Invasion of the Trollls

[Obrien]

If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Thinker - you set the bar too high, I fear...

[rewcox]

If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Thinker - you set the bar too high, I fear...

You can Think yourself right out of the church. That seems to be a common theme these days. While the Trollls can make their own paths, for some reason they want to ridicule, condenscend those who don't want that path.

Trolls will be trolls.

[rewcox]

Hi, I'm a newbie.

I for one am glad that there is freedom of expression on this forum, whether or not people agree with something a GA says or has a different perspective on a doctrinal point or whatever. For me, that's what draws me to this forum, as opposed to some others. Not that I'm here to bash, but it's important to have open and free dialogue.

I saw your post on androids. That's twisted man.

[iWriteStuff]

Ever think maybe some folks just come here to poke a Mormon in the eye?

sadists.jpg (17.15 KiB) Viewed 1168 times

[EmmaLee]

If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Thinker, I thought it was very clear (Obrien obviously "got it" or he wouldn't have replied to me in the loving, Christ-like manner in which he did). The beauty of this particular episode of hypocrisy and irony is that no further words are needed. You and Obrien (and the others who 'thanked' you - especially the "loving" Marc) said all that needed to be said. Sometimes "discussing" a piece of art actually takes away from it. ;)

[Jason]

The ever growing chasm...which was the topic...and clearly the subject matter....

[EmmaLee]

EmmaLee - "cryptic" and "obsequious" are words that have meanings. They are called adjectives.

Rewcox is often cryptic in his one liner posts. The real meaning of said posts probably only is known to Rewcox. That doesn't make him bad or mean, just cryptic.

TBM's reactions to conference talks by GAs are often obsequious. If you disagree, you aren't paying attention.

There's a word for that too, EmmaLee - it's "inattentive". I know it's a big word, but with your keyboard and the Google, you too can gain a rudimentary vocabulary that will allow you to communicate with others using your own thoughts, instead of simply highlighting the thoughts of others.
Good luck Rewcox EmmaLee.

Thanks, Obrien! I love you, too. :ymhug:

[Jason]

Your tag line says it all Emma!

[marc]

There, EmmaLee. I thanked you, too. :ymhug:

[AI2.0]

Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

It seems that there were quite a number of regular posters who were also Denver Snuffer readers and as Snuffer became more critical of the church, so did many of his readers.

But, with the closing of HG private area, many of them left, so it should have helped balanced out the critics to believers ratio, but I don't think it did.

[sandman45]

Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

If you have been through the temple for your own work then you are also the Lord's anointed. This was taught in the Jordan River temple chapel right before a session by the temple president..

[rewcox]

Before LDSFF, I visited LatterDayCommentary. I like the site and Tim Malone was very nice.

Tim went down the Denver Snuffer hole. Eventually, he determined DS was a messenger/prophet and declared so publicly, instead of excommunication he chose to resign.

His wife was quite devastated. Recently he said he was not going to post on his blog site.

Tim still is a nice guy. I learned about the electronic universe at his site. I also have learned both at his site, and LDSFF, that people can make choices that take them away from the church. Without doubt they believe firmly in the choices they have made.

Opinions at LDSFF range from committed members, to false prophets, we have even seen someone claim to be Christ. I'm saddened to see some of the choices being made. Nothing I can say or have said makes a difference.

I invite those who have strayed to come back. I don't mean that condescendingly at all. I know a lot of smart people who have made those choices.

And just to be clear, I am voting for Mitt Romney in 2016.

[AI2.0]

Before LDSFF, I visited LatterDayCommentary. I like the site and Tim Malone was very nice.

Tim went down the Denver Snuffer hole. Eventually, he determined DS was a messenger/prophet and declared so publicly, instead of excommunication he chose to resign.

His wife was quite devastated. Recently he said he was not going to post on his blog site.

Tim still is a nice guy. I learned about the electronic universe at his site. I also have learned both at his site, and LDSFF, that people can make choices that take them away from the church. Without doubt they believe firmly in the choices they have made.

Opinions at LDSFF range from committed members, to false prophets, we have even seen someone claim to be Christ. I'm saddened to see some of the choices being made. Nothing I can say or have said makes a difference.

