What Celebrity does (X) remind you of?

[_Mister Scratch]

I used to do this same sort of thing with the online antagonist against my faith. In relation to them, I posted pictures of Dumb & Dumber, Beavis and Butthead, Chicken Little, Alfred E Newman, Ruth Buzzy hitting Art Carney with her purse, etc.

But, I have since, for the most part, matured and corrected the character flaws and the cognitive distortions driving that need to disparage others in that juvenile way.

However, at the time, I posted the pictures directly to the individuals themselves so they could respond in-kind if they wished, rather smearing them behind their back on a board where I knew they didn't participate. Such a behavior would have been even too low for me then.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nothing is happening "behind juliann's back", Wade. That you would think that is clearly a cog. distortion.

I wasn't aware that Juliann was a participant on this board. What screen name has she been posting under?

Also, I wasn't aware that the posts about her above were directed specifically to her. Can you explain why you think that they were?

juliann posted roughly a dozen times on the previous incarnation of this board.

More to the point, what would "behind Juliann's back" look like to you, if not when talking about her on a board where she is not a participant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it would have to happen in person. I think that "talking behind juliann's back" isn't possible on an online, public messageboard.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Neither do I


Hello Julianne....I am praying for a sign..just one sign you are out there reading these posts...ouqr0308508-08IOUR#*#*

Julianne answered gave me my sign,,,she can read behind her back cause she has eyes in back of head

I knew it...

[_wenglund]

I used to do this same sort of thing with the online antagonist against my faith. In relation to them, I posted pictures of Dumb & Dumber, Beavis and Butthead, Chicken Little, Alfred E Newman, Ruth Buzzy hitting Art Carney with her purse, etc.

But, I have since, for the most part, matured and corrected the character flaws and the cognitive distortions driving that need to disparage others in that juvenile way.

However, at the time, I posted the pictures directly to the individuals themselves so they could respond in-kind if they wished, rather smearing them behind their back on a board where I knew they didn't participate. Such a behavior would have been even too low for me then.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have you taken down your bigotry iniative site?

No. Why do you ask?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just wondering how far your personal evolution has actually taken you.

How do you view my ABI site as an indicator of that personal evolution?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I used to do this same sort of thing with the online antagonist against my faith. In relation to them, I posted pictures of Dumb & Dumber, Beavis and Butthead, Chicken Little, Alfred E Newman, Ruth Buzzy hitting Art Carney with her purse, etc.

But, I have since, for the most part, matured and corrected the character flaws and the cognitive distortions driving that need to disparage others in that juvenile way.

However, at the time, I posted the pictures directly to the individuals themselves so they could respond in-kind if they wished, rather smearing them behind their back on a board where I knew they didn't participate. Such a behavior would have been even too low for me then.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nothing is happening "behind juliann's back", Wade. That you would think that is clearly a cog. distortion.

I wasn't aware that Juliann was a participant on this board. What screen name has she been posting under?

Also, I wasn't aware that the posts about her above were directed specifically to her. Can you explain why you think that they were?

juliann posted roughly a dozen times on the previous incarnation of this board.

How does that relate to the here and now of this thread?

More to the point, what would "behind Juliann's back" look like to you, if not when talking about her on a board where she is not a participant? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think it would have to happen in person. I think that "talking behind juliann's back" isn't possible on an online, public messageboard.

That is an interesting caveat, and one that I don't see as reasonable.

By your "reasoning" people can't be considered as talking behind people's back if they are using the phone, since it is not being done in person. And, people gossiping about someone at the hair solon, barber shop, library, and so forth, can't be considered as talking behind people's back because it is being done in a public location--regardless whether the person being gossiped about is privy to the conversation or a participant in the conversation.

This gives me at least some indication of the extent you are willing to go to rationalize your behavior. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

That is an interesting caveat, and one that I don't see as reasonable.

By your "reasoning" people can't be considered as talking behind people's back if they are using the phone, since it is not being done in person. And, people gossiping about someone at the hair solon, barber shop, library, and so forth, can't be considered as talking behind people's back because it is being done in a public location--regardless whether the person being gossiped about is privy to the conversation or a participant in the conversation.

This gives me at least some indication of the extent you are willing to go to rationalize your behavior. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

None of your examples fits, Wade. All of the activities you listed: phone calls, barber shop, hair "solon", are all things that happen "in person." Moreover, none of the things you listed are done "online," with full and easy access for the person being discussed.

You know, Wade, I had a thought. You have been saying for some time now that you are "conserned" about a bunch of us who post on this site, and that, in the end, what it all boils down to is your feeling that many of us attack your "most precious and dear Church," or that we attack your "sacred beliefs." But what, specifically, are you talking about? And how does something so far flung as what we imagine juliann sounds like fit into this?

[_wenglund]

None of your examples fits, Wade. All of the activities you listed: phone calls, barber shop, hair "solon", are all things that happen "in person." Moreover, none of the things you listed are done "online," with full and easy access for the person being discussed.

I suppose that when two people talk standing right next to each other and are talking to each other on cell phones, could, in that exceptional sense, be considered as talking "in person". But, otherwise, I don't see it.

And, I don't buy your arbitary diqualifier (i.e. "online, with possible easy access by the person being discussed"). To me, it is perfectly valid to consider as "talking behind the back" those situations where the party being discussed is not demonstrably present or actively participating. But, it is not important enought for me to argue this any further with you.

