Some thoughts...

[_cwald]

"Personal integrity?" Really? Coming from a guy who regularly condemns posters here and then proudly boasts of going to the temple and having a TR while being a tea drinker?

Unbelievable.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yeah Lemmie,

I think I see what happened if it's all been merged into one thread that is now located in Telestial. Here's what I would have done. I would have reported his posts to Shades the second time he came in and trashed grindael's serious thread the exact same way. I would say it was an intentional derailment. The other thing grindael could have done is to post it in the CK and link to it from Terrestrial because he can't get away with that derailing/trolling/harassment crap in CK.

[_mentalgymnast]

"Personal integrity?" Really? Coming from a guy who regularly condemns posters here...

???

There are times when I've fallen prey to fighting fire with fire. But it's not in my nature.

...and then proudly boasts of going to the temple...

??? When have I boasted about going to the temple? I go, yes. But I wouldn't go around boasting about it.

...and having a TR while being a tea drinker?

There has been and continues to be conversation in church circles on whether or not green tea is socially/culturally acceptable. Yes, I tried Snapple. I haven't had any in months. I'm a sinner...just like you.

Unbelievable.

???

What is?

That I am a man of integrity? If you can't take my word for it, I can't really go anywhere with that. I will say, again, that I am not a perfect man, by any means. But I am a man of integrity.

As I assume you are?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Yeah Lemmie,

I would have reported his posts to Shades the second time he came in and trashed grindael's serious thread.

As I said on the last page, which I'm assuming you read, I don't think it's clear that I "trashed" anything. grindael is the one that kept trashing threads and starting over. Now that the threads are either gone and/or merged and knowing that grindael went through and deleted posts, I don't know that who did the "trashing" is clear. In my mind...it was him. And he was a whiner...to boot.

I've fleshed out some of the foundational stuff for saying this back on the last page:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44428&start=105

Regards,
MG

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I know how I define it. I suppose that for you to answer the question I asked you previously you would have to know what it means to you.

I'm comfortable with the Merriam-Webster definition: 1. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility.

I am very comfortable with the way I define it.

But not comfortable enough to share how you define it, apparently.

And I would suppose that you are too?

See above.

You seem to have said earlier...and correct me if I'm wrong...

No, that's not what I said. Please consider using the Quote feature instead of attempting (incorrectly, in this case) to paraphrase me.

Consider yourself corrected.

...that personal integrity isn't that important when you're online in a forum such as this?

Once again, that's not at all what I said. Please go back and review my post.

For the record, I believe integrity is important in all aspects of my life...online and in real life.

That's nice. Except that this statement is completely meaningless to the extent that you employ a unique and idiosyncratic interpretation of the term in question that you're not willing to share.

Again, I would assume that you feel the same way??? Along with the others here?

Of course.

[_mentalgymnast]

You seem to have said earlier...and correct me if I'm wrong...

No, that's not what I said. Please consider using the Quote feature instead of attempting (incorrectly, in this case) to paraphrase me.

OK. When you said:

You're an anonymous participant interacting with other anonymous participants in a mostly anonymous forum.

I saw this as you saying that in a forum where you are anonymous it was somehow alright to fudge things a bit...and that you would allow this for yourself...since it would be OK for me to do so. To me, when I go back and look at the original post where you said this...that's how I interpreted it.

If I interpreted incorrectly, I stand corrected.

by the way, I don't mind defining how I see integrity. I guess I figured it was a 'universal' so I didn't say anything explicitly. I'm not going to use a dictionary. And I'm keeping is simple.

Integrity to me is knowing that I am accountable to God and myself for everything that I do and say. That I should always do and say that which is in accordance to the commandments of God and the laws of basic goodness/love. Being honorable. Being truthful. Not taking that which is not mine. I could go on. But that will suffice for now.

Would it be OK for this conversation if we don't get into a semantical argument about "which God"...and the like? You know, like the guys who flew into the Trade Center were operating under a sense of integrity to their God...blah, blah, blah.

You asked. I told you. Hopefully we can keep it at that.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I don't think it's clear that I "trashed" anything. grindael is the one that kept trashing threads and starting over. Now that the threads are either gone and/or merged and knowing that grindael went through and deleted posts, I don't know that who did the "trashing" is clear. In my mind...it was him. And he was a whiner...to boot.

It's crystal clear you did the trashing, and it's crystal clear you are the whiner.

But I suppose we can simply go on someone's word(?) as to whether or not I was the culprit. I don't think I was.

How about we just go by YOUR words?

by the way, loser, we are already well aware that you don't believe in the Divine calling of Joseph Smith...so what's your point in preaching to the choir? You already know you're gonna just get high fives. So what's your point? Much ado about nothing, isn't it?

Not that the history isn't interesting in some respects.

That's it? It's just interesting? That's what drives you?

MG

and how about we go by your words in this disgusting gem:

Don't take the fact that I called him a 'loser' get in the way. Just calling it like it is. (Loser: a person or thing that loses or has lost something and/or is doomed to fail or disappoint)

by the way, my sense of integrity is intact. As I assume yours is also?

MG

Your integrity is not intact after writing those posts.

[_spotlight]

Would it be OK for this conversation if we don't get into a semantical argument about "which God"...and the like?

In other words can we all just accept my delusional world and not make it subject to the requirements of evidence or rational thought?

[_Jersey Girl]

Your integrity is not intact after writing those posts.

There's a snide joke to be had there. I shall stifle it.

[Guest]

I saw this as you saying that in a forum where you are anonymous it was somehow alright to fudge things a bit...and that you would allow this for yourself...since it would be OK for me to do so. To me, when I go back and look at the original post where you said this...that's how I interpreted it.

If I interpreted incorrectly, I stand corrected.

At this point you've gone past misinterpreting me and are now trying to insert things that aren't in the original post.

by the way, I don't mind defining how I see integrity.

If that were true you would have already done so.

I guess I figured it was a 'universal' so I didn't say anything explicitly.

How can it be "universal" if you insist on hiding behind secret, idiosyncratic definitions?

I'm not going to use a dictionary.

Because that would ruin everything, wouldn't it?

And I'm keeping is simple.

Except that you're not.

Integrity to me is knowing that I am accountable to God and myself for everything that I do and say. That I should always do and say that which is in accordance to the commandments of God and the laws of basic goodness/love. Being honorable. Being truthful. Not taking that which is not mine. I could go on. But that will suffice for now.

Uh, no. This might have meant something if only you'd been willing to explain it before getting called out for employing your own secret definitions, but the fact that you waited until after your faux pas was exposed invalidates your position.

Would it be OK for this conversation if we don't get into a semantical argument about "which God"...and the like?

The problem is that you're a firm believer in a latter-day prophet who used falsehoods and deception to further his aims. If I can't trust Joseph Smith, then why should I trust you?

You know, like the guys who flew into the Trade Center were operating under a sense of integrity...blah, blah, blah.

Is this supposed to be funny?