In the thread, "According to BC, the posters at MDB are preoccupied with sex" bcspace is quoted:
Sex once tried, frankly, is usually very difficult to give up. There is a reason why the apostle Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). It is similar to why you see virulent antiMormons, such as those who inhabit mormondiscussions.org, constantly talking and worrying about sex. They are similarly afflicted and/or they know that sex and porn are the best ways to get an active LDS person to fall.
I do believe that you are as crude, rude and sexually perverted as anyone who has ever used this board. I believe that bc should use you as the "poster boy" for his argument.
That's a pretty strong argument, and seems to indicate a conclusion borne of long and serious study of the question.
So, how would you characterize my particular manner of sexual perversion? Please feel free to cite examples from my body of work.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
That you apparently see nothing vulgar in the long list of quotes that Pokatator shared is part of the problem. I understand that your upbringing may contribute to this difficulty, however, at your age, I would have expected that you would be able to overcome that handicap a bit and be able to differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech. In fact, I’m inclined to assume that you are able to make this differentiation, but you are choosing to be obtuse about this point due to your reluctance to admit your critics have a valid point.
But, in case my assumption is incorrect, and you really cannot differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech, then you would engage in the same sort of speech patterns at MAD that you do here. So can you link to some MAD threads wherein you:
1 – Refer to female posters’ bodily attributes in a positive or negative manner. This could be musing about how the female poster would look in a tank top, in a slinky black dress, or whether you admire her cleavage. Alternately, it could be musing about how age or lack of physical appeal probably renders a female poster undesirable, such as musing about varicose veins and whether or not any male could possibly be attracted to her.
2 – Refer to other posters or their arguments with sexually explicit phrases, such as “orgiastic circle jerks”, a “thousand orgasms”, “flaccid”, “skanky whore with lice”, “slut”, “piss on your rug”, “bitch”, “snot nosed bastard”.
Showing us that you do utilize the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us, and that those same LDS have no problem with your choice of words will provide evidence of your assertion. Being unable provide evidence that you do engage in the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us undermines your assertion.
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.
Ray A wrote:. If Mormons are happy they can post on MAD to their heart's content. I'm not going to spoil their party.
That is fine and good, but what would happen on a long term basis to Will, with MAD not allowing him to express his true self through their insistence on decorum. If one fills a giant gas bag with too much hot air and allows none to come fizzling out, then it will explode. Thank goodness for the release valve of this forum.
I am not comparing Will with such a giant gas bag, I was talking about the over acumulation of hot air.
That you apparently see nothing vulgar in the long list of quotes that Pokatator shared is part of the problem. I understand that your upbringing may contribute to this difficulty, however, at your age, I would have expected that you would be able to overcome that handicap a bit and be able to differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech. In fact, I’m inclined to assume that you are able to make this differentiation, but you are choosing to be obtuse about this point due to your reluctance to admit your critics have a valid point.
But, in case my assumption is incorrect, and you really cannot differentiate between vulgar speech and non-vulgar speech, then you would engage in the same sort of speech patterns at MAD that you do here. So can you link to some MAD threads wherein you:
1 – Refer to female posters’ bodily attributes in a positive or negative manner. This could be musing about how the female poster would look in a tank top, in a slinky black dress, or whether you admire her cleavage. Alternately, it could be musing about how age or lack of physical appeal probably renders a female poster undesirable, such as musing about varicose veins and whether or not any male could possibly be attracted to her.
2 – Refer to other posters or their arguments with sexually explicit phrases, such as “orgiastic circle jerks”, a “thousand orgasms”, “flaccid”, “skanky whore with lice”, “slut”, “piss on your rug”, “bitch”, “snot nosed bastard”.
Showing us that you do utilize the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us, and that those same LDS have no problem with your choice of words will provide evidence of your assertion. Being unable provide evidence that you do engage in the same sort of language in front of LDS that you do in front of us undermines your assertion.
beastlie, beastlie, beastlie,
I see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
I see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.
As I suspected. Of course you cannot provide evidence that you use such language on MAD. You don't. So don't bother protesting that I don't understand LDS culture.
The context is that you think that posters on this board deserve your trailer trash behavior. Well, some may deserve that, but others do not. That you are incapable of discerning that difference is as much of a problem as your trailer trash upbringing. You can take Will out of the trailer park, but you clearly cannot take the trailer park out of Will.
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 see that once again (as often manifest in your pseudo-scholarly hobby) you fail to grasp the key concept that context is everything.
As I suspected. Of course you cannot provide evidence that you use such language on MAD. You don't. So don't bother protesting that I don't understand LDS culture.
The context is that you think that posters on this board deserve your trailer trash behavior. Well, some may deserve that, but others do not. That you are incapable of discerning that difference is as much of a problem as your trailer trash upbringing. You can take Will out of the trailer park, but you clearly cannot take the trailer park out of Will.
Che magnifico!
Bravo! Sinceramente. Bravo!
That's one you should practice in front of a mirror in order to get it "just right."
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
That's one you should practice in front of a mirror in order to get it "just right."
You're confused. My name is beastie, not Will.
Au contraire!
And you know it, of course. You're just playing the false modesty card for effect.
You are an absolute natural!
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
