Hello,
When Beastie gets into the Celestial Kingdom, She will be able to have more than one husband there. There are 105 males born for about every 100 females. And there have been more males who have died before the age of eight, than there have been females. There are going to be a lot more males than females within the Celestial Kingdom. There is going to be Celestial Polyandry.
Beastie rocks my socks.
-
_Brackite
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6382
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
I think Bob is going with the mistaken idea that if he repeats something enough times others will believe him, or maybe that he will believe himself? Or something. 
I'm not sure if Bob understands that the joke had NOTHING to do with his wife but was about him? As many times as this has been explained to him he still insists on not only bringing up the lighthearted joke, but asserting that it was some sort of insult to his wife. So weird.
And, isn't there something in the scriptures about forgiving those who apologize? Something about the one who doesn't forgive is the one who has committed the more serious sin? Or a scripture about forgiving seven times seven? Hmmm... its been a while.
The whole stalking claim is weird. Of course there never was a stalker, but Bob seems to think that if he keeps asserting this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, someone is going to think there is some truth to it. Maybe it works in court, but I don't think anyone on this board is falling for the little trick.
~td~
I'm not sure if Bob understands that the joke had NOTHING to do with his wife but was about him? As many times as this has been explained to him he still insists on not only bringing up the lighthearted joke, but asserting that it was some sort of insult to his wife. So weird.
And, isn't there something in the scriptures about forgiving those who apologize? Something about the one who doesn't forgive is the one who has committed the more serious sin? Or a scripture about forgiving seven times seven? Hmmm... its been a while.
The whole stalking claim is weird. Of course there never was a stalker, but Bob seems to think that if he keeps asserting this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, someone is going to think there is some truth to it. Maybe it works in court, but I don't think anyone on this board is falling for the little trick.
~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
_Pahoran99
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:31 pm
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
Beastie, a.k.a. my very own malevolent stalker, wrote:
Did you? How strange.
Was that the PM in which I pointed out that the evidence you posted did not support your accusation that I was lying?
I actually thought our PM exchanges (in which you participated) were comparatively irenic; I hoped we might be making some progress. Oh well.
Let us briefly review the matter in dispute: long ago in a forum far, far away, I made a passing reference to the Manna case, among four or five others, in support of my view that the stories anti-Mormons and apostates tell about how the Church "breaks up families" are almost always false. A brief argument ensued about that.
Then a couple of weeks ago, I noticed DrW's claim that his number one reason for having left the Church was because someone he called "Christine Jonson" had murdered her children. I subsequently found DrW's "Post-Mormon" blog in which he elaborated his reasons, and "Christine Jonson," as he called her, was the key to the whole story. His argument was that her action in drowning her children was the correct result of a logical interpretation of LDS teaching. In case you think I am misrepresenting his argument, he subsequently on MA&DB quoted President Hinckley to the effect that either it's all true or it's a fraud. "Christine Jonson," he said, did what she did because she believed it was all true; if you disagree with her actions, then you disagree with that belief.
In the meantime, Beastie, a.k.a. my very own malevolent stalker, had decided that my passing reference to the Manna case was exactly equivalent, in all meaningful respects, to DrW's demagogical argument. She assures me that she sincerely believes everything she posts, presumably including that claim. She wishes me to accept her sincere belief in everything she posts. She has no intention of returning the favour.
But I'm the jerk.
I pointed out that this was off-topic to the thread I had started, but Beastie regards herself as above such considerations. In response to her continued badgering, I gave a few terse responses, hoping (vainly) to satisfy her enough to let the thread get back on topic. However, I did not respond in detail to her accusations, which allows her adoring fans to imagine that she had actually made a point. Eventually I started the "Little yapping curs" thread to provide for her accusations and my responses to be aired. However, the mods shut it down before I had an opportunity to defend myself.
You may ask: why have I not subsequently defended myself in another thread? Well, the real reason the mods leave me alone is that I always respect their decisions, even when they are not helpful to me. Relitigating closed threads is an infraction that they have little patience for.
Beastlie flat-out accused me of lying when I said that Gino Manna's brother Joseph was the source of the false anti-Mormon stories regarding his killing of his family. Anyone who wants to page back can see the same series of posts she made on MA&DB, to which I had no opportunity to respond.
