Mister Scratch, a word with you please

[Pokatator]

Pah I guess you can't grasp that the banned group over here are at a great disadvantage when they don't have the search function at FAIR like you do. If you can arrange for me to temporarily access FAIR I will retrieve the posts for you, I am sure you have some kind of pull with FAIR Gestapo.

You're only "at a great disadvantage" because you are all so obsessed with FAIR, and you keep on dredging up half-remembered stuff about it.

And no, I don't have any "pull" with the moderating team, and calling them "FAIR Gestapo" doesn't seem like an especially tactful way to try to get on their good side.

If you remember any more about the post where I allegedly said I would never come to a place like this--something I'm supremely confident I never actually said--then let me know what it is, and I'll try a couple more searches.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pah I don't care to be on their good side or your good side, I don't care to go back if I could. It was a good reference for some things, like a library function or Deseret Books so to speak, but I don't need them. Don't blame me for the half remembered stuff blame your comrads, they're the ones banning me from my own posts, which I asked on another thread for you to post here. Post them and prove how I broke their rules, prove I am a sockpuppet. You can't. It is you packing their dirty water over here and your obsession with this board that is laughable. Post my last 4-5 posts and I can tell you the thread that you said you wouldn't come to a board like this or the MTT. There's your clue, my posts, I posted in that thread in question. Now with that, have a great day over here, as you Mormons say, "Kicking against the pricks."

[Pahoran]

Pah I guess you can't grasp that the banned group over here are at a great disadvantage when they don't have the search function at FAIR like you do. If you can arrange for me to temporarily access FAIR I will retrieve the posts for you, I am sure you have some kind of pull with FAIR Gestapo.

You're only "at a great disadvantage" because you are all so obsessed with FAIR, and you keep on dredging up half-remembered stuff about it.

And no, I don't have any "pull" with the moderating team, and calling them "FAIR Gestapo" doesn't seem like an especially tactful way to try to get on their good side.

If you remember any more about the post where I allegedly said I would never come to a place like this--something I'm supremely confident I never actually said--then let me know what it is, and I'll try a couple more searches.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pah I don't care to be on their good side or your good side, I don't care to go back if I could. It was a good reference for some things, like a library function or Deseret Books so to speak, but I don't need them. Don't blame me for the half remembered stuff blame your comrads, they're the ones banning me from my own posts, which I asked on another thread for you to post here.

Sorry, but that's contrary to the forum rules, to wit:

By posting on FAIRboards you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to FAIR. Materials posted on the FAIRboards may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of FAIR and the materials' authors.

I'm comfortable with quoting relevant excerpts, because that falls under the normal description of "fair use," but lifting material wholesale is clearly not on.

As for the reasons for you being banned: I don't know. I thought you said you were banned because of something you posted elsewhere. That's certainly possible, though I expect it would depend more upon what you posted than where.

Post them and prove how I broke their rules, prove I am a sockpuppet. You can't.

I don't believe I alleged that you were a sock-puppet. Is that what you thought I was saying?

It is you packing their dirty water over here and your obsession with this board that is laughable.

I think you are confused.

Post my last 4-5 posts and I can tell you the thread that you said you wouldn't come to a board like this or the MTT. There's your clue, my posts, I posted in that thread in question. Now with that, have a great day over here, as you Mormons say, "Kicking against the pricks."

Your latest post was posted on Nov 4 2006, 03:26 PM in a thread entitled "Then The Brethren Don't Know?" I did not post on that thread.

Your second latest was posted on Oct 26 2006, 12:18 PM in a thread entitled "Is This Utah?" I did not post on that thread.

Your third latest was posted on Oct 18 2006, 05:52 AM in a thread entitled "Would You Consider Satan A God?" I did not post on that thread.

Your fourth latest was posted on Oct 18 2006, 05:30 AM in a thread entitled "Temple Question." I did not post on that thread.

Your fifth latest was posted on Oct 13 2006, 06:06 AM in a thread entitled "Have I Just Been Slapped?" I thought I had posted on that thread, but it turns out that I didn't.

