Maybe you should regale us with the story of how you got your testimony? Perhaps that will garner more sympathy.

If I recall, it had something to do with a local Bishop and your mother having some kind of intimate relationship. It was a very moving tale... do tell it again.



Is that bad grammar I see? I can't tell the different.

I predict that my cousin, Mitt Romney, will run for the presidency again in 2012.

Oh sweet irony!

Hello,

Edited for taste.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Look, I know you two are just trying to give Bob a taste of his own medicine, but you're going too far. Please stop. I mean for this thread to showcase Bob's trolling behavior, not malicious behavior from other posters.

BTW, Bob, now that you know how to google search a site, you should easily be able to find Eric's posts calling you a child molester. You did say they were archived. Good luck. I've already searched for it and all I can find are your repeated charges that he called you a child molester. Zero posts from Eric calling you a child molester.

I accept that Eric emailed your firm, of which I don't approve, unless he has serious evidence that your libel has, indeed, affected his livelihood. However, you have a tendency towards such extreme exaggeration that the exaggeration can best be called a lie. I've demonstrated that beyond doubt by showing that the reason you call me a "stalker" who attacks your family is because of ONE bad joke I told ages ago. You shared (supposed - I don't know how or why we're supposed to believe those were legit facebook PMS when the rest of your claims are bogus regarding facebook) PMs from Eric saying things like "you'd better hope I don't meet you, old man" and then called that a death threat. This is why I say no one should take what you say seriously, without hard evidence.

Without that hard evidence, I'm forced to conclude you're doing the same thing to Eric that you did to me - trying to malign our characters with repeated false accusations.

That was a fair thing to do. I sometimes go back and edit my stuff too.

Paul O

I make my proofs and you ignore them. Oh well.

I'm tired of complaining about you, Beastie, and how you threw my entire family into therapy. I will move on after this post. I'll whine about other things.

LOL, Bob you are such a comedian.

Yeah, he must be making a joke, but what is confusing about his sense of humor is that he will embed his "jokes" (and sometimes I think his accusation that I'm a "stalker" is entirely a joke) in with real complaints, or at least appear to be serious complaints. I'm assuming his complaint about Eric emailing his firm, for example, is quite serious. So when he "jokes" about me in the same breath as he complains about Eric emailing his firm, who knows what's going on. And is he joking about Eric calling him a child molester? If so, what a bizarre sense of humor.

If you're talking about Bob's mom and the Bishop being the reason for his testimony, I was referencing something Bob really said.

But the question is this: did he say it here on MDB, because, if he did not, then you may have violated UR#7.

It is unfortunate that Eric essentially outed himself to Bob and Dan and then they went on a mission to harass him and inflict harm in his real life. Certainly Bob intentionally provokes and harasses Eric on this M.B and intended to do so in his real life when he attempted to email the dad. Eric's original post which sparked this debacle was little more than personal philosophical musings about why would a God inflict disease and shouldn't one wonder about that as opposed to assuming that prayers, or religious rituals are what effectively makes a person recover. And that philosophical musing he applied to his dad's behavior.

So Bob does mix up joking with being serious. Essentially he wants to entertain himself with manipulating people, mock this board to some extent and at the same time he wants to seriously harass some, such as Eric, in spiteful ways. I don't know what his motivation for harassing Eric is. Bob has been the instigator and provocateur and Eric has retaliated. Eric had no motive to go after Bob, it was only in response to Bob that he has done any harassment of him in return.

All things considered, with all the private correspondence posted without a hiccup from Dr. Jumpy Joshi, do you expect me to respect that rule?

But yes. He said it here. I'm just not sure which sock-puppet he was using at the time.

I completely agree with this. I still think it would have been better if no one had pursued Eric in response to that particular post, because, whatever other arguments one may make about the situation, on its own that looked pretty innocuous. Allowing that to be the opening salvo of a new series of events was probably not the best decision.

It amounted to a smear campaign against Eric. And I guess the motivation behind Dan and Bob's efforts is to deter ex-mormons speaking out against Mormonism. That if anyone does, if their real names are known the best defense is an offense and people such as Dan and Bob will go to great efforts even lying, to harass the individual.

Oh, I think it is about much more than that. I think it was about loyalty to their friend, Eric's stepfather, and sympathizing with his side of the story. Since I am not involved in these things, I prefer not to state publicly my opinion about them, but I will say that reducing it all to an episode in the Mopologetic struggle is probably to do it and those involved a disservice.

They weren't friends with my step-dad. That was a BS excuse I debunked back when it was brought up. I can do it again, but who wants to talk about this? Not me.

Yeah, see, this is where I leave the conversation. All I can say is that I can't hope to make heads or tails of this mess, so I won't even bother trying. I doubt you will miss my input, Eric, but I meant no offense in what I wrote above.

No offense taken at all, Trevor.

I remember him saying something about the bishop being an important person to him and his mother in time of need. However, there was no sexual relationship implied, and your comment was a sexual entendre.

Bob,

This is all the attention I'm going to give you over your sig line.

Bob's new sig line:


Of course, Bob makes it a point of pride to use his real name, hence, there was nothing wrong with my using his real name. The [describes my kids] was to use the number 7, which, apparently, isn't even accurate.

I understand this is a sick, long-running joke, but it does give me the creeps that Bob so constantly trolls for my attention.