Now as I pointed out to Beastie, the ZLMB discussion happened a long time ago, and I do not pretend to remember every word that I or anyone else said. But I do remember what my thinking was about the Manna case. And it happens that a careful reading of the material Beastie posted shows that my memory was accurate.
Beastie quoted herself thus: (With emphasis added by me)
And she quoted me as replying:
This either refers to the entire paragraph, in which case I agreed with her about all of it, or simply to the last sentence, in which case I passed over the highlighted portion in silence. Beastie has made much of the fact that I did not take several opportunities to clarify at that time that I thought Joseph Manna, not Gino, was the source of the anti-Mormon version of events; but she seems not to have noticed that I also passed up the opportunity to disagree with her when she identified Joseph as the source. In fact, later on in the very same post from which she was quoting, she quotes me as saying:
Note well: I told Beastie at the time that her assertion that Joseph Manna was the source of the anti-Mormon version of events did not "materially contradict what I actually said about anything."
And it didn't.
Beastie argued that the context of the discussion more or less required that Gino Manna must be the sole individual in view, because he was an ex-Mormon while his brother Joseph was not. However, that rather depends upon what we choose to include in the context. Frankly, it would not have occurred to me that anyone would ascribe the anti-Mormon version to Gino because he was unavailable to provide one; you see, he died with his family. How was he supposed to blame the Church afterwards -- via a ouija board? That is a rather material fact that always formed part of the context of my view of the case.
Thus we see that Beastie's accusation of dishonesty against me fails.
Re-reading that discussion, it is clear that my brief remarks tended to not preserve the distinction between apostates and anti-Mormons in general. Since these are frequently overlapping sets, I have not always been as careful as I might have been about that.
This of course means that, since the discussion was mostly focused upon apostates rather than anti-Mormons in general, the Manna case was not the best possible example of the phenomenon I was describing.
On MA&DB, when DrW made a similar (but more limited and grudging) concession regarding his use of what he called the "Christine Jonson" case, Beastie showered him with kudos. Given her fair-mindedness and even-handedness, I now await a similar shower of kudos coming my way.
I hope that the collapse of Beastie's accusation does not diminish the admiration of her ardent suitors.
Regards,
Pahoran
Speaking of letter-writing, I got yet another PM from Pahoran accusing me of lying. I went ahead and blocked him, because I have the sense he would continue it for a long time - just like that fellow in my old ward that everyone tried to avoid.
Did you? How strange.
Was that the PM in which I pointed out that the evidence you posted did not support your accusation that I was lying?
I actually thought our PM exchanges (in which you participated) were comparatively irenic; I hoped we might be making some progress. Oh well.
Let us briefly review the matter in dispute: long ago in a forum far, far away, I made a passing reference to the Manna case, among four or five others, in support of my view that the stories anti-Mormons and apostates tell about how the Church "breaks up families" are almost always false. A brief argument ensued about that.
Then a couple of weeks ago, I noticed DrW's claim that his number one reason for having left the Church was because someone he called "Christine Jonson" had murdered her children. I subsequently found DrW's "Post-Mormon" blog in which he elaborated his reasons, and "Christine Jonson," as he called her, was the key to the whole story. His argument was that her action in drowning her children was the correct result of a logical interpretation of LDS teaching. In case you think I am misrepresenting his argument, he subsequently on MA&DB quoted President Hinckley to the effect that either it's all true or it's a fraud. "Christine Jonson," he said, did what she did because she believed it was all true; if you disagree with her actions, then you disagree with that belief.
In the meantime, Beastie, a.k.a. my very own malevolent stalker, had decided that my passing reference to the Manna case was exactly equivalent, in all meaningful respects, to DrW's demagogical argument. She assures me that she sincerely believes everything she posts, presumably including that claim. She wishes me to accept her sincere belief in everything she posts. She has no intention of returning the favour.
But I'm the jerk.
I pointed out that this was off-topic to the thread I had started, but Beastie regards herself as above such considerations. In response to her continued badgering, I gave a few terse responses, hoping (vainly) to satisfy her enough to let the thread get back on topic. However, I did not respond in detail to her accusations, which allows her adoring fans to imagine that she had actually made a point. Eventually I started the "Little yapping curs" thread to provide for her accusations and my responses to be aired. However, the mods shut it down before I had an opportunity to defend myself.
You may ask: why have I not subsequently defended myself in another thread? Well, the real reason the mods leave me alone is that I always respect their decisions, even when they are not helpful to me. Relitigating closed threads is an infraction that they have little patience for.