I invite those who have strayed to come back. I don't mean that condescendingly at all. I know a lot of smart people who have made those choices.

And just to be clear, I am voting for Mitt Romney in 2016.

I also read Tim Malone's blog, I found him interesting, and I was impressed that he had the integrity to resign before being baptized at the behest of Denver Snuffer. He seems like a really good person, but got sidetracked by the Snuffer movement. I'm sorry that he suspended his blog, but I think it could be for the best, as far as his family and spiritual needs go.

[Thinker]

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Now you are condescending. You've changed, not for the better.

Rewcox,
I don't think what I wrote above is condescending - but stating the facts and how I hope for clarification.
That you put me down personally, reveals again, logical fallacy ad hominem attack - and doesn't get the discussion anywhere.

[Thinker]

If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Thinker, I thought it was very clear (Obrien obviously "got it" or he wouldn't have replied to me in the loving, Christ-like manner in which he did). The beauty of this particular episode of hypocrisy and irony is that no further words are needed. You and Obrien (and the others who 'thanked' you - especially the "loving" Marc) said all that needed to be said. Sometimes "discussing" a piece of art actually takes away from it. ;)

Emma,
Since you are again evading clear communication, I wonder if it is because you don't know what to resond with.
Maybe you're afraid that what you say will not sound as good as just remaining silent.
Maybe your silence, you feel, is your power, in this instance. Who knows!
All we can do is guess.
Looking over the comments that I wrote, I wonder if you even read them because they were discussing being called "troll" by those who didn't like to hear inconvenient truths regarding abortion murder and how homosexual practices statistically reveal to be harmful.

You'd think that such a group would be so different from members of the church - but they aren't!
Same herd mentality - different herd!
They also when I question them, ignore the actual question and persist in more put-downs, as you did.
Why? Do you feel so threatend by truth, that you feel you must put me down first?
What aspects of your foundation do you think are weak? Why not make them stronger - by embracing truth wherever it's found?
"Ye shall know the truth (searching with an open mind and hope to do God's will) and the truth shall set you free!"

[rewcox]

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Now you are condescending. You've changed, not for the better.

Rewcox,
I don't think what I wrote above is condescending - but stating the facts and how I hope for clarification.
That you put me down personally, reveals again, logical fallacy ad hominem attack - and doesn't get the discussion anywhere.

I and others state facts also. You have logical fallacy on the brain. I am not trained in the psychological sciences, but I do believe the church is true. And I know several of you try to put it down. And you do call people names. EmmaLee caught that.

I do respect that you can believe what you will.

[rewcox]

Emma,
Since you are again evading clear communication, I wonder if it is because you don't know what to resond with.
Maybe you're afraid that what you say will not sound as good as just remaining silent.
Maybe your silence, you feel, is your power, in this instance. Who knows!
All we can do is guess.
Looking over the comments that I wrote, I wonder if you even read them because they were discussing being called "troll" by those who didn't like to hear inconvenient truths regarding abortion murder and how homosexual practices statistically reveal to be harmful.

You'd think that such a group would be so different from members of the church - but they aren't!
Same herd mentality - different herd!
They also when I question them, ignore the actual question and persist in more put-downs, as you did.
Why? Do you feel so threatend by truth, that you feel you must put me down first?
What aspects of your foundation do you think are weak? Why not make them stronger - by embracing truth wherever it's found?
"Ye shall know the truth (searching with an open mind and hope to do God's will) and the truth shall set you free!"

You are striking out. I'm sorry for your frustrations. Your truth is not the truth, as much as you want to believe it.

[AI2.0]

I guess I missed that it was addressed to both Thinker and Obrien, I thought she was addressing Obrien's comments by highlighting some of his own words...and she also used some of Thinker's comments because they were relevant and noteworthy to the point she was making.

At least that is the way I took it.

[EmmaLee]

Emma,
Since you are again evading clear communication, I wonder if it is because you don't know what to resond with.
Maybe you're afraid that what you say will not sound as good as just remaining silent.
Maybe your silence, you feel, is your power, in this instance. Who knows!
All we can do is guess.
Looking over the comments that I wrote, I wonder if you even read them because they were discussing being called "troll" by those who didn't like to hear inconvenient truths regarding abortion murder and how homosexual practices statistically reveal to be harmful.

