What makes someone an "Anti"?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The claims are based on these, and you can search for yourself.

First, he calls his wife his "servant" or similar language in this Religion Section.

Second, the abuse related to child is as follows. He leaves his sanctum of evangelicals, goes to Utah County, builds a website solely designed to attack LDS beliefs filled with the typical bs one reads from evangelicals, and now lives amongst the LDS with his child to bear the brunt of being the child of the anti-Mormon in the neighborhood. What parent would deliberately set a child up for social failure? Will any parent allow their children to play with his child? Not likely.

Third, there have a few persons who were invited by Aaron in Utah County to visit his home where he snookers them in, having the LDS believe they will have a friendly discussion wherein Aaron hits them with preprepared anti-Mormon tracts and terminology. Others here can verify. I choose to not do the research on somebody as a low life as Aaron. His is a simple dickweed with no redeeming virtues or value. He is on par with the infamous Tanners of Salt Lake and Lighthouse Ministeries, equally as virulent and clueless.

I think this is too harsh. I think the servant stuff may be taken out of context (or so I hope) and the stuff about his children and inviting people in could have been said of many Mormon families in many places and at many different times. I don't know AShaf and so think it is a stretch to call him an abomination. In fact, I think it is simply uncalled for. On this board I find him tedious, althogh sometimes unintentionally amusing. He is rarely interesting, and then never in the manner he intends. OTOH, he seems genuine, in the sense of believing what he tries to say. Shaf and his kind don't bother me, as they are easy to spot and practically beg to be ignored. I don't quite see why you are so worked up about him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think this is too harsh. I think the servant stuff may be taken out of context (or so I hope) and the stuff about his children and inviting people in could have been said of many Mormon families in many places and at many different times. I don't know AShaf and so think it is a stretch to call him an abomination. In fact, I think it is simply uncalled for. On this board I find him tedious, althogh sometimes unintentionally amusing. He is rarely interesting, and then never in the manner he intends. OTOH, he seems genuine, in the sense of believing what he tries to say. Shaf and his kind don't bother me, as they are easy to spot and practically beg to be ignored. I don't quite see why you are so worked up about him.

I'm grumpy and getting older, so I'm getting grumpier. Tools have little use for me. Sometimes it's nice to be mean. You should know, you're a lawyer and thus you're always mean.

The persons who attended his house "warming" didn't find him sincere, but rather conniving. These pissant little farts don't do much for me, and if I read some of those warn out quotes again I think I might fart in his general direction. Wouldn't it be nice if the antis came up with new material just for entertainment purposes. I've been to that play too many times before.

And I'll agree to disagree that it is abuse to take your children into a neighborhood, pick a fight with everybody and then expect your child to develop a normal social life. By analogy, what I see Aaron doing, is walking into Harlem, "yelling N...." every day, and then sending his kid to school after he hurled hateful invectives toward everyone else in the neighborhood. In my mind, that's outright abusive and his child should be removed from his household to prevent the upbringing of another social misfit, the likes of which might do another heinous act a la Virginia Tech.

And perhaps his comments about his wife being his servant were out of context, but he is so backward, the fact that he said it, makes it possible he yanks around by her haird a la troglodites. My mental picture of Aaron, is a fat bellied, beer drinking buffoon yanking his bar-footed pregnant woman by hair, yelling, "Hey woman, get me another beer and make me my dinner, " a la Archie Bunker. You may perceive that as genuine, I see it as trogloditic without redeeming virtue. Of course, I could be wrong and he could be the epitome of surburban savoir faire and urbanity. In which case, I apologize for my harsh judgment of another Harvard elite trying to show us the errors of our ways.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think this is too harsh. I think the servant stuff may be taken out of context (or so I hope) and the stuff about his children and inviting people in could have been said of many Mormon families in many places and at many different times. I don't know AShaf and so think it is a stretch to call him an abomination. In fact, I think it is simply uncalled for. On this board I find him tedious, althogh sometimes unintentionally amusing. He is rarely interesting, and then never in the manner he intends. OTOH, he seems genuine, in the sense of believing what he tries to say. Shaf and his kind don't bother me, as they are easy to spot and practically beg to be ignored. I don't quite see why you are so worked up about him.

Well, yesterday Tex and I were deemed by Archaea to be like the '[f-ing] Honor Code Nazis' that had zero compassion or humanity, so I think it might just be that time of the month.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm grumpy and getting older, so I'm getting grumpier. Tools have little use for me. Sometimes it's nice to be mean. You should know, you're a lawyer and thus you're always mean.

