What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
*apparently that's not going to happen for some reason...
Direct links were given in every quote of the mental gymnast. Context was provided. This is standard mental gymnast obfuscation.
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
I haven't seen any direct links yet. Like yeah, where I can click on the link and look at the complete context with my 'guilty' words highlighted and/or located within the page source. That really shouldn't be hard to do. I've been told that there is a link. Maybe someone else could show me where the poster in question has demonstrably linked to what has been asked now a few times.
Failure to do so might be interpreted in a number of different ways.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
I haven't seen any direct links yet. Like yeah, where I can click on the link and look at the complete context with my 'guilty' words highlighted and/or located within the page source. That really shouldn't be hard to do. I've been told that there is a link. Maybe someone else could show me where the poster in question has demonstrably linked to what has been asked now a few times.
Failure to do so might be interpreted in a number of different ways.
*apparently that's not going to happen for some reason...
Direct links were given in every quote of the mental gymnast. Context was provided. This is standard mental gymnast obfuscation.
The problem is that MG doesn’t know the function of the little arrows adjacent to the name of the poster within the quotes.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The problem is that MG doesn’t know the function of the little arrows adjacent to the name of the poster within the quotes.
Has this not been explained to MG recently - like within the past 2-3 months? Or is my memory letting me down?
The problem is that not much sinks in to MG’s memory. It’s very unreliable. Which is highly ironic when you think about it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
I haven't seen any direct links yet. Like yeah, where I can click on the link and look at the complete context with my 'guilty' words highlighted and/or located within the page source. That really shouldn't be hard to do. I've been told that there is a link. Maybe someone else could show me where the poster in question has demonstrably linked to what has been asked now a few times.
Failure to do so might be interpreted in a number of different ways.
Regards,
MG
One assumes you will now apologise for casting aspersions and innuendo simply because you didn’t understand or remember what those little arrows do…
Failure to do so might indicate that you’re a sociopath.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The problem is that MG doesn’t know the function of the little arrows adjacent to the name of the poster within the quotes.
Has this not been explained to MG recently - like within the past 2-3 months? Or is my memory letting me down?
Ah! And arrow! Thanks for that. I didn't make the connection. Here is what I said:
The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt.
Later, she was amenable.
There you go! Complete context. I'm really not sure what the hullabaloo is in regard to this post?
The problem is that MG doesn’t know the function of the little arrows adjacent to the name of the poster within the quotes.
Has this not been explained to MG recently - like within the past 2-3 months? Or is my memory letting me down?
His response was "Aah! The arrow! ...I didn't make the connection..."
This is again why I think he's just here to troll. It's virtually impossible that a participating adult here, who himself frequently uses the quote feature, didn't know that. He just wanted another opportunity to troll.
