Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_Darth J]

I'll help you out here: you think you know me.

No, I don't. There's no "thing" going on except your pointless thread.

[_Most High]

John Dehlin has his Mayan Elephant, and Mak has Sanctorian.

Sanctorian:
Whatever rage is fuellig you, I suggest that for your own sake (and the readers who have to suffer through) let Mak go.

To me, a random an nonbeliever in the LDS church claims, your ramblings and personal attacks online vs Mak gives a very bad impression of you.

I am sure you have more to contribute with, and look forward to seeing that side of you. Take Darth J's hint and please let the discussion flow without behaving like an angry ant. Remember, we are all special snowflakes and exhalted ants.

Mak is a human just like you, and your campaign to score easy credits when preaching for an imaginary haters choir has apparently failed.

So, peace out?

[_Tobin]

It seems to be a common problem around here Most High. And it is funny you mention Darth J. He, grindael and Chap follow me from topic to topic personally attacking me and bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic I'm discussing as well. I'd recommend that maklelan ignore Sanctorian. For the most part, that is how I handle DJ's personal attacks (when they are particularly egregious I simply point out to the community the problem). The reason I say that is so far it seems to have solved the problem with grindael and Chap. They seem to leave me alone now.

[_maklelan]

This thread was good and dead until Mak resurrected it so he could cry foul.

No, it came to my attention that my position on this issue had been requested, so I respectfully and succinctly provided it. I didn't cry foul at all until you came back raging back into the thread.

The original thread had nothing to do with Mak outside of his claim that insiders of whom he was a part of were pushing for change on the inside. The church threw a flaming bag of dog crap on that plan with this new policy. This thread probably wasn't even on the front page anymore which means Mak sniffed out his name and decided to not address the OP but turn it into his personal persecution complex.

Why pat him on the back for failing to address the OP? I saw through his BS and called him out on it. If that means I need to see a therapist, sign me up.

I thought the OP was a joke, honestly. I don't see why anyone would take seriously the notion that this policy change somehow reflects on my campaign.

[_Maksutov]

Can this thread get moved as a personal attack? There's absolutely no point to this except Sanctorian arbitrarily projecting his personal issues onto a person he doesn't know.

Agreed.

[_Ceeboo]

This thread was good and dead until Mak resurrected it so he could cry foul.

No, it came to my attention that my position on this issue had been requested, so I respectfully and succinctly provided it. I didn't cry foul at all until you came back raging back into the thread.

Yes - This is precisely how this all went down.

Pages ago - Gunnar posted "I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development."

Maklelan provided his answer to Gunnar.

Gunnar offered thanks to Mak for answering and Gunnar extended his respect to Mak for the content that was found the answer.

The next several pages of thread - including and up to the present - has been nothing short of a really bizarre and really personal strategic bombing campaign directed at Maklelan.

Although this sustained aerial attack has been very unfortunate to watch, none of the bombs that have been dropped have hit their intended target (Mak). As a matter of personal opinion, they have missed their mark so badly that I am beginning to think that the person responsible for dropping them is now just doing random Carpet bombing in the hope that one of these bombs might actually hit and damage the target.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Runtu]

Yea that Runtu is such a sissy .... ummmm I mean good point Lemmie.

No, it's all fake. Just ask Pahoran.

[_Sanctorian]

I'll cede your point. Contrary to your claims that Mak is somehow my arch nemesis that fuels some inner uncontrollably passion, I can shut it off. But if history repeats itself, most threads that Mak participates in will be derailed by his persecution complex and condescending responses. I guess you're right, he does make a good Mormon.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Sanctorian!

I'll cede your point.

Great!

Go now.......friend........In peace......and sin no more!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Lemmie]

This thread was good and dead until Mak resurrected it so he could cry foul.

... I didn't cry foul at all until you came back raging back into the thread.

...Yes - This is precisely how this all went down.

...Pages ago -

...Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo, just to give another perspective, I pulled out of your post what I think went down, which is defined as a 'tit for tat' strategy in game theory, which is never optimal in the non-finite, relatively long run.

And to bring a little statistics in, it is entirely predictable that almost every thread in which a certain COB translator posts ends up this way, in a useless, ugly tit for tat. Why? Here's where game theory and possibly statistics fail. Is it persecution of an innocent poster? Is it a thoroughly abrasive and arrogant posting style of one who always considers oneself victimized? Everyone has their opinions as to who falls on which side. Ganging up on Sanctorian to force a concession is not really necessary when everyone has a chance to express their opinion.

Personally, I much prefer hearing from Kishkumen; this one from this thread, for example, has substance that is satisfying and bears repeating as a fitting last thought:

Now, in the context of what mak has so lucidly articulated, I want to clarify my position.

I am not quitting because I used to believe that the LDS president and apostles had a red phone connection to Jesus that suddenly went on the fritz. I am quitting because this was an egregious abuse of the trust that is placed in them as men who exercise power as though they had such a special connection to Christ. In other words, the comprehensive nature of their authority over the lives of the members requires, in my view, an enormous amount of care in how they wield that authority, however ill founded their position may be. They have shown very clearly to me their failure to exercise the restraint that should accompany such power. History is full of examples of individuals or small groups who exercised unusual power over their peers, but such regimes have always been contingent upon them maintaining the appearance of a certain goodwill and restraint. Once this perception is dashed by egregious overreaching, the legitimacy of this benevolent tyranny is compromised.