The persons who attended his house "warming" didn't find him sincere, but rather conniving. These pissant little farts don't do much for me, and if I read some of those warn out quotes again I think I might fart in his general direction. Wouldn't it be nice if the antis came up with new material just for entertainment purposes. I've been to that play too many times before.

And I'll agree to disagree that it is abuse to take your children into a neighborhood, pick a fight with everybody and then expect your child to develop a normal social life. By analogy, what I see Aaron doing, is walking into Harlem, "yelling N...." every day, and then sending his kid to school after he hurled hateful invectives toward everyone else in the neighborhood. In my mind, that's outright abusive and his child should be removed from his household to prevent the upbringing of another social misfit, the likes of which might do another heinous act a la Virginia Tech.

And perhaps his comments about his wife being his servant were out of context, but he is so backward, the fact that he said it, makes it possible he yanks around by her haird a la troglodites. My mental picture of Aaron, is a fat bellied, beer drinking buffoon yanking his bar-footed pregnant woman by hair, yelling, "Hey woman, get me another beer and make me my dinner, " a la Archie Bunker. You may perceive that as genuine, I see it as trogloditic without redeeming virtue. Of course, I could be wrong and he could be the epitome of surburban savoir faire and urbanity. In which case, I apologize for my harsh judgment of another Harvard elite trying to show us the errors of our ways.

Did someone miss their bike ride today?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, yesterday Tex and I were deemed by Archaea to be like the "[f-ing] Honor Code Nazis" that had zero compassion or humanity, so I think it might just be that time of the month.

Well, you are the Crowton homer and apologist, so now you're also the chief architect and apologist for the calling and election of the administrators of the Honor Code Office. Or were you the one that turned Creekster in for a messy dorm room threatening him with academic sanction for his heinous crimes against humanity?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Did someone miss their bike ride today?

No, today was a run day, silly man.

Tomorrow is bike ride day.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, you are the Crowton homer and apologist, so now you're also the chief architect and apologist for the calling and election of the administrators of the Honor Code Office. Or were you the one that turned Creekster in for a messy dorm room threatening him with academic sanction for his heinous crimes against humanity?

If Indycoug was Bob the RA at Callis Palace in DT in 1979 then I will have a few choice boardmails for him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

If Indycoug was Bob the RA at Callis Palace in DT in 1979 then I will have a few choice boardmails for him.

He is one and the same. No wonder he became an actuary. Isn't actuary a synonym for anal retentive RA?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, you are the Crowton homer and apologist, so now you're also the chief architect and apologist for the calling and election of the administrators of the Honor Code Office. Or were you the one that turned Creekster in for a messy dorm room threatening him with academic sanction for his heinous crimes against humanity?

Like I said, it must be that time of the month.

There's a difference between defending the current implementation of the Honor Code Office and defending the notion of holding students accountable for their actions given that they've agreed to live by certain standards.

Theory vs practice.

I'm for the theory, I'm not for the current practice. I've stated and restated this several times from a variety of angles.

I'm having a hard time deciding if you're really that congenitally dense, or if you're trolling, or if you are so emotionally blinded by the issue that you read whatever it is you want to read in my statements, no matter how different that is from what I really said.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Like I said, it must be that time of the month.

There's a difference between defending the current implementation of the Honor Code Office and defending the notion of holding students accountable for their actions given that they've agreed to live by certain standards.

Theory vs practice.

I'm for the theory, I'm not for the current practice. I've stated and restated this several times.

I'm having a hard time if you're really that congenitally dense, or if you're trolling, or if you are so emotionally blinded by the issue that you read whatever it is you want to read in my statements, no matter how different that is from what I really said.

Since we've all convinced ourselves, with Goatnapper as our chief witness and judge, that you were Gary Crowton's apologist and heir, we're now convinced you have some monetary contract with the HCO whereunder you receive some portion of money for each person turned into the HCO. Being an attorney I would tend to change my views if I could be paid to become an informer.

Sometimes I just like to be mean. Yes I confess as a kid, I enjoyed burning ants with magnifying glasses. In Aaron, it seems fun for some to tease him, even though he doesn't he's being played with, for me, I'd just like to see him sitting in a corner, peeing his pants and crying his eyes out while others just laughed.