Liz for Mod of the year

[_rcrocket]

Can you please put this in as my signature line:

Dr. Shades 12.29.08: "You know very well why you don't get a signature line. It's been explained to you ad nauseam."


I'd say advising somebody to lie to and deceive the mother of one's children in divorce proceedings is despicable, immoral and antisocial behavior. Of the lowest order. You revealed yourself as a low person on that day. I'd be disbarred for doing the same thing. Did others notice? No.

But, perhaps I am too sensitive about the rights of mothers with young children who were not the income providers during the marriage and now have to scramble for every morsel, only to find themselves lied to and deceived by their ex-husbands, and to some extent, aided and abetted by other males.

[_moksha]

And because I keep accusing him of the outrageous practice of urging divorced fathers to commit fraud against the mothers of their children in divorce proceedings.

Even worse, he did it without a retainer.
-----------------------

Three Cheers for Liz!!!

[_harmony]

I'd say advising somebody to lie to and deceive the mother of one's children in divorce proceedings is despicable, immoral and antisocial behavior. Of the lowest order. You revealed yourself as a low person on that day. I'd be disbarred for doing the same thing. Did others notice? No.

I'm pulling a complete blank about this incident, but even still... the lowest order? I can think of several things lower than that... serial adultery under the guise of salvatory rites, rape, spousal beatings, murder, sexual child abuse... and you equate lying as lower than those?

[_Bond James Bond]

I think it should be CKS, if only for designing those stamps. They crack me up. I'd love to see this idea on MAD though. Of course the stamps would say things like:

Edited by Argos: Anonymous Moral Authority

Edited by Dunamis: Here's Juliann [with catscratch imagery]

Edited by Rhad: Oops...It's A Me, Smac

Edit ted by Orfeus: Dan G in da House

and so on...

[_rcrocket]

I'd say advising somebody to lie to and deceive the mother of one's children in divorce proceedings is despicable, immoral and antisocial behavior. Of the lowest order. You revealed yourself as a low person on that day. I'd be disbarred for doing the same thing. Did others notice? No.

I'm pulling a complete blank about this incident, but even still... the lowest order? I can think of several things lower than that... serial adultery under the guise of salvatory rites, rape, spousal beatings, murder, sexual child abuse... and you equate lying as lower than those?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6283&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=divorce&start=21

Great defense, there, of low behavior. I'm amazed. OK to lie and deceive the mother of one's child over child support issues because, well, there are worse things in life. OK to rape because, well, murder is worse. OK to lie, because, well, rape is worse. I dunno, right and wrong seem rather self-evident to me.

But, I tire of this little game.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Shades: I don't want anyone quoting me in their signatures. Can you remove the offending instances for me? Thanks

[_Yoda]

Great defense, there, of low behavior. I'm amazed. OK to lie and deceive the mother of one's child over child support issues because, well, there are worse things in life. OK to rape because, well, murder is worse. OK to lie, because, well, rape is worse. I dunno, right and wrong seem rather self-evident to me.

But, I tire of this little game.

Bob, I remember the thread you are referring to.

Maybe I'm just reading things differently, but it seems to me that Shades was not making a generalized statement about hiding assets from an ex-spouse.

He was speaking to Scottie concerning a very specific incident where Scottie had indicated that his ex-wife was taking advantage of him.

Shades' comment was something to the effect of, "If she is taking advantage of you, then you shouldn't be so open with her about your finances, and basically let it all be handled through court channels."

If I remember correctly, Scottie had volunteered information about a raise to his ex-wife, because they are on decent speaking terms, and then she turned around and demanded more money from him.

Obviously, there are two sides to every story. I have no idea whether Scottie's ex-wife was really taking advantage of him or not. No one really knows except the two of them.

However, that is neither here nor there. Scottie was simply venting his frustration on an Off Topic thread, and Shades was basically just trying to be supportive to Scottie as a friend.

You have really blown this way out of proportion, and I think you know it.

[_Yoda]

Shades: I don't want anyone quoting me in their signatures. Can you remove the offending instances for me? Thanks

I don't think you can really ask us, as moderators to do that. As Skippy stated on another thread, once you post something publicly, it is in the public domain. As long as your quote is credited to you, there really isn't a lot of recourse, if you are interested in posting here.

Also, if we start combing through posters' signatures, and delete those types of requests for you, we are going to have to do it for everyone, and it will take hours of time that none of us really have. We're not being paid to do this. This is volunteer.

What I would suggest is posting a separate thread....we will even pin it for you...and you can formally ask the group not to use any of your quotes in signatures.

It will be a request...and hopefully, out of respect, your fellow posters will comply, but there is really no guarantee.