Answer to Jason about whether I make substantive posts

[_richardMdBorn]

Jason asked, do you ever offer any substantive comments here Richard?
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=21
Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:02 pm

I don’t post here a lot, but I leave it to the reader to decide whether these threads I started recently have substance:

1) I pointed that this thread on MAD is nonsense since the Declaration of Independence was NOT signed on 7/4/76.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

2) Apologists and the sources they cite – I point the inconsistency between the LDS assertion that only the 4SW are authoritative while they tell me what books belong in my scriptures.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

3) Contrary to the assertion of some LDS that people who use pseudonyms are cowards, I cite the authors of the Federalist Papers (Jay, Hamilton and Madison).

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

4) Here I cite an LDS site on Joseph Smith which does not mention plural marriage.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

[_KimberlyAnn]

Richard,

Jason was off base by saying you don't make substantive posts. There are a few posters here who don't make many posts of substance, myself being one of them, but you don't fit that category at all, in my estimation, and I don't think you need to defend yourself against that charge.

Just my two cents.

Kimberly Ann

[_beastie]

I agree that Jason was incorrect to assert that Richard does not make substantive posts. Richard has a long history of substantive posts, whether or not we agree in the end.

[_Pokatator]

Richard you're OK

I'm the drive-by poster.

bye

[_Calculus Crusader]

Of course you offer substantive posts, Richard. Jason Bourne reminds me of the obnoxious Mormons I encountered on Mormon-L. They, too, realize their religion is riddled with holes and they, like Jason, believe if they can't have a legitimate religion then no one can.

[_moksha]

Richard you're OK

I'm the drive-by poster.

bye

One of the posters pointed out before that the short and sweet sometimes gets to the heart of the matter much more effectively than long winded exchanges.

[_Jason Bourne]

Of course you offer substantive posts, Richard. Jason Bourne reminds me of the obnoxious Mormons I encountered on Mormon-L. They, too, realize their religion is riddled with holes and they, like Jason, believe if they can't have a legitimate religion then no one can.

Really? Well you are wrong. I think there are plenty of legitimate religions, the LDS church being one of them. I just do not believe there is one that has the corner market on truth nor one that really knows exactly who and what God is. You on the other hand damn anyone to hell that does not buy into the details of your theological niceties and accuse them of having the wrong Jesus whatever the hell that really means.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason asked, do you ever offer any substantive comments here Richard?
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=21
Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:02 pm

I don’t post here a lot, but I leave it to the reader to decide whether these threads I started recently have substance:

1) I pointed that this thread on MAD is nonsense since the Declaration of Independence was NOT signed on 7/4/76.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

2) Apologists and the sources they cite – I point the inconsistency between the LDS assertion that only the 4SW are authoritative while they tell me what books belong in my scriptures.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

3) Contrary to the assertion of some LDS that people who use pseudonyms are cowards, I cite the authors of the Federalist Papers (Jay, Hamilton and Madison).

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

4) Here I cite an LDS site on Joseph Smith which does not mention plural marriage.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

Of the above I agree that 2 and 4 have substantive comments, 1 was in response to some raving rant on another board, and 3 I personally appreciate.

Ok, I apologize for railing on you.

[_richardMdBorn]

Jason asked, do you ever offer any substantive comments here Richard?
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=21
Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:02 pm

I don’t post here a lot, but I leave it to the reader to decide whether these threads I started recently have substance:

1) I pointed that this thread on MAD is nonsense since the Declaration of Independence was NOT signed on 7/4/76.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

2) Apologists and the sources they cite – I point the inconsistency between the LDS assertion that only the 4SW are authoritative while they tell me what books belong in my scriptures.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

3) Contrary to the assertion of some LDS that people who use pseudonyms are cowards, I cite the authors of the Federalist Papers (Jay, Hamilton and Madison).

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

4) Here I cite an LDS site on Joseph Smith which does not mention plural marriage.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

Of the above I agree that 2 and 4 have substantive comments, 1 was in response to some raving rant on another board, and 3 I personally appreciate.

Ok, I apologize for railing on you.

That's OK. You have your beliefs and it's understandable if you get tired of having them questioned.