Beastlie flat-out accused me of lying when I said that Gino Manna's brother Joseph was the source of the false anti-Mormon stories regarding his killing of his family. Anyone who wants to page back can see the same series of posts she made on MA&DB, to which I had no opportunity to respond.
Now as I pointed out to Beastie, the ZLMB discussion happened a long time ago, and I do not pretend to remember every word that I or anyone else said. But I do remember what my thinking was about the Manna case. And it happens that a careful reading of the material Beastie posted shows that my memory was accurate.
Beastie quoted herself thus: (With emphasis added by me)
4) The only person who appeared to link Mormonism to Mannas disorder was his brother. Manna himself appeared to believe the church was trying to take his home from him. (if Pahoran is correct, and the bishop finally did advise her to leave, that is probably the source of that comment)
And she quoted me as replying:
Very likely.
This either refers to the entire paragraph, in which case I agreed with her about all of it, or simply to the last sentence, in which case I passed over the highlighted portion in silence. Beastie has made much of the fact that I did not take several opportunities to clarify at that time that I thought Joseph Manna, not Gino, was the source of the anti-Mormon version of events; but she seems not to have noticed that I also passed up the opportunity to disagree with her when she identified Joseph as the source. In fact, later on in the very same post from which she was quoting, she quotes me as saying:
I fail to see how the evidence presented materially contradicts what I actually said about anything. Especially since I said that the case was atypical when I first mentioned it.
Note well: I told Beastie at the time that her assertion that Joseph Manna was the source of the anti-Mormon version of events did not "materially contradict what I actually said about anything."
And it didn't.
Beastie argued that the context of the discussion more or less required that Gino Manna must be the sole individual in view, because he was an ex-Mormon while his brother Joseph was not. However, that rather depends upon what we choose to include in the context. Frankly, it would not have occurred to me that anyone would ascribe the anti-Mormon version to Gino because he was unavailable to provide one; you see, he died with his family. How was he supposed to blame the Church afterwards -- via a ouija board? That is a rather material fact that always formed part of the context of my view of the case.
Thus we see that Beastie's accusation of dishonesty against me fails.
Re-reading that discussion, it is clear that my brief remarks tended to not preserve the distinction between apostates and anti-Mormons in general. Since these are frequently overlapping sets, I have not always been as careful as I might have been about that.
This of course means that, since the discussion was mostly focused upon apostates rather than anti-Mormons in general, the Manna case was not the best possible example of the phenomenon I was describing.
On MA&DB, when DrW made a similar (but more limited and grudging) concession regarding his use of what he called the "Christine Jonson" case, Beastie showered him with kudos. Given her fair-mindedness and even-handedness, I now await a similar shower of kudos coming my way.
I hope that the collapse of Beastie's accusation does not diminish the admiration of her ardent suitors.
Regards,
Pahoran
-
_Paul Osborne
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
liz3564 wrote:Beastie is awesome!She is class all the way.....always has been.
Why she even bothers to deal with MAD is beyond me.
We love you, Beastie!
Yeah, but Beastie ain't as good looking as you! Ooooh, baby! Liz rocks!
Paul O
-
_rocket
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
Beastie: I have been careful in the past to treat you with a reasonable modicum of respect. But you have stalked me. I guess I define stalking as intentional personal attacks using personal off-line family information to gain a tactical advantage -- to embarrass family members or children to gain an advantage.
I also reiterate my view that you are unqualified to school us or anybody else on civil behavior. Whereas you may be tempered in the MAD board, where the few knowledgeable Mormons venture here you are unrestrained.
********
Highlights of Beastie:
by the way, my attack on rcrocket had nothing to do with Mormonism. -- Nov 01, 2007 9:53 pm [i.e., an intentional personal attack]
I'm making a formal announcement: this guy is a misogynist arsehole and from now on I will treat him even worse than our roughest posters ever dreamed of. Hey, bob, it's a miracle you have seven kids. I guess that means your wife laid back and thought of England seven times. God knows I'd never let a misogynist touch me. -- Oct. 15, 2008 (republished by Beastie)
Lawyer bob, -- Jan 28, 2008 7:36 p.m. [a mocking reference to my real life occupation]
I never posted personal information about bob's family. -- Jan 27, 2008 4:45 pm. [not really true, is this?]
