Jersey Girl wrote:Are we supposed to be doing missionary work? Geez! Okay, I know exactly who I'll invite.
;-)
*****Bond hums intently, attempting to will Jersey Girl to invite the entire Harpy Brigade over for a cup of ice water with a side of apostacy*****
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Ask Scratch for further details concerning the Brigade, as he coined the term.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I scarcely remember the thread, but I doubt very much that my "extraordinarily disgusting performance" comment was directed at what I knew to be an obvious act of "ask[ing] questions designed to determine the reliability of serious accusations." Some will no doubt be shocked to hear it, but I'm not opposed to asking questions, I don't favor false accusations, and I don't approve of deliberately spreading untruths. Some people even think I'm a relatively decent human being.
Well, perhaps what was disgusting was the frequent referencing to not being willing to simply rely on the word of the posters in question. I have no idea what else you could be referencing. There wasn't any vicious behavior or name calling. Besides, vicious behavior or name-calling could hardly be even speculated to be done "in good faith".
Too bad you won't at least peruse the thread. You're spending all this time responding to the Quinn situation, and you're bored with it, why not instead spend a few minutes perusing the thread to respond to this instead?
Obviously, you and Juliann felt that this thread typified just what was so wrong with ZLMB.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I agree with Tarski. I don't know if gossiping is always vicious. If there was harm then that is something else. Obviously gossiping isn't a great character trait. I'm flawed in that regard as well... and have done worse.
About the Murphy thread. It is just disappointing to me that people that I thought were pretty forthright, noble, people would allow themselves to associate with someone that obviously is not. There apparently is a leader of the pack, but I wouldn't want to follow her lead. I think it's a shame that people that otherwise seem to be honest would allow their own reputations tarnished to merely protect a friend.
I suppose they were put into a bit of a tough spot on that one. I would hope they were, and are conflicted, by what was done. The most bothersome part of the thread didn't really highlight that someone was very comfortable creating evidence and not admitting to inconsistencies in her previous comments. I must admit I find that rather ironic as this same woman accused me of doing just that. To me, the most telling part of the thread was the apparent elitism and jabs at those of less education. That is quite boorish and really begs the question as to whether having a superiority complex makes you superior to anyone.
For the simple reason that it's one of Scratch's principal vehicles (at the moment, anyway) for slandering my integrity. It's personal.
Maybe the reason some say you need extra protection is because of threads like the Murphy one. Without you clarifying just what was "disgusting" and the cause of Z's downfall, we are left wondering if it was the one thing that was obvious on the thread - skeptical critics not willing to take believers on their word alone, and demanding particulars, and real evidence, and continuing to demand that no matter how irritated the believers were, until, at last, the necessary information - which discredited the original accusation - was forthcoming.
Having an "asked and answered" policy would be very convenient in such times. How many times, in that thread, did believers insist the questions had been answered, when the real answers didn't come out until much later?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:You're spending all this time responding to the Quinn situation, and you're bored with it
For the simple reason that it's one of Scratch's principal vehicles (at the moment, anyway) for slandering my integrity. It's personal.
I am glad to see that you admit that it is personal.
As to integrity...... you don't care to defend the integrity of your statements in the 28 page thread? Why? Because Scratch and Rollo didn't post on that thread?
I do commend you for coming over here and posting but I am disapointed that you can't address the OP, your comments on the 28 page thread and answer Beastie's questions. I think you slander your own integrity with your silence.