Let us not despair, but push on!

Your sixth latest was posted on Oct 9 2006, 05:32 PM in a poll thread entitled "Offended By Elder Christofferson's Talk?" I posted on that thread! Yay!

But I only talked about the thread topic.

Your seventh latest was posted on Oct 9 2006, 02:36 AM in a thread entitled "Elder Christofferson's Talk" I thought I had posted on that thread, but it turns out that I didn't.

Your eighth latest was posted on Oct 5 2006, 06:05 AM in a thread entitled "Abominable Creeds = 'untruths' Per Ensign Magazine." I posted on that thread! Yay!

But I only talked about the thread topic (and gave the originator a nice slap upside the head.)

Your ninth latest was posted on Sep 30 2006, 07:44 AM in a thread entitled "Romney Grilled On His Religion." Your tenth was posted in the same thread. I did not post on that thread.

I scrolled down a bit further and saw a promising thread title: "Delete my account please!" I posted twice in that thread--once to urge the thread originator not to leave, and once to scold a third poster for whining about the moderation and insulting a fourth poster.

Like I said, I really am quite confident that I neve said anything about never coming to this forum. I have only been vaguely aware of its existence, and had never formed an opinion about it until I came and saw.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pokatator]

Pah

Thanx for checking my posts. At this point I can't prove that you made that statement or not, you may have and you may not have. If I misspoke about you I apologize, I did and do not think I was mistaken.

One thing that you have done by checking my posts and offering a summary here is you have shown your obsession with what is said here. You have also illustrated the hypocrisy of FAIR, you can access my posts from now to forever and I can't.

You also stated on another thread that the bannings last week were for using sockpuppets. I was in that group of bannings. I have used one handle, one avatar and one IP address for my entire career on the internet, no matter what board I have been on.

So you can't wholesale lift entire postings but you can "quote relevant excerpts" from my posts. Tell me out of the nine of my latest posts you summarized, from 9/30 to 11/04, did you find anything that violated any of FAIR board rules? 9 posts in 34 days not a lot of activity, I must have really violated something serious at FAIR to be such a threat.

Pah wrote:

As for the reasons for you being banned: I don't know. I thought you said you were banned because of something you posted elsewhere. That's certainly possible, though I expect it would depend more upon what you posted than where.

When I post at FAIR that is FAIR's business, when I post anywhere else it is none of FAIR's business. My take on this banning is I was banned because of where I posted because you nor anyone at FAIR can find a reason for banning me for what I posted at FAIR. Further more I posted nothing here or at MTT that would violate FAIR rules. Except that I referred to Dr. Peterson as Dr. Pastry which I think is quite benign and still not a banning offence.

In my last post at unFAIR, quote from Pah,

Your latest post was posted on Nov 4 2006, 03:26 PM in a thread entitled "Then The Brethren Don't Know?"

this was a thread Markk started. It went heated with BCSpace and the Doctor, it went heated with Markk and the Doctor. It boiled down to an argument that the Doctor was defending, that the brethren knew about the opposition message boards and but they were not monitoring them and that no organization in the church was either. Markk's question just boiled down to, "If the brethren know about it all, but they are not monitoring and not having anyone else or a church org monitoring, How do they know about it? Who is telling them about it?"

The Doctor made a post telling Markk that he has met with the FP and the GAs and does so frequently and he knows they are not monitoring the internet. He goes on to state he has met with many other individuals and orgs in the COB and does so frequently and so he knows for a fact that they are not monitoring the internet.

I paraphrased here Pah, so if I am wrong get permission and post my last post.

I added some humor and stated,

Markk's simple question is who is telling the FP and the GAs?

I stated that from the Doctor's post, it had to be none other than Dr. Peterson.

Boy, that is the kind of humor that is sooo threatening that it is worth banning someone.

[Pahoran]

Pah

Thanx for checking my posts. At this point I can't prove that you made that statement or not, you may have and you may not have. If I misspoke about you I apologize, I did and do not think I was mistaken.

One thing that you have done by checking my posts and offering a summary here is you have shown your obsession with what is said here.

