DiscussMormonism.com

Jersey Girl wrote:
Are you saying that because a poster uses a screen name that they haven't the right to call someone a liar?

Don't try to make sense of it Jersey. I don't know why there are still posters trying to rescue something from the debacle. I'm with runtu: take a deep breath, don't respond, take a pain pill or do some other more productive thing.

Jersey Girl wrote: Are you saying that because a poster uses a screen name that they haven't the right to call someone a liar?

No. Obviously. I made absolutely no mention of that right--and this because my point had absolutely nothing to do with the right. Why you would ask this question of me, is anyone's guess.

Just so you know, to correctly understand my point requires an elementary understanding of irony. Happy studying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:I don't understand why Nomad and Pahoran are spending their time making arguments for Will here, when all apologists know that this place is a backwater with absolutely no significance.!

Perhaps you have forgotten, but we saints have a moral imperative to seek out the lost sheep, including those who have wandered into and taken up residence in the backwaters of insignificance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And many of us that have gained added enlightenment since our TBM days feels a moral imperative to help shed the light back on the 'shepherds'.

wenglund wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote: Are you saying that because a poster uses a screen name that they haven't the right to call someone a liar?

No. Obviously. I made absolutely no mention of that right--and this because my point had absolutely nothing to do with the right. Why you would ask this question of me, is anyone's guess.

Just so you know, to correctly understand my point requires an elementary understanding of irony. Happy studying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh for Pete sakes, Wade, get off it. Stop playing cat and mouse with the truth. If you think it "ironic" for a poster using a screen name to call someone else a liar, then might I suggest you run that by any number of home grown apologists who do the very same thing?

Blixa wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:
Are you saying that because a poster uses a screen name that they haven't the right to call someone a liar?

Don't try to make sense of it Jersey. I don't know why there are still posters trying to rescue something from the debacle. I'm with runtu: take a deep breath, don't respond, take a pain pill or do some other more productive thing.

I'm sorting my DMC floss. Surely that qualifies as more productive.

:-)

Blixa wrote: Don't try to make sense of it Jersey. I don't know why there are still posters trying to rescue something from the debacle. I'm with runtu: take a deep breath, don't respond, take a pain pill or do some other more productive thing.

Like you, I am not exactly sure why some posters are defending the debacle. For my part, I have been trying to quail it nearly from its inception.

If only the defenders and perpetrators would follow your and Runtu's lead, and take the more reasonable road of silence rather than add to the hypocritical cacophony of the lynch mob, this whole continually perpetuating debacle may have been avoided.

But, alas, it appears that some of the folks here won't be denied their selective pound of flesh. Their thirst for judgementalism and their desperate drive to ironically marginalize certain opposing views, appears insatiable. Hence, the ever proliferating, farcical fiasco.

The good news is, it is all but a tempest in a teapot, full of sounds of fury, but of little significance where things matter most.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:
Like you, I am not exactly sure why some posters are defending the debacle. For my part, I have been trying to quail it nearly from its inception.

If only the defenders and perpetrators would follow your and Runtu's lead, and take the more reasonable road of silence rather than add to the hypocritical cacophony of the lynch mob, this whole continually perpetuating debacle may have been avoided.

But, alas, it appears that some of the folks here won't be denied their selective pound of flesh. Their thirst for judgementalism and their desperate drive to ironically marginalize certain opposing views, appears insatiable. Hence, the ever proliferating, farcical fiasco.

The good news is, it is all but a tempest in a teapot, full of sounds of fury, but of little significance where things matter most.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're forgetting that it was the Maxwell Institute that did the actual "lynching." :)

Jersey Girl wrote: Oh for Pete sakes, Wade, get off it. Stop playing cat and mouse with the truth. If you think it "ironic" for a poster using a screen name to call someone else a liar, then might I suggest you run that by any number of home grown apologists who do the very same thing?

Stop being obtuse, Jersey Girl. Just admit to yourself that you jumped in before knowing what I was talking about, and own up to your evident ignorance. You do yourself a disservice by continuing to pretend you have a clue in this instance.

It is only after you face this truth that you may then be in a position of understanding.

If that is asking too much of you, then you might be better off following Blixa's suggestion. At least in silence you won't be removing all doubt about your ignorance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For a while, every other post from Wade contained some boilerplate about how he was mainly concerned with "productive" and "constructive" dialog, and that he refused to participate in any conversation that wasn't mutually beneficial, or something along those lines. I guess that was all just a ruse?

wenglund wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote: Oh for Pete sakes, Wade, get off it. Stop playing cat and mouse with the truth. If you think it "ironic" for a poster using a screen name to call someone else a liar, then might I suggest you run that by any number of home grown apologists who do the very same thing?

Stop being obtuse, Jersey Girl. Just admit to yourself that you jumped in before knowing what I was talking about, and own up to your evident ignorance. You do yourself a disservice by continuing to pretend you have a clue in this instance.

It is only after you face this truth that you may then be in a position of understanding.

If that is asking too much of you, then you might be better off following Blixa's suggestion. At least in silence you won't be removing all doubt about your ignorance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've read all the current Schryver-related threads, I've read every post in this thread, I know exactly what you were talking about, honey, don't get so riled up, okay?