued* after I embarrassed you on two separate occasions---i.e., via pointing out your pretty lame use of logical fallacy.

I had accused him of lying on the board.

Yes, and that is why I was banned. Your false accusation is what did the trick.

(I'm still inclined to think he did, although I admit that I cannot prove it.) The moderators plainly agreed with me.

No, really? That is the entire point of this thread, Prof. P. That is why Kevin, Jersey Girl, myself, and any number of other people take issue with the fact that good threads die, or people get banned due to the stuff you say. Will you man up and take responsibility for any of this? I doubt it.

It was, I believe, for that reason -- a good and sufficient one, if true -- that they banned him.

And yet, you acknowledge that you did not know whether or not it was true. Did that stop you from making the accusation? No.

I said that, if I were convinced that he was innocent, I would try to intervene with the moderators to get his banning reversed.

I'm not convinced that he was innocent. So I didn't try.

Yes, you automatically assumed the worst. Is it really any surprise that I might resent you for that?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Hey look the Bishop is home and posting!

How was your sunday as Bishop, Bishop Peterson?

Did it start early at 7am with leadership meetings?

Then the dreaded three hour block.

Then a few new callings blessings/setting-apart, a few youth and new calling interviews, a stake leadship meeting of some sort.

Finally home at what time? 6pm?

Eat some left over warmed up dinner and then hit the boards!

[_beastie]

Well, I'm still plowing through the threads, but I have to say it never ceases to amaze me that I was an active, devout member of the LDS church for fifteen of my adult years, and it takes apologists on the internet to demonstrate that ideas* I was taught as being the most fundamental to Mormonism are minor details that probably aren't doctrinal - and apparently the temple content isn't doctrinal either.

*It appears, so far, that some apologists are seriously arguing that it is not a firm doctrine that Heavenly Father is married to at least one wife - Heavenly Mother

It's mind blowing, and in the end, I have to agree with Jersey Girl, who kept asking: What is the point of all this? Are apologists really trying to make a case for the truthfulness of the LDS church by finding (strained) parallels with the very religions that God breathes fire and brimstone about in the Bible???!!!????

And that they are forced to do this may be what could be called "a little clue".

[_Ray A]

No, I got *queued* after I embarrassed you on two separate occasions---I.e., via pointing out your pretty lame use of logical fallacy.

I had accused him of lying on the board.

Yes, and that is why I was banned. Your false accusation is what did the trick.

I was there when the exchanges took place, but it's difficult to remember all the details, so I'm doing some searching. First of all a refresher in some preliminaries:

Nomos:

Mister Scratch,

Enough is enough, you are going on the queue until you learn to do something besides spout baseless accusations, take others out of context, and avoid direct answers to questions.

I have strong suspicions about you playing front man for another poster who got in trouble for the same types of semantic games.

FAIRboards are not a forum for slandering others without having to answer the charges.

(Nomos was replying to a post from Scratch to thesometimesaint, not DCP)

Here is part of the exchange:

What do you think "doctrine" is anyhow, thesometimesaint? Do you think that we get to just cherrypick which stuff we want to believe, and which we can sweep under the carpet?

You are the one cherry picking quotes and ignoring others posts so you can continue to level accusations. That is why you are on the queue.

Scratch was put on queue, and responded:

Very well. Consider this my 'adieu,' then, as I refuse to post from the queue. While I enjoyed the exchanges during my time here, and felt the dialogue was interesting and enlightening, I understand that you reserve the right to boot whomever you like. Au revoir, and best wishes to all.

(emphasis added)

Then he came back ten days later:

Can't resist braving the queue here---

I find it extremely interesting that juliann and others consistently refuse to give examples of FARMS work that has been well-received by non-Mormon peers, or has been peer reviewed in any recognizable or significant way. Basically, what tends to happen is that FARMS supporters will discredit the system itself, or claim that it's unfair, ideologically driven, etc. Rather than simply admitting the truth---which is that FARMS work does not receive peer review in the traditional and conventional sense---supporters opt for a smear campaign against the system.

(Juliann replied, by the way.)

Scratch can you clarify for me: Were you banned for queue jumping?

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, I'm still plowing through the threads, but I have to say it never ceases to amaze me that I was an active, devout member of the LDS church for fifteen of my adult years, and it takes apologists on the internet to demonstrate that ideas* I was taught as being the most fundamental to Mormonism are minor details that probably aren't doctrinal - and apparently the temple content isn't doctrinal either.

*It appears, so far, that some apologists are seriously arguing that it is not a firm doctrine that Heavenly Father is married to at least one wife - Heavenly Mother

It's mind blowing, and in the end, I have to agree with Jersey Girl, who kept asking: What is the point of all this? Are apologists really trying to make a case for the truthfulness of the LDS church by finding (strained) parallels with the very religions that God breathes fire and brimstone about in the Bible???!!!????

And that they are forced to do this may be what could be called "a little clue".

My participation in that thread was minimal. I tried to limit myself to posing questions to move it along a bit. I can't say that I followed FAIR or now follow MAD all that much, but I honestly think that was the best debate I've ever seen there and mainly because it was allowed to take place without interference. The maneuvers were great, the information was useful, and it really WAS a debate. That, in my view, happens all too infrequently on these boards.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And yet, you acknowledge that you did not know whether or not it was true. Did that stop you from making the accusation?

I've consistently said that I think Scratch lied, but that, although I think the evidence is quite persuasive, I cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And, yes, I understand that Scratch resents my saying so. That is presumably a major reason for his lengthy and on-going vendetta against me since then.

[_dartagnan]

I've consistently said that I think Scratch lied, but that, although I think the evidence is quite persuasive, I cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And it has been consistently said that LDS scholars like John Gee have lied. And although the evidence is quite persuasive, it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So why is it atrocious and sick when non-LDS make such judgments, but perfectly fine when DCP does it?

H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

And I am still left amazed from when you recently told other adherents what their faith really believes and teaches. This is what LDS have been complaining about since apologetics hit the internet about a decade ago: "How dare you try telling us what we really believe!"

Again, sick and atrocious bigotry when LDS critics do it, but perfectly acceptable when DCP does it.

H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

And I am still waiting for you to justify your assertion that it is I who believes I represent DCP kryptonite. After all, you are the one who called me poisonous, said that I was spiritually deficient, and had moaned over and over again about how you want to stay away from me as much as possible. It would seem that you think I am DCP kryptonite, along with the MAD mods.