The e-mail BagOver the years thousand have written to me (yes, literally). A pattern has emerged in the dialogues. A LDS person will write to correct me on some point. I respond, explaining the rest of the story or an answer to the question, and they raise some other point. I answer again. Once they realize I have answers and also questions for them they can't answer, they stop writing. That is how my e-mail goes most all the time.
A recent writer is a man named Rich Peterson. He and I have talked over the years a LOT--perhaps hundreds of e-mails. The last ones went like this: We discussed a lot of things, and I answered his questions. He avoided mine in many cases. I finally decided to keep on track and make him answer just one question--basically relating to whether the LDS plan is do-able (Spencer Kimball has said that discontinuance of sin must be permanent, and must extend to all areas of one's life to be forgiven). He would not admit to me that he is not living up to the requirement on a continuing basis, nor that it is not possible. So I asked him not to write until he could do one or the other. He kept sidestepping and making false statements and accusations, so I had to ask him 6 times to stop writing because it turned from an honest dialogue to harassment. We ultimately had to put a block on our e-mail to stop the pestering. Neither would he apologize for the harassment. So much for the LDS way of practicing the golden rule.
Some who have written have posted pages on-line to critique my pages. I noted today one by a man named Massimo. He named my home page site as if writing a rebuttal, but totally failed to address its two-part warning (the heart of it all).
One man dialogued with me for quite a while and THEN informed me he was going to post the dialogues. I had been brief with him because I could tell I was getting no-where (irrationality) with him. So I requested we start over with my knowing I was talking to others besides him. LDS have lots of "interesting" tactics.
Another writer from the past, Wade Englund, posted pages responding to mine after we had dialogued years ago. In response to his criticism, I removed a dialogue from my home page and substituted a straight monologue format. He knows I did that, yet in his pages he criticizes me for the dialogue, calling the LDS man in the dialogue an idiot straw-man. But since no dialogue is on-line doesn't that make his criticism a straw-man criticism? He has left this misleading outdated info on line for years.
I've gotten used to various kinds of mistreatment by a few LDS persons, but am still willing to talk to anyone who is sincere in their search for the truth.