DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades wrote:

Maybe I just don't understand the rule, so i appreciate any clarification you might be willing to offer.

Here's the clarification: It happens so often that I can't keep up. I don't have the psychic energy, so the word-censor has to suffice as being "better than nothing."

Thank you, Dr. Shades, for your response. I did acknowledge your point above in a later post when I said

...and I understand the mods can't be everywhere...

I apologize if my understanding of that aspect of the situation didn't come through in the post you quoted, that was not my intention.

Lemmie wrote:Thank you, Dr. Shades, for your response. I did acknowledge your point above in a later post when I said

...and I understand the mods can't be everywhere...

I apologize if my understanding of that aspect of the situation didn't come through in the post you quoted, that was not my intention.

It's all good.

How is it all good, Shades?

I've read the previous exchanges and comments here. It was me who was once again called a cunt on this board. Let me be complete in my reporting. "Total cunt", "venomous bitch" and was told I was "circle jerking" myself off, followed by "Screw you" and "Screw you!!"

I didn't report it the first time, although Lemmie raised the issue of the first incidence in Prison. She has once again raised the issue about female slurs being used as personal attacks here, another instance where I didn't report the offensive comments.

And why? Because of exactly how this has been received by you on this particular thread. You say,

Here's the clarification: It happens so often that I can't keep up. I don't have the psychic energy, so the word-censor has to suffice as being "better than nothing."

No one expects you to keep up with everything. I've lost count of how many times I have commented that you of all people should be able to come to the board that you yourself have created and enjoy it like the rest of the community.

Here, you have got a report right on this thread. You've got the language that was used and the location. I see no indication that you've taken time to examine the exchanges that Lemmie's report on this thread identified.

Have you acted on this report? Examined the exchanges in question and if so, I should like to know what your determination was. Do the comments constitute a moveable personal attack or not? Have you decided that the filthy words in question were warranted within the context of the exchanges in which they took place?

Where I come from, the word cunt is the most abusive and filthy female slur in existence. How is this warranted under any circumstance?

I have no problem whatsoever when other posters become exasperated or annoyed with me and choose to swear in their posts. I find it incredibly offensive to be called a hight tier filthy, vulgar, and pornographic female slur and particularly when you yourself have taken a report about it on this very thread and left the issue without address and close with "It's all good".

It's not all good. It's not even close to all good.

You know what was said. You know where it was said. Where is your determination?

Stem wrote:That is cool--a pretty similar sounding story. I get the policy change being a final straw. Those were pathetic policies to add.

Same here. The November 2015 policy was the last straw. I contacted a lawyer and had my name officially removed. I payed hell with my extended family for it, but I don't care. I can't be apart of an organiztion that treats families and little children in such as way.

Jersey Girl wrote:I've read the previous exchanges and comments here. It was me who was once again called a cunt on this board. Let me be complete in my reporting. "Total cunt", "venomous bitch" and was told I was "circle jerking" myself off, followed by "Screw you" and "Screw you!!"

Ouch, you sure have a real nack for bringing out the best in some. Were you more offended with the language or satisfied with bringing one to that level of frustration?

moksha wrote:

Clark Gobel wrote:The 17th-century grammar in the Book of Mormon is one that really hasn't been grappled with by critics for instance.

Clark makes an excellent point, Mormon critics would be totally unprepared to cope with the Nephites being present in the 1600s and potentially interacting with the Jamestown colonists or even being present to greet the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. 17th Century grammar bodeth ill for Mormon critics.

To be clear, and I thought I made this explicit there, this deals just with Joseph as author not with whether it’s historical. Indeed I explicitly criticized those who claimed it entailed the latter.

RockSlider wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:I've read the previous exchanges and comments here. It was me who was once again called a cunt on this board. Let me be complete in my reporting. "Total cunt", "venomous bitch" and was told I was "circle jerking" myself off, followed by "Screw you" and "Screw you!!"

Ouch, you sure have a real nack for bringing out the best in some. Were you more offended with the language or satisfied with bringing one to that level of frustration?

So it is HER fault someone called her a cunt? I can't believe your post. What a disgusting thing to say.

Dr. Shades, please. I broke my commitment to not report because what Rockslider is implying here is sickening. Please move his filth.

Will Schyrver wrote: Tyrannical repression of the pure democracy of an unfettered internet is an existential imperative for the controlling interests of the empire.

Will has certainly come a long way since that C-word stuff. Readers would be well served by donning a tweed jacket with suede patches on the sleeves to fully appreciate the new William Schyrver. Baying at the moon is optional.

ClarkGoble wrote:To be clear, and I thought I made this explicit there, this deals just with Joseph as author not with whether it’s historical. Indeed I explicitly criticized those who claimed it entailed the latter.

Thank you, Clark, for that clarification.

moksha wrote:

ClarkGoble wrote:To be clear, and I thought I made this explicit there, this deals just with Joseph as author not with whether it’s historical. Indeed I explicitly criticized those who claimed it entailed the latter.

Thank you, Clark, for that clarification.

Hi Clark I can't find where your comment came from! Is it a different thread? I have an interest in Carmack's methodology so I wanted to read your comments about the 17th century grammar theory. Do you have a link?