You guys are still at it! (why am I not surprised?)

[I Have Questions]

My point in my initial post is to simply say what I've said before. There is nothing new under the sun in regards to the the motivations and contributions of the critics anymore. The bases have been covered. Thus my interest in why folks continue to come here as a community to bash the LDS Church and its members. I would think that would get old.

Hmmm, is this a trick or a treat? When you say, "the bases have been covered;" who covered the bases, the critics or the apologists or both?

MG neglected to answer my question or clarify, so I'll answer it for him based (pun intended) on the conversation we had seven years ago regarding this very topic:

But I do want to read the paper Fence Sitter linked to and I want to spend some more time with Kerry Muhlestein's paper I linked to above and gain some further light and knowledge on this topic. Others that haven't covered all the bases...I'd suggest the same thing. Those that have covered ALL the bases...awesome.

Regards,
MG

To my knowledge the Church and its scholars have said nothing publicly about Anubis being mutilated and why the so-called king's name has no royal Cartouche. Thus, the only bases covered in this regard are from me. The Church and its scholars have not stepped up to the plate. They are AWOL!

Hey, MG, gotcha!

I agree, he's avoiding your questions.

[Shulem]

This thread has been hijacked.

You cry like a baby. This thread has been picked up by me and I am capitalizing on the fact how YOU (MG) left things wide open in your opening post to include a variety of topics, as I explained earlier. Your thread has not been derailed or hijacked. I've expanded on it and you don't like that because you've lost at your own game.

I will point out that in that thread Shulem continuously falls into the 'misdirect' I've been referring to in this thread and misapplies the application of the word troll.

You're confused. I've not fallen into a misdirect and neither have I called you a troll in this thread. But I did say this:

I won't call you a troll, but I will call you a coward.

[sock puppet]

This thread has been hijacked.

...says the Thread Hijacker in Chief. Don't you like it, MG 2.0, when your tactic is used by others on your threads?

[MG 2.0]

I've not fallen into a misdirect and neither have I called you a troll in this thread.

In the linked thread you posted from seven years ago you did it over and over. You fell for the misdirect and it's been going on ever since.

Again, I'm happy to let folks go back and read the complete thread you linked to from seven years ago rather than rehashing upon rehash.

That's what my OP referred to. Going back and rehashing things over and over again. You guys never stop. Hoping for the smoking gun that will take down the church.

And then you continue to desecrate the Christ.

I notice IHAQ popped in here for a quick moment without engaging on my request that he answer my questions. Shame.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

[I Have Questions]

This thread has been hijacked.

...says the Thread Hijacker in Chief. Don't you like it, MG 2.0, when your tactic is used by others on your threads?

I know, right

And yet, how can anything be off topic given the OP hasn’t got any real topic? You can literally post anything about anything and it would be ‘on topic’

It’s priceless.

[MG 2.0]

Exactly.

Says the troll. Cast the beam out of thine own eye?

Intentional disruption: The person is deliberately attempting to disrupt the other poster's online activities, which is a key aspect of trolling.

Persistent negativity: Consistently trying to find fault and being disagreeable matches the troll behavior of having only negative things to say about another poster's contributions.

Targeted harassment: Following a specific user around the discussion board to engage in this behavior can be seen as a form of online harassment, which is often associated with trolling.

Provocation of emotional responses: The constant disagreement and fault-finding are likely intended to provoke frustration or other negative emotional responses from the target, which is a common goal of trolls.

Derailing discussions: This behavior can derail productive conversations and shift focus away from the original topics, which is another tactic employed by trolls.

Look in the mirror. If the shoe fits.

Regards,
MG

*bump

[MG 2.0]

Projection? Absent the church callings of course. What do you call it when you come to this board to put the church down? Is that healthy?

We know very little about you, IHAQ. What kind of person are you? Are you a loner? What do you do with your time when you're not on the computer? What do you do to serve others? Are you happily married? Do your children love and respect you? Do you have grandchildren that you spend time with often? Are you involved in community service? Do you take care of yourself physically and exercise regularly? Can you be trusted around children? If yes, how do we know that to be true? What is your belief system? How does it work for you? Would you recommend it to others? Why?

Who are you? What makes YOU tick?

Regards,
MG

*bump for IHAQ to respond

*bump

[MG 2.0]

One interesting (but not surprising) thing, since I caught Marcus and IHAQ in the web of their own deceit they have, as of yet, not made any effort to dispute what I have said or respond to my 'bumps'.

Marcus is a troll, according to definition.

IHAQ makes false accusations and sticks with them without any evidence.

Shulem and others follow their 'misdirects' and follow in line with the whole 'troll' schtick.

Regards,
MG

[IWMP]

I went with monotheist because I visualise Islamic god to be the same god and the Christian god. I think if we discuss no god being the same god, it kind of becomes more philosophical and you'd have to look at the definitions of what god means. You can't say the atheist god is the same as the Christian god because atheists don't visualise a god of any sort, (according to my understanding).

I don't know enough about polytheism to put that question out there.

I was half joking. But that's a good reply to the other half of me that was being serious.