PD's response: LOL how absurd. Typical.... twist and spout. I did not negatively label you for highlighting what any perps have done. That is completely false. But that little twist fits your agenda huh?
Completely false? Actually, the posting "stats" above references JimT...yours for this thread are MUCH WORSE in terms of...
...your condemnation of me
...vs. your distinct lack of condemnation of this pervert that this thread is suppose to be about.
What you have done is to turn the attention off of the perp and onto me.
Was that your agenda from the get-go of this thread?
Or did you just pursue that opportunistically as it came along?
What do you think of the practice, PD, where threads about criminals are converted into forums where posters treat the original thread poster many times worse than the criminal?
PD, via your posting history on this thread, your own spam words condemn you: "You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language...That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though."
Is that your agenda, PD?
Engage in open disrespect?
Antagonize?
Insult left and right?
Veer the attention from the Mormon perp to me?
Well, if so, congrats. You've actually for once had modest success...this is born out by the stats below...
ALL: Beware the ad-hominen verbally abusive mudslinger, Paragon Defender, who doesn't represent his faith well with all the contentiousness he engages in...[Look @ stats of this thread that follows].
PD's stats belying his ridiculous accusation about my comments being a "completely false claim":
First of all, have you even addressed the incest perpetrator at all on this thread? ('Cause somebody wanting to carefully socially protect such a person would usually refrain from direct references to him).
ALL:
Q. Has Paragon Defender even addressed the incest perpetrator at all on this thread?
A. Not really, even if we say, well, perhaps once.
It might appear that he has several times...but note his careful wording:
* "ANY perps" (post #57) ...but you know, we're not just discussing "any" ole perp on this thread, now are we? [Why won't PD discuss this perp? Why broaden it to ANY perp?]
* "ANYONE guilty of sexual abuse" (post #48 to svcw)...Wow! How generic and vague can PD get to describe somebody already pleading guilty to these charges before you posted this...[Again, the Q to PD: Why broaden this to "ANYONE guilty of sexual abuse" Why are we suppose to be discussing sexual deviants at-large when PD won't even address the person at hand?]
* NOTE: The closest PD came to referencing Keith Brown in this thread was his 12th post, when at least he finally got around to concede that some specific "perpetrators" existed as to the basis of this thread...but how was that tossed out? Why, simply as an accusation of my motives as to why this thread was posted...showing again, more concern about my behavior than what Mormon fathers are doing incestuously with their own children.
ALL: What do you think of posters who show many, many more times malcontent over thread-posters posting a story and asking people to pray for Mormon victims than incest perps? Doesn't that show a distinct lack of an inner moral compass the rest of us seem to possess? Why would this knaw at someone so?
PD, is it that you just "have to" try to keep Mormon sin in the camp under wraps? Or what? What's the reasons behind your continued near "cone of silence" in SPECIFICALLY FAILING to discuss Keith Brown on this thread?
You have a strange level of knee-jerk provocation: The very extremist level of your malcontented reactions to me communicates to us all that as long as incest perps have a Mormon identity, they apparently are to be socially protected by you. You rely on the old game of character assassination of your perceived opponent...
Your posting style is so obvious:
(1) You don't discuss the issues;
(2) Your job is seemingly simple: Be contentious. Toss out as many negative labels as possible about the posting person. Be personally obnoxious, resulting in keeping the focus off of the thread's purpose -- a Mormon pervert.
Hence, your name Paragon Defender is really better suited as Perpetrator Defender.
Your own thread "stats" here bear this out.
ALL: Don't believe that as my subjective opinion; the stats as stated objectively prove that:
On the one hand...[PD's assessment of this criminal sexual deviant]
...We really can't find you saying SPECIFIC NEGATIVE THINGS about this confessed criminal on this thread, other than vague generic catch-all categories. Obviously, his actions don't prove to be very provocative to you.
Why is that?
Is it his Mormon identity?
Is it because if he's a fellow Mormon, you might regard him as an embryonic god?
Is it the types of crimes he is guilty of?
Why exactly?
I don't know why? Would you fill us in?
Why, PD, do I get the distinct picture that if we were at some great big gossipy neighborhood BBQ and Keith Brown was in attendance, too, fresh back from being found guilty...that while most of the negative chatter there might be about Keith Brown...you would ensure that just about all of your negative chatter would be about me! You would stand out like a sore thumb.
At the same time you lack specifics about addressing perverted perps, you had no trouble at all hitting me up with ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE SPECIFICS in your 14 posts.
On the OTHER hand...[PD's laundry list assessment of me]...which is frankly...
...antagonizing, disrespectful, insulting ad hominen terms/language 'that speaks volumes' about him:
* "anti-Mormon" (8 times - #22 - twice in same post, #23, #48, #49, #60, #66 - twice)
* "obsessive" (2 times - #23, #38)
* "twist[er]" (2 times - #58)
* "underhanded" (#38)
* deserving of "shame" (#38)
* propagandist (4 times #22, #48, #49, #66)
* attacker of the church (#22) [#22 was a response to #1, where the only thing I said beyond what the article said was "Pray for the [Mormon] victims involved" -- so PD must have been offended by that -- and/or by simply the outing of an incest perp...What? PD Do you think it's better to just keep these things hush, hush, and thereby protect the image of your precious church?]
The above's "a Christlike thing to do right?"
And then five times PD indicated how he'd just love to add to his long accusation list and attribute motives (#45, #46, #53, #57, #58). But, noting it would be a violation of forum rules, still frothing at the mouth that he couldn't engage in even more false accusations, all he could do was hint and re-hint like a little boy's who been warned about adhering to boundaries.
PD, may I suggest you memorize this verse? But the LORD said to Samuel, “...The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
Unless you are a god, you don't have a 100% or even 25% view into a stranger's heart.
Your lengthy diatribe is transparent and misdirecting.
I’ll ask again in case you are interested in answering and to save you the trouble of scrolling back.
Do you really expect me (or anyone else who reads these boards regularly) to believe that your concern and reason for posting these was simply about victims and perpetrators...?
Do you really think anyone is that blind and dumb? Seriously?