Turns out - rcrocket is a bishop -

[_beastie]

Oh, I think bob's point is simply that he thinks people who say nasty things anonymously are chickens.

He's right, I'm a chicken, although I don't recall saying particularly nasty things, but he's wrong about what I'm a chicken about. I'm a chicken about nuts on the internet, not about associating my words with my actual name.

I would take Bob more seriously if I thought he was actually talking about actual nastiness and libel. But the fact that he's called me a sociopath who has attacked him personally destroys any vestige of credibility he has on the issue.

[_The Nehor]

Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.

Well then become a reprobate and then no one will judge you.

Or not.

I'd weigh myself in the balance and be found wanting. I don't know if everyone would.

[_barrelomonkeys]

If you're an ugly person then you're an ugly person. Regardless of anonymity.

There's a reason I haven't posted my real pic yet ;)

Of course I was using the term "ugly" in the Southern colloquial sort of way.

;P

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hardly fair, this means those with high ethical standards who do their best and fail repeatedly are judged harshly while moral reprobates proud of their perversion get off free.

Well then become a reprobate and then no one will judge you.

Or not.

I'd weigh myself in the balance and be found wanting. I don't know if everyone would.

Well then I suggest you strive to live up to your ideals Nehor.

Those that have different ideals than yours can strive to live up to their own. :)

[_keene]

Unbelievers forfeit the right to use another's Christianity against them.

Why?

I explained it already. It is ultimate hypocrisy to use a standard you do not apply to yourself against another.

Why?

If I use yards, but my neighbor uses meters, is it wrong for me to try and translate distances to meters for him, to fit with his standard?

Or, a more apt analogy, if I tell someone that I'm trying to quit smoking, is it wrong for them to mention that I'm smoking, even if they're not trying to quit?

How is this hypocricy?

[_Mercury]

I respect you all, even if you are vile sinners.

I thought our Theology taught that all of us are vile sinners.

Some sinners are more equal than others in Mormonism

[_Gadianton]

Oh, I think bob's point is simply that he thinks people who say nasty things anonymously are chickens.

He's right, I'm a chicken, although I don't recall saying particularly nasty things, but he's wrong about what I'm a chicken about. I'm a chicken about nuts on the internet, not about associating my words with my actual name.

I would take Bob more seriously if I thought he was actually talking about actual nastiness and libel. But the fact that he's called me a sociopath who has attacked him personally destroys any vestige of credibility he has on the issue.

If I ever get into a heated argument with rcrocket, I'll send my contact information to him via PM. That way, I can protect myself for the usual reasons and still be a man.

Let's look at personal information from another angle though. When I first started looking at boards a few years (to many) ago, I always thought it was weird when I'd come across a "William Simon Fredrick III". It was like, who cares? It seemed like sort of an unwarrented ego thing to me back then, as if, the real name established some kind of superiority, especially if it included a middle name. There are a couple hundred million nobodies in the phone book that anyone here could be without making any difference whatsoever.

When it starts to matter at all is when the person's identity would make a difference, for some reason OTHER than making cyber crime or revenge easier for an opponent. If the person has published articles or has special credentials related to the subject matter of the board, then real world identity link makes a difference. Is it really a matter of honesty and bravery that the president of the largest Mormon apologetic's arm posts with his real name on apologetic communities and someone who has never published nor has any connection of mention with anything related to the subject matter of the community posts anonymously?

If, hypothetically, a critic had something like Dan Vogal status and was coming in as a troll and launching sneak attacks, I could see the point a little better. Since I've never published anything and have no credentials worth mentioning and for all intents and purposes, a nobody, (though I have read The decline and fall of the Roman Empire), it would convey absolutely nothing at all to anybody if I were to state my full name and address, unless someone out there were interested in causing me harm. That actually goes for the phil blogs I follow and post on too where there is very little drama. I could keep those two worlds separate very easy if I wanted to keep my two identities from meeting, and my online anti-mormon identity secret for attack purposes. Most of the blogs i go to are hosted by phds or grad students, so they use their real names. Since i'm a nobody, i don't see the point.

[_The Nehor]

I respect you all, even if you are vile sinners.

I thought our Theology taught that all of us are vile sinners.

Some sinners are more equal than others in Mormonism

I must have missed that lesson.

[_Coggins7]

-

OR-- there is another Bishop Crockett in the ****** Second Ward

on a whim, Google and I went for a stroll down binary lane.. my primary reason - to argue the benefits of remaining anonymous. 30 minutes later, I was stunned with the details I found... I think the data speaks for its self or rather -- it's self YOU PRICK !

[IMAGE LINK DELETED]

I will share here a small piece of the data published on the internet for everyone, anywhere to see. A little scary is it not???? of course, I left out his mindless blatherings about the MMM on FARMS..

[MODERATOR NOTE: Personal information about rcrocket deleted]

Lovely. Another Mr. Scratch. More mindless blatherings about MMM, FARMS, the Mormon Church, and alien abduction to come...

[_asbestosman]

I can assure you that under the law of negligence, the woman jogging or in the bar would never be considered "at fault" under any scenario.

Just as the person who chooses to have a listed number is not "at fault" when he gets crank and obscene calls.

Missing the point.

Isn't there a legal difference between acting foolishly and acting negligently? I would suspect that the law has no hold on foolish behavior, only on negligence, or more specifically criminal negligence (the law says nothing about me neglecting to exercise).

Furthermore, you seem to imply that the law defines moral responsibility. When slavery was legal in the US, was it moral or the morally responsible thing to do?

By the way rCrocket, what do you think about the comments in General Conference that a woman who has been abused may have to confess to a bishop for any responsibility she may have had in it?

Check.