Jerkhood of the Year Nominations

[_Kishkumen]

No it doesn't.

Charity is the supreme value. This is scriptural. Deal with it.

Hey, if it gets the point across...

It gets a point across, just not the one you intended.

[_Kishkumen]

Were they hungry? Sick? Would He have built them another motel down the street?

1) Perhaps.
2) Maybe.
3) He probably had the skills to do so, and he just might have lent a hand in the project.

Most of all, Jesus would undoubtedly have ministered to these people.

[_Jersey Girl]

Your presence is requested in chat. We wish to examine you.

;-)

[Guest]

I'm so pleased to see that after being gone for a few days, Gordon is still sharing his rapier wit and trenchant insights.

That was never the point.

The point, was that you claimed I had stated that they had no rights.

So you are acknowledging that these people were residents of this motel, even though you are also arguing that they were not.

You are trying to limit Lambert only to its specific facts, and that is not how case law works.

I'm arguing that Lambert deals with forcible entry and detainer, and that does not apply in the Odgen Lodge closing.

Before either the trial court or the Utah Supreme Court could decide whether the plaintiff in Lambert had stated a cause of action for any torts, they had to decide if the plaintiff was in a situation where he could have been damaged by the torts being alleged. The legal term for being a cognizable plaintiff is "standing." Standing is a threshold issue in any lawsuit. That is why the Utah Supreme Court's opinion began by determining whether this plaintiff was a tenant or merely a guest.

I am aware that you're "arguing that Lambert deals with forcible entry and detainer, and that does not apply in the Odgen Lodge closing." However, I've never claimed that any torts appear to have been committed in the Ogden Lodge situation, either. But whether the Ogden Lodge or anyone else breached any duty to these former residents is irrelevant as to whether those people had the legal status of tenants.

So you are defending the actions of the LDS Church, and suggesting that anyone troubled by same is anti-Mormon, and yet you are not defending the LDS Church.

Come again? I think you're confusing yourself. I'm not doing as you assert.

From page 13 of the thread about the LDS Church buying the Ogden Lodge:

My posts have not been to defend the Church's actions. I have brought this incident up to non-members, and they have agreed with my take on it. It appears that many posters are too biased on this.

Since I am dealing with someone who uses "you're" as a possessive and "your" as a contraction of "you are"

Forgive me...professor...for omitting an apostrophe. However, I don't see where I did the former.

Yes, basic English grammar is just the province of ivory tower college professor-types.

and then implies that people who disagree with him are illiterate

Not illiterate, just having trouble with comprehension.

From page 9 of the thread about the LDS Church buying the Ogden Lodge:

So who are you?

Someone who can read.

I will just say for the benefit of other viewers that I was talking about how Utah law treats long-term motel residents, which is a separate issue from the torts committed in Lambert.

But you seem to be using those as proof that torts were committed in the incident of the Odgen Motel...i.e. they were "evicted".

As soon as you find anywhere that I said anyone was evicted or that any torts were committed, you be sure to point it out.

Trying to argue about whether someone is a tenant by saying that Lambert involved torts not present in the Ogden Lodge closing is like arguing that the Mayflower and the Titanic were not both boats because the Titanic ran into an iceberg, while the Mayflower did not.

No. You're trying to argue that the people on the Mayflower ultimately suffered the same as those on the Titanic because they were both on boats.

Right, because I said that a legal duty was breached in......umm......uhhh.......

Sorry, I keep forgetting where I said that. You'll let me know if you find it, won't you?

These people who lived at the Ogden Lodge have plenty of food and money

Never said anything about plenty.

Oh, so they were needy after all?

If a woman is going to stay at a homeless shelter with her young daughter instead of finding another motel, we should not presume that she is doing so as a last resort

No, we should not presume that that was her only option, seeing as the facts suggest otherwise.

We don't know any facts beyond her going to a homeless shelter. And this changes nothing about the fundamental, undisputed fact: the LDS Church bought a place that poor people were using as housing and made them leave to make way for a vacant lot that might be turned into a commercial venture at some future time.

Despite the plain statements of Doctrine and Covenants and three General Authorities, the LDS Church does not teach that those who fail to pay tithing will be burned at the Second Coming

I addressed the statements and citations that you gave...deal with them.

Likewise, I have in the past addressed statements that people have given me about American literature:

"Moby Dick is a book about a guy looking for a big white whale."

"No, it isn't!"

The dictionary defines housing as any place of lodging, and defines lodging as a place of temporary shelter, but this motel was not housing for these people

Again, do you consider a car "housing"? How about a treehouse? Under my porch?