You'd think that such a group would be so different from members of the church - but they aren't!
Same herd mentality - different herd!
They also when I question them, ignore the actual question and persist in more put-downs, as you did.
Why? Do you feel so threatend by truth, that you feel you must put me down first?
What aspects of your foundation do you think are weak? Why not make them stronger - by embracing truth wherever it's found?
"Ye shall know the truth (searching with an open mind and hope to do God's will) and the truth shall set you free!"

Goodness. #:-S Okay, since you need it spelled out for you - Obrien insulted Rewcox repeatedly and personally - those were the highlighted parts of Obrien's posts. Then you jumped in and, apparently thinking you were backing Obrien with your one-sided words, in actuality and perfect irony showed what a hypocrite you, Obrien, and those who thanked you, are - this was the highlighted parts of your post. It really was quite simple to figure out - everyone here did so, except you.

You seem to need and thrive on contention and starting fights with people, Thinker, as you do it in almost every thread with various posters. Why is that? Do you feel so threatened by truth, and etc...? What aspects of your foundation are weak? You claim I "put you down" yet you completely ignore Obrien's constant "put downs" of Rewcox and many others here on the forum. Why is that? Is it okay for some people to put others down, but not vice versa? Because your entire dialogue on this thread would indicate that yes, that is okay.

I wish everybody would get along and that nobody would insult others - but when it's a vicious group of bullies who CONSTANTLY get away with hurling personal insults at those they don't like, and they NEVER get called on it (because Brian agrees with their theology more than the bullied group) - I will stand up for them in my feeble ways and do what I can to defend them (not that it does any good, but hey). The double-standard on this forum is truly astounding. Somebody should do a thesis on it or something. :ymparty:

[marc]

Hmm, there are over twenty forum members on this forum at the moment I type this out and zero forum members in the gospel discussion forum. Just in case anyone was curious.

[EmmaLee]

Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

It seems that there were quite a number of regular posters who were also Denver Snuffer readers and as Snuffer became more critical of the church, so did many of his readers.

But, with the closing of HG private area, many of them left, so it should have helped balanced out the critics to believers ratio, but I don't think it did.

No, they didn't leave. They just don't mention Snuffer by name anymore, but continue to promote and preach his doctrine, very carefully wording things - which is even more insidious, especially for newcomers to this "LDS" forum who don't know the sad history around here, or that 1/2 the people they're talking to aren't even LDS anymore.

[marc]

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions? Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one. Still 20+ members and 50+ guests and no members on the gospel discussion forum since I bumped up several threads there.

[rewcox]

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions? Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one. Still 20+ members and 50+ guests and no members on the gospel discussion forum since I bumped up several threads there.

To be honest marc, I use the latest posts refresh and don't notice which group a thread originates.

I suspect most are doing the same.

[marc]

EmmaLee and will, you both have been here longer than most of us. Why don't you spend more time in the gospel discussions? Please start new worthwhile discussions that edify rather than perpetuate discussions like this one. Still 20+ members and 50+ guests and no members on the gospel discussion forum since I bumped up several threads there.

To be honest marc, I use the latest posts refresh and don't notice which group a thread originates.

I suspect most are doing the same.

To be fair, I also primarily navigate the latest posts. I guess we all just gravitate towards subjects where we feel most at home.

[Magus]

Hi, I'm a newbie.

I for one am glad that there is freedom of expression on this forum, whether or not people agree with something a GA says or has a different perspective on a doctrinal point or whatever. For me, that's what draws me to this forum, as opposed to some others. Not that I'm here to bash, but it's important to have open and free dialogue.

I saw your post on androids. That's twisted man.

I think I'm gonna have to refer to the "Whoever smelled it, dealt it" philosophy here, as applied to your revulsion. /:) I'm sure you think it's absolutely horrid. Really. I totally believe you. The whole thing was a joke anyway. And the robot thing wasn't my original idea.