The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Bond James Bond]

Ha ha ha!

Nemesis this morning upon this thread being unpinned.

[_3sheets2thewind]

nemesis about this thread:

"Many of you may not be aware of Mormon Discussions Quote page that takes out of context quotes of what you say here to make fun of you."

which quotes? put up or shut up.

and here is nemesis hook being set securely in Deborahs mouth ...

"I think they need to take down their thread using our quotes out of content ..."


I challenge those who think the quotes here are out of context and are being used to portray a message that was not intended by the author to prove such.

Start with the this jem from erichard

"I remain totally convinced that the ban was from God and that it was a capitulation by the Gentile church leaders to seek to remove it. In other words, I believe President Kimball was deceived, and he led the Lord's church into error. I know people call this racist, but it is not mean spirited. It is in harmony with the doctrines of Mormon Eternalism."

so nemesis do you care to back up your false claims? do you care to expose what is out of context and how the author is being misrepresented?

[_asbestosman]

nemesis about this thread:

"Many of you may not be aware of Mormon Discussions Quote page that takes out of context quotes of what you say here to make fun of you."

which quotes? put up or shut up.

The quote someone posted from me was a poor interpretation of what I was saying--so poor that I didn't even feel like offering correction. I might bother to do so later here, though, thanks to your challenge. However, I would like you try taking a stab at it. Go through that thread and find the quote someone had of me from MADB (not MDD). As I recall, the topic was pornography or sex. I want you to find that post, then see if you can try figuring out what I likely meant and why I think the discussion of my quote so completely misconstrued what I think.

Return and report!

[_Bond James Bond]

Pin the thread:

Also:

Another unwarranted attack on Juliann who doesn't post on Mormondiscussions dot com owned by [edit] or Dr. Shades. Seems like the board can only thrive on personal attacks on people that post here or there wouldn't be such resistance to stopping it.

http://tinyurl.com/3bkc3zr

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/547 ... rs-of-mdd/

[_3sheets2thewind]

nemesis about this thread:

"Many of you may not be aware of Mormon Discussions Quote page that takes out of context quotes of what you say here to make fun of you."

which quotes? put up or shut up.

The quote someone posted from me was a poor interpretation of what I was saying--so poor that I didn't even feel like offering correction.

If you make a claim it is up to you to prove your claim. If you are going to claim you were mistrepresnted, then prove it. I would be happy to read your explanation.

[_Yoda]

nemesis about this thread:

"Many of you may not be aware of Mormon Discussions Quote page that takes out of context quotes of what you say here to make fun of you."

which quotes? put up or shut up.

The quote someone posted from me was a poor interpretation of what I was saying--so poor that I didn't even feel like offering correction. I might bother to do so later here, though, thanks to your challenge. However, I would like you try taking a stab at it. Go through that thread and find the quote someone had of me from MADB (not MDD). As I recall, the topic was pornography or sex. I want you to find that post, then see if you can try figuring out what I likely meant and why I think the discussion of my quote so completely misconstrued what I think.

Return and report!

Honestly, Abman, you are one of the most level-headed posters on both this board, and MDD. I don't even have to look.

If you claim that you were misrepresented, then you were.

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned...and whoever did it owes you an apology.

[_Yoda]

Pin the thread:

Also:

Another unwarranted attack on Juliann who doesn't post on Mormondiscussions dot com owned by [edit] or Dr. Shades. Seems like the board can only thrive on personal attacks on people that post here or there wouldn't be such resistance to stopping it.

http://tinyurl.com/3bkc3zr

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/547 ... rs-of-mdd/

I agree. Nemesis is never going to change. He is just trying to continuously stir the pot.

Re-pin the damned thread as far as I'm concerned.

[_3sheets2thewind]

concerning the legal right to same sex marriage in California prior to Prop 8 ... here are some heads in the sand

Jason Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:22 PM
It [Prop 8] didn't take away a right, because there was no right there in the first place. There was a court ruling saying there was a right, but the court was wrong.

context added

Jeff K Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:43 PM
One court ruled the right existed, ... A single judge finding such does not make it a right that is then taken away.

stargazer same thread different posts
No right was created. Therefore, no right was taken away.
----
Therre was no right to ssm in California.
----
I'm denying that such unions are actually marriages.
----
SSM was not a right ... to all citizens of California.

[_asbestosman]

If you make a claim it is up to you to prove your claim. If you are going to claim you were mistrepresnted, then prove it. I would be happy to read your explanation.

All right I will. I recognize, that mine is the burden to prove my claim. The reason I gave you the burden is that I want to change the culture of this board. I want you and others to learn how to see things in better light. However, I don't think you're willing to do that. In fact, I'll go as far as to say I think you'll disagree with my take on myself and call it a weak, pathetic cop-out reiterating your claim that Nemesis is wrong. I would love for you to prove me wrong.

The post in question is here on page 9 at the top and is as follows:

The thread on P0rnography is providing some gems. This one is from asbestosman on the horrors of Sports Illustrated. What will be the next target of his opprobrium, the JC Penney catalog?:

From a religious standpoint it is wrong to arouse yourself or others (except your spouse). This covers Swimsuit catalogs even though it might not be classified as porn in any legal sense.

This misrepresents me because I don't think there is anything inherently pornographic about Sport's Illustrated or the JC Penney catalog or even the Victoria's Secret catalog. I don't even think it's inherently sinful or wrong to look at those things. It's not the magazines themselves that is bad. The sin is in arousing yourself. Jesus Himself said that he who looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart.

Now, perhaps you believe Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you believe there is nothing wrong with arousing yourself by looking at whatever it may be. Or maybe you think that tame magazines are fine, but Penthouse is wrong. You won't hear me argue that you're inherently wrong about your opinion on arousal and that there is an obvious, secular universal standard they way there is (more or less) for abuse or theft. I recognize that what counts as appropriate dress is context and culture specific. It's fine for men to go shirtless at the beach, or running outside, but not while eating at a decent restaurant. In a different culture, it might indeed be okay.

Finally, my words were addressed to a specific audience in a specific context. I was speaking to people who accept the commandments of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I was not speaking to condemn the world for Sports Illustrated. I was speaking specifically in how a latter day saint could understand and navigate gray areas related to lust. When one understands the underlying principle for latter-day saints, one doesn't need to argue about Sport's Illustrated. Sport's Illustrated can be just fine for a faithful saint--depending on how he takes it. If he's using it for self-arousal, then the saints would consider that sin.

All that aside, I'm sure we can agree that if nothing else it's kind of pathetic to get off on Sport's Illustrated, National Geographic, and the JC Penny catalog.

Did I write all of that at MADB / MDD? No, of course not. Those who know me and have read several posts by me will probably be familiar with my take on these issues. While my views do evolve over time, I really don't think anyone familiar with my history of posting would read me so poorly as to assume I think Sport's Illustrated or the JC Penny catalog are filthy skin-mags turning men into raging pornohollics. Even if you weren't familiar with my posting history, you might have at least noted the context--speaking to faithful members about how fellow-saints view the issue of lust.


Now, prove me wrong about you blowing my explanation off and continuing to accuse Nemesis of blowing hot air. I dare you. ;)

[_beastie]

I agree. Nemesis is never going to change. He is just trying to continuously stir the pot.

Re-pin the damned thread as far as I'm concerned.

I rarely read this thread, but happened to check it today and followed the link.

Nemesis,

I know you read this thread. You are a liar. There is no other way to put it. I know human nature, I understand confirmation bias, etc etc.... but the title of your thread:

Endorsed Attacks On Posters Of Mdd by posters of Mormondiscussions dot com

is simply an outright lie.

Have you no shame?