Juliann Continues To Spin Her Web of Lies and Deceit.

[Guest]

"Oh! What a Tangled Web We Weave/When First We Practice to Deceive!" Sir Walter Scott

I know very little of Juliann except for several well-documented examples of her anger, unethical and dishonest behavior. Based on her recent and past behavior, I think Juliann now officially qualifies as a Mopologist. Congratulations Juliann!

Here is Juliann's latest failed attempt at gaslighting Runtu and yet another well-documented example of her anger, unethical and dishonest behavior HERE.

From Juliann's fabricated Tom Murphy transcript HERE to her less than honest "scholarship" HERE Juliann seems to be an interesting case study on the hazards of compromising one's integrity and honesty in an attempt to defend against perceived enemies of the Church.

[_moksha]

You shouldn't be using her last name as per her preference for some semblance of anonymity.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I remember Juliann from all the previous message boards. I'm not familiar with the current drama but I've had the growing impression in the past few years she is anything but a blind apologists. I'm going only from memory but I specifically have gained the impression of her being critical of second class treatment of women in the church and antiquated gender roles.

While I don't agree with her often I personally don't consider her an apologist.

Phaedrus

[_Meadowchik]

You shouldn't be using her last name as per her preference for some semblance of anonymity.

I agree.

[_Meadowchik]

I remember Juliann from all the previous message boards. I'm not familiar with the current drama but I've had the growing impression in the past few years she is anything but a blind apologists. I'm going only from memory but I specifically have gained the impression of her being critical of second class treatment of women in the church and antiquated gender roles.

While I don't agree with her often I personally don't consider her an apologist.

Phaedrus

I think you can be an apologist and a feminist. And I respect her feminist position quite a lot.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I remember Juliann from all the previous message boards. I'm not familiar with the current drama but I've had the growing impression in the past few years she is anything but a blind apologists. I'm going only from memory but I specifically have gained the impression of her being critical of second class treatment of women in the church and antiquated gender roles.

While I don't agree with her often I personally don't consider her an apologist.

Phaedrus

I do generally consider her a Mopologist, based on some of the arguments she's made, and, more to the point, due to some of the dishonest tactics she's employed: Everybody Wang Chung's OP lays out some of these quite lucidly. That said, I agree with you re: her feminist position, and I support her views in that regard. I sort of wonder if her--and her MDD pals'--stance on women and Mormonism was part of the reason why DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, and many of the other "main" apologists no longer seem to post there.

[_Philo Sofee]

I remember Juliann from all the previous message boards. I'm not familiar with the current drama but I've had the growing impression in the past few years she is anything but a blind apologists. I'm going only from memory but I specifically have gained the impression of her being critical of second class treatment of women in the church and antiquated gender roles.

While I don't agree with her often I personally don't consider her an apologist.

Phaedrus

I do generally consider her a Mopologist, based on some of the arguments she's made, and, more to the point, due to some of the dishonest tactics she's employed: Everybody Wang Chung's opening post lays out some of these quite lucidly. That said, I agree with you re: her feminist position, and I support her views in that regard. I sort of wonder if her--and her MDD pals'--stance on women and Mormonism was part of the reason why DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, and many of the other "main" apologists no longer seem to post there.

I think they quit posting because the editors and censors completely destroyed apologists credibility. To me, every time an apologetic argument began running into trouble, the censors showed up and it began to dawn on a lot of folks that the apparent only way to come out on top of an argument was to have "help" because the logic and evidence did not convince. After hundreds of arguments being censored and edited, it dawns on one that the apologists really have no power. With no power why post there? I mean, they couldn't lose an argument but they all quit going and posting there. They, instead, went to their own blogs (where they still retain power of censorship, but much less stringently so than Juliann and company used). It's obvious the apologists have no convincing power any more. If one needs and has the safety net of censors, one can win any argument, but deep down the doubt will remain. I would have HATED it had they done so in my arguments.

[_Jersey Girl]

I do generally consider her a Mopologist, based on some of the arguments she's made, and, more to the point, due to some of the dishonest tactics she's employed: Everybody Wang Chung's opening post lays out some of these quite lucidly. That said, I agree with you re: her feminist position, and I support her views in that regard. I sort of wonder if her--and her MDD pals'--stance on women and Mormonism was part of the reason why DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, and many of the other "main" apologists no longer seem to post there.

I think they quit posting because the editors and censors completely destroyed apologists credibility. To me, every time an apologetic argument began running into trouble, the censors showed up and it began to dawn on a lot of folks that the apparent only way to come out on top of an argument was to have "help" because the logic and evidence did not convince. After hundreds of arguments being censored and edited, it dawns on one that the apologists really have no power. With no power why post there? I mean, they couldn't lose an argument but they all quit going and posting there. They, instead, went to their own blogs (where they still retain power of censorship, but much less stringently so than Juliann and company used). It's obvious the apologists have no convincing power any more. If one needs and has the safety net of censors, one can win any argument, but deep down the doubt will remain. I would have HATED it had they done so in my arguments.

^^This.

Exercises more insight than anyone has a right to. The censorship itself undermines the strength of the apologist argument.

We see this only from the outside. I wonder how they feel about their own self sabotage?

[_candygal]

^^This.

Exercises more insight than anyone has a right to. The censorship itself undermines the strength of the apologist argument.

We see this only from the outside. I wonder how they feel about their own self sabotage?

There were a couple of times on MD@D during the past year that we all got dumped in clumps ...several at the same time. It was a weird yet obvious thing but our hands were tied.

[_Dr. Shades]

I wonder how they feel about their own self sabotage?

They obviously like it very much. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it.