I called bob a liar -- Aug. 7, 2008 7:00 a.m.
You're pathetic. -- May 14, 2008 3:34 p.m.
I do consider myself a well-informed lay person. -- April 13, 2008 8:09:a.m. [I threw this one in for entertainmen value.]
What a joke you are, bob. -- Apri 11, 2008 2:59 p.m.
It's malicious behavior. - Mar 11, 2008 4:43
I will certainly attack bob -- Jan 25, 2008 9:39 p.m.
Bob's really an exmormon who is pretending to be a creepy, hypocritical, misogynist believer -- Nov. 18, 2007 7:57 p.m.
You know what's really pathetic about you, Bob? -- Feb 28, 2008 5:46 a.m.
I also reiterate my view that you are unqualified to school us or anybody else on civil behavior. Whereas you may be tempered in the MAD board, where the few knowledgeable Mormons venture here you are unrestrained.
********
Highlights of Beastie:
by the way, my attack on rcrocket had nothing to do with Mormonism. -- Nov 01, 2007 9:53 pm [i.e., an intentional personal attack]
I'm making a formal announcement: this guy is a misogynist arsehole and from now on I will treat him even worse than our roughest posters ever dreamed of. Hey, bob, it's a miracle you have seven kids. I guess that means your wife laid back and thought of England seven times. God knows I'd never let a misogynist touch me. -- Oct. 15, 2008 (republished by Beastie)
Lawyer bob, -- Jan 28, 2008 7:36 p.m. [a mocking reference to my real life occupation]
I never posted personal information about bob's family. -- Jan 27, 2008 4:45 pm. [not really true, is this?]
I called bob a liar -- Aug. 7, 2008 7:00 a.m.
You're pathetic. -- May 14, 2008 3:34 p.m.
I do consider myself a well-informed lay person. -- April 13, 2008 8:09:a.m. [I threw this one in for entertainmen value.]
What a joke you are, bob. -- Apri 11, 2008 2:59 p.m.
It's malicious behavior. - Mar 11, 2008 4:43
I will certainly attack bob -- Jan 25, 2008 9:39 p.m.
Bob's really an exmormon who is pretending to be a creepy, hypocritical, misogynist believer -- Nov. 18, 2007 7:57 p.m.
You know what's really pathetic about you, Bob? -- Feb 28, 2008 5:46 a.m.
-
_Gadianton Plumber
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
Bob, you are a joke. Do you think the reason Beastie is muted at Planet MAD is because there are smart Mormons there? You are beyond delusional. When did she stalk you? All I see here is a list on pissy one liners over years of posting. You have too much time to try to dig up dirt on her. She is sweet and kind, but human and flawed, also. I think you are cut from the same cloth as Danny. Watch your step, bucko.
-
_rocket
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
Gadianton Plumber wrote:Bob, you are a joke. . . .Watch your step, bucko.
Gee-- now threats.
Further, characterizing her assault on my wife and children as a "joke" for which she apologized is sort of like a rapist characterizing his crime as a joke and apologizing for it.
My only point in raising this once again is that she is not qualified to lecture anybody on civil behavior. Perhaps other subjects, but plainly not that.
-
_Gadianton Plumber
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
rocket wrote:Gadianton Plumber wrote:Bob, you are a joke. . . .Watch your step, bucko.
Gee-- now threats.
Further, characterizing her assault on my wife and children as a "joke" for which she apologized is sort of like a rapist characterizing his crime as a joke and apologizing for it.
My only point in raising this once again is that she is not qualified to lecture anybody on civil behavior. Perhaps other subjects, but plainly not that.
OK, is there anything in that pathetic list of your that irreversibley condemns her to the Oort Cloud of Pahoran? How is "think of England" an assault on your wife or children? It sounds like an insult to you. It sounds like she was calling you ugly. You know, "you so ugly yo woman gotta think of England." How does that rise to assault or stalking?
Yeah, threats. I am threatening assault apparently.
-
_rocket
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
Gadianton Plumber wrote:Yeah, threats. I am threatening assault apparently.
Apparently.
-
_Gadianton Plumber
Re: Beastie rocks my socks.
rocket wrote:Gadianton Plumber wrote:Yeah, threats. I am threatening assault apparently.
Apparently.
For your edification:
assault
A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.
Hmmmmmmm.....not seeing anything about calling Bob ugly. Let me know if you need a definition of "stalking."