If people are using a car as shelter, then yes, a car is housing.

And how about a treehouse, anyway? Is that housing? Let's ask a real estate blog:

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2010/08/ ... g-dilemma/

I would need to know more about your porch to say whether it could be used as shelter---since, you know, the word "housing" means "any shelter, lodging, or dwelling place. "

Case law only applies to the specific facts of a given case

Case law must apply to similar situations. Case law for computer hacking does not apply to case law for child porn simply because computers were involved in both cases.

Thank you for sharing the heretofore unknown legal precept that general legal doctrines from case law only apply to similar factual scenarios. Maybe, given your demonstrated legal acumen, you could explain why Lambert was cited as authority in several cases that had no factual analogy to tenants in a hotel---which I already discussed in this thread.

When that premise is shown to be clearly wrong, then the people living at the Ogden Lodge are not residents because they were not wrongfully evicted

I'm not arguing residency, I'm arguing the "eviction" claim.

Since you are arguing about claims that I did not make, could you talk a little more about the "alien abduction" claim or the "involuntary medical experiment" claim?

Now, where again did my posts contain your "Nuh uh," and "You're stupid" innuendos?

Nowhere. There are none. In fact, you're not even reading this message right now. None of this is real. It's all an illusion.

So did Jeff K. name his sock puppet "Gordon" after President Hinckley, or was there another reason?

I'm always amused by posters accusing others of a sock puppet merely because they don't like what is being said. What's your sock puppet Darth?

I've speculated about who the poster aptly known as "Sock Puppet" is, and I like what he says. In you're case, it's more about your uncanny similarity to the mannerisms of the MADB warrior-poet known as "Jeff K."

My sock puppets were Lord Anubis and Mica Hunt, but I don't use them anymore.

EDIT: Someone just PM'ed me about " In you're case..."

I had talked about Gordon mixing up "your" and "you're," so maybe my doing it on purpose is too subtle.

[_Jersey Girl]

Darth

I'm so pleased to see that after being gone for a few days, Gordon is still sharing his rapier wit and trenchant insights.

I'm so pleased to see that after 13 days, the Jerks continue to compete for the title. My evil plan is working and it's gonna be a tough call, folks!

;-)

[_sock puppet]

Darth

I'm so pleased to see that after being gone for a few days, Gordon is still sharing his rapier wit and trenchant insights.

I'm so pleased to see that after 13 days, the Jerks continue to compete for the title. My evil plan is working and it's gonna be a tough call, folks!

;-)

For the record, Jersey Girl, I will be disappointed if I do not win.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Yahoo Bot a.k.a. Bob Crockett--His calculating, cutting remarks are always followed by a "poor me" when someone actually insults him in return.

Well, well. It seems I've made a real enemy with you, my dear, haven't I?

I will try to stop the "poor me" nonsense. I wonder though, whether "calculating, cutting remarks" are inappropriate in this forum? I mean, faithful Mormons can't (or shouldn't) respond with vulgarities and profanities. I guess they could be eternally polite. Is that what you'd prefer from "poor me?"

I think that, however, when you inspect my posts you've confused bluntness with evil disposition. At least I think so.

[_sock puppet]

Yahoo Bot a.k.a. Bob Crockett--His calculating, cutting remarks are always followed by a "poor me" when someone actually insults him in return.

Well, well. It seems I've made a real enemy with you, my dear, haven't I?

I will try to stop the "poor me" nonsense. I wonder though, whether "calculating, cutting remarks" are inappropriate in this forum? I mean, faithful Mormons can't (or shouldn't) respond with vulgarities and profanities. I guess they could be eternally polite. Is that what you'd prefer from "poor me?"

I think that, however, when you inspect my posts you've confused bluntness with evil disposition. At least I think so.

Gee, Bot, I'm sure you have another cheek to turn--well, unless you are the uni-buttocks.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Gee, Bot, I'm sure you have another cheek to turn--well, unless you are the uni-buttocks.

Aren't you the one who claims to be a lawyer? My goodness, really? What proof do you have of such a claim? Surely it can't be your erudition or grammar?

[_Jersey Girl]

sock

For the record, Jersey Girl, I will be disappointed if I do not win.

For the record, sock, the winners or losers (as your perspective dictates) will be announced before the New Year arrives. I doubt that I can match Stak's POTY award announcements but if the day continues to go the way it has with it being -7* and a ever increasing case of cabin fever, my sarcasm levels might be just right for the job at hand!

:-P