MAD's McCue Dogpile

[_Mister Scratch]

I think that, generally speaking, more "pressure" is exerted from the Mormon end of things than from the exmo or non-believer end of things. I mean, the missionary program alone has no corollary in the exmo world. Then there are the various institutionalized and cultural "pressures": pay your tithing; pray everyday; always attend church; go on a mission; read the Book of Mormon; attend the temple; create a food storage; dress modestly; don't think impure thoughts; don't watch R-rated movies; etc., etc. Really, in the end, this so-called "pressure" which McCue may or may not have "exerted" on his wife seems like pretty small potatoes in comparison.

[_beastie]

Isn't it strange that we hear about a lot of people here who left the Church and none of them caved and became active again, because of pressure from a believing spouse.

What's strange is that you're pretending you actually know what you're talking about. Stories of closet exbelievers being forced to be active - and sometimes even pretend to believe - are quite common.

[_Jersey Girl]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

No, it makes no sense. It sounds like a spoof to me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

No, it makes no sense. It sounds like a spoof to me.

It's entirely bassackwards! Either that or I am...

[_Mister Scratch]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

Well, I made a stab at "examining" mbeesley's words, and I *did* find it a "bother." As to what s/he actually means.... Well, I'm not too sure. I do understand the last bit, however. S/he's saying that s/he believes that Bob McCue would cheat on his wife (and lie about it!) simply because McCue is a critic of the LDS Church--i.e., "just cause of his reputation".

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Isn't it strange that we hear about a lot of people here who left the Church and none of them caved and became active again, because of pressure from a believing spouse.

What's strange is that you're pretending you actually know what you're talking about. Stories of closet exbelievers being forced to be active - and sometimes even pretend to believe - are quite common.

Yes, they are extremely common. Why would someone who doesn't believe in a church be active in it if their spouse isn't applying any pressure or threatening divorce? On the other hand, have you ever hear of a TBM being forced to pretend to be a non-believer. "Oh, I'm sorry bishop, I can't attend church because I have to pretend to be an apostate."

[_KimberlyAnn]

MBeesley's comments were the inanest of all the inane comments on that thread.

I find him/her extremely irritating.

Also, the idea that Chris was libelous in his posting is outrageous and flatly wrong.

KA

[_Jersey Girl]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

Well, I made a stab at "examining" mbeesley's words, and I *did* find it a "bother." As to what s/he actually means.... Well, I'm not too sure. I do understand the last bit, however. S/he's saying that s/he believes that Bob McCue would cheat on his wife (and lie about it!) simply because McCue is a critic of the LDS Church--I.e., "just cause of his reputation".

What I'm saying (typing) is that the burden of proof remarks make no sense to a sane person. Let's find a sane person and get them to comment, okay?

;-)

[_Mister Scratch]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

mbeesley wrote:
Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

Well, I made a stab at "examining" mbeesley's words, and I *did* find it a "bother." As to what s/he actually means.... Well, I'm not too sure. I do understand the last bit, however. S/he's saying that s/he believes that Bob McCue would cheat on his wife (and lie about it!) simply because McCue is a critic of the LDS Church--I.e., "just cause of his reputation".

What I'm saying (typing) is that the burden of proof remarks make no sense to a sane person. Let's find a sane person and get them to comment, okay?

;-)

Lol. Naw, it ain't happenin', Girl. There are too many sane folks in this joint. Now, if we were to retire to the aptly named MADboard.....