Obsession? You said that you couldn't get back there, suggested a line of inquiry, so I did my best to follow it up. How on earth is that an "obsession?"

You have also illustrated the hypocrisy of FAIR, you can access my posts from now to forever and I can't.

How is that "hypocrisy?" That appears to be a feature of normal message board functionality. When I was banned from the execrable "Concerned Christians" board, I couldn't see any of my old posts any more either.

You also stated on another thread that the bannings last week were for using sockpuppets. I was in that group of bannings. I have used one handle, one avatar and one IP address for my entire career on the internet, no matter what board I have been on.

Okay, now I see where the misunderstanding arises from. I wasn't speaking about any particular set of bannings, but only about something the mods announced fairly recently, that they were cracking down on sock-puppets.

So you can't wholesale lift entire postings but you can "quote relevant excerpts" from my posts. Tell me out of the nine of my latest posts you summarized, from 9/30 to 11/04, did you find anything that violated any of FAIR board rules? 9 posts in 34 days not a lot of activity, I must have really violated something serious at FAIR to be such a threat.

A "threat?" Is self-importance a prerequisite here? To tell the truth, while I saw stuff I would take issue with, I saw nothing that was other than innocuous.

I'm not a mod. Please don't ask me to second-guess their decisions. If they didn't explain to you why you were banned, then I can only speculate just like you.

As for the reasons for you being banned: I don't know. I thought you said you were banned because of something you posted elsewhere. That's certainly possible, though I expect it would depend more upon what you posted than where.

When I post at FAIR that is FAIR's business, when I post anywhere else it is none of FAIR's business.

On the whole, I agree, but then again that depends if FAIR and the board participants are involved.

My take on this banning is I was banned because of where I posted because you nor anyone at FAIR can find a reason for banning me for what I posted at FAIR. Further more I posted nothing here or at MTT that would violate FAIR rules. Except that I referred to Dr. Peterson as Dr. Pastry which I think is quite benign and still not a banning offence.

Of itself, I really couldn't say. As I said before, I had never heard of "Dr. Pastry" and had no idea who you were referring to.

Incidentally, and just to set the record straight, Dan is no starveling, but neither is he the vast mountain of lard some of you seem to imagine him to be. He doesn't cause the earth to wobble on its axis when he visits New Zealand. He doesn't carry his own weather system with him. Him crossing the street is not a seismic event. In fact, when I drove him from the University to the Temple, we weren't even preceded by a pilot vehicle with a "wide load follows" sign.

And just so you know: he doesn't even like Krispy Kreme doughnuts. His title of "Krispy Kreme King" is a self-deprecating joke that is a parody on the silly anti-Mormon caricatures of him.

Which, incidentally, remind me of nothing so much as anti-Semitic cartoons of Jews with huge noses.

In my last post at unFAIR, quote from Pah,

Your latest post was posted on Nov 4 2006, 03:26 PM in a thread entitled "Then The Brethren Don't Know?"

this was a thread Markk started. It went heated with BCSpace and the Doctor, it went heated with Markk and the Doctor. It boiled down to an argument that the Doctor was defending, that the brethren knew about the opposition message boards and but they were not monitoring them and that no organization in the church was either. Markk's question just boiled down to, "If the brethren know about it all, but they are not monitoring and not having anyone else or a church org monitoring, How do they know about it? Who is telling them about it?"

The Doctor made a post telling Markk that he has met with the FP and the GAs and does so frequently and he knows they are not monitoring the internet. He goes on to state he has met with many other individuals and orgs in the COB and does so frequently and so he knows for a fact that they are not monitoring the internet.

I paraphrased here Pah, so if I am wrong get permission and post my last post.

I added some humor and stated,

Markk's simple question is who is telling the FP and the GAs?

I stated that from the Doctor's post, it had to be none other than Dr. Peterson.

Boy, that is the kind of humor that is sooo threatening that it is worth banning someone.

Not that I can see. I wasn't exactly offended.

The paranoia on that thread--and on the copycat thread here--was probably funnier, though.

Regards,
Pahoran