You know, Wade, I had a thought. You have been saying for some time now that you are "conserned" about a bunch of us who post on this site, and that, in the end, what it all boils down to is your feeling that many of us attack your "most precious and dear Church," or that we attack your "sacred beliefs." But what, specifically, are you talking about? And how does something so far flung as what we imagine juliann sounds like fit into this?

Speaking of far flung, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would suppose my comments on this thread are a function of, or supposedly viewed by me as "fitting in", with my supposedly "feeling that many of [you] attack [my] 'most precious and dear Church,' or that [you] attack [my] 'sacred beliefs?'" As is typical of you, you are yet again irrationally ascribing things to me that are entirely unfamiliar to me. Attempts at discussing things with a person, such as yourself, who seemingly pathologically props up straw men, is destined to be futile. I, for one, have no interest in traveling any further with you down that crooked and dead-end conversational road.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

None of your examples fits, Wade. All of the activities you listed: phone calls, barber shop, hair "solon", are all things that happen "in person." Moreover, none of the things you listed are done "online," with full and easy access for the person being discussed.

I suppose that when two people talk standing right next to each other and are talking to each other on cell phones, could, in that exceptional sense, be considered as talking "in person". But, otherwise, I don't see it.

And, I don't buy your arbitary diqualifier (i.e. "online, with possible easy access by the person being discussed"). To me, it is perfectly valid to consider as "talking behind the back" those situations where the party being discussed is not demonstrably present or actively participating. But, it is not important enought for me to argue this any further with you.

You (apparently intentionally) misquoted me, Wade. I said "full and easy access." Not "possible" access. There is nothing standing in the way of juliann reading these comments. In fact, I have good reason to believe that she either A) reads the comments herself; or B) is informed of them by one of her cronies on the fittingly-named MADboard.

The bottom line is that "talking behind someone's back" has to go on without the other person knowing. And without the other person having access to the discussion. juliann, as has already been pointed out to you, can come here anytime she likes. So: your examples are essentially meaningless. Sorry to have to force you to abandon yet another argument, Wade, but you look quite attractive waving that white flag again and again.

You know, Wade, I had a thought. You have been saying for some time now that you are "conserned" about a bunch of us who post on this site, and that, in the end, what it all boils down to is your feeling that many of us attack your "most precious and dear Church," or that we attack your "sacred beliefs." But what, specifically, are you talking about? And how does something so far flung as what we imagine juliann sounds like fit into this?

Speaking of far flung, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would suppose my comments on this thread are a function of, or supposedly viewed by me as "fitting in", with my supposedly "feeling that many of [you] attack [my] 'most precious and dear Church,' or that [you] attack [my] 'sacred beliefs?'" As is typical of you, you are yet again irrationally ascribing things to me that are entirely unfamiliar to me. Attempts at discussing things with a person, such as yourself, who seemingly pathologically props up straw men, is destined to be futile. I, for one, have no interest in traveling any further with you down that crooked and dead-end conversational road.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You think this topic is "unfamiliar"? Have you not been discussing this, either directly or indirectly, for the past several weeks? Face it, Wade: practically every post you've made both here and at KG's board was aimed at defending the Church in some way. Oddly enough, however, very few of your posts actually have anything to do with the Church at all. The lion's share of your posts are dedicated to attacking the people you view as critics. Now why might that be, I wonder?

[_moksha]

I do have to plead guilty to the juvenile part. The eternal child in me yearns to express itself.

Wait a minute, aren't you the same Moksha who once suggested that Pahoran could be referred to as an ICBM, or Inter-Continental Ballistic Mormon? Didn't you further suggest that if he was turned loose on the Vatican, it would give new liturgical meaning to "Weapon of Mass Destruction"?

Well then, from what I've read up above, why are you not according other individuals and groups of people the same inherent acceptance and respect that Wade accords to them? Huh? Now try to be nice like him and no punning!

[_beastie]

Wait a minute, aren't you the same Moksha who once suggested that Pahoran could be referred to as an ICBM, or Inter-Continental Ballistic Mormon? Didn't you further suggest that if he was turned loose on the Vatican, it would give new liturgical meaning to "Weapon of Mass Destruction"?

Well then, from what I've read up above, why are you not according other individuals and groups of people the same inherent acceptance and respect that Wade accords to them? Huh? Now try to be nice like him and no punning!

LOL!!!


How did I miss the ICBM reference????? Shoooot, had I been paying enough attention to notice that one earlier, I wouldn't have tried out "Pee." ;)

by the way, Wade:

Here's a good example of talking behind people's backs: having a private email group, accessible only to the elect, on which various FAIR personalities are discussed and dissected.

You may not know anything about this, because I would guess you're not elite, but others who read this board regularly know exactly what I am talking about.

[_Coggins7]

I just read some of the posts on the MAD thread about God not healing amputees, and it suddenly struck me what celebrity reminds me of Pahoran to such an extent, I've been unconsciously using the celeb's voice to "hear" Pahoran.

Dick Cheney.

I mean can't you just picture him talking with that half snarl on his lips, and telling someone to "go eff yourself"?

You got any celeb/internet personnae hook-ups? I've been trying to reason with Juliann so I need some laughs. ;)

No, I can't hear Cheney saying something like that at all. Really, this sounds more like something you'd hear from Al Sharpton, or John Kerry in an ungaruded moment when he didn't believe the commoners were listening.

Loran