Chap wrote:I notice that stemelbow's former habitual folksy and less sophisticated prose style is being re-introduced in such posts as this, no doubt as he tries to get back into character after his lapse into college-level literacy and complexity of expression.
We actually had a "ya" for "you" not long ago. Now we have 'guys', 'huh', 'oh boy' and no doubt there are more delights to come.
You're trying too hard to complain about me. Just let things go.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Molok wrote:Of course you abuse us. What in God's name would you call the drivel that you type? "The Lord's Work"? You posit such depthful positions like "Joseph Smith having plates is evidence that Joseph Smith had plates" and "people disagree when they talk"
You're whining of abuse because you miss my point and are attributing quotes to me that I never said? Oh sheesh. You guys...
LOL. The second one is a paraphrase of something you said like, two pages ago. Are you the main character from Memento or something? By the way, I know you aren't smart enough to realize this on your own, but "abuse" doesn't necessarily have to mean physically hitting someone.
Chap wrote:I notice that stemelbow's former habitual folksy and less sophisticated prose style is being re-introduced in such posts as this, no doubt as he tries to get back into character after his lapse into college-level literacy and complexity of expression.
We actually had a "ya" for "you" not long ago. Now we have 'guys', 'huh', 'oh boy' and no doubt there are more delights to come.
You're trying too hard to complain about me. Just let things go.
That's an observation, not a complaint. There is a difference, perhaps one day you will realize what that is. But probably not.
Doctor Scratch wrote:What are the Mopologists guilty of?
I'm sure plenty of things. I have no desire to go through some exhausted list. What are you guilty of? Do you consider yourself guiltless too?
Oh, what--*you* won't "go through some exhausted list," but you expect me to? That doesn't seem very fair, David.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:Oh, what--*you* won't "go through some exhausted list," but you expect me to? That doesn't seem very fair, David.
Hey, you're the one who is asking for a list. I figure if you want me to create some list, it'd only be fair you offer a list of yourself first. So provide a list for what you are guilty of, please. We can start there. In truth some LDS folks might actually be guilty of some of the same things. It'll save us both some time.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Hey, you're the one who is asking for a list. I figure if you want me to create some list, it'd only be fair you offer a list of yourself first. So provide a list for what you are guilty of, please. We can start there. In truth some LDS folks might actually be guilty of some of the same things. It'll save us both some time.
Stop complaining about Dr Scratch. He asked you the question first. Man up Elbow!
Molok wrote:LOL. The second one is a paraphrase of something you said like, two pages ago. Are you the main character from Memento or something? By the way, I know you aren't smart enough to realize this on your own, but "abuse" doesn't necessarily have to mean physically hitting someone.
I didn't suggest that abuse can only refer to physically hitting someone. I just find it adorable that in your effort to attack and demonize stem, with your bullying style, you accuse me of abuse. Don't worry, no one else here will do anything but pile on me. I'll just point out your silly tactics as they come.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.