Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_mms]

Thanks to those who have given me the benefit (as opposed to the burden) of the doubt and have shared your stories. Some of you in significant detail, which obviously took time. I have read and will continue to read and consider carefully. Know that your time is well spent (in my opinion).

[_mentalgymnast]

...The future looked pretty bleak.

Why? What about the future looked bleak?

I wonder if this is something that separates the questioners into the TBMs and exmos. The future never looked bleak to me. It only looked better.

Earlier in the paragraph that you extracted this comment from I said,

Dark places in regards to testimony/faith in the "Mormon story"...

This is what I was referring to as I was expressing a future of bleakness. Thinking that the "one true church" was simply a facade for the type of organization that you and others on this board perceive it to be.

Regards,
MG

[_Zoidberg]

I reiterate. You do not know what it means to employ the fallacy of appealing to authority.

]


If you are talking to me kindly clarify.

I believe he was talking to me, but I bet his opinion of you isn't much higher. In this case, I'm in good company.

[_rcrocket]

I reiterate. You do not know what it means to employ the fallacy of appealing to authority.

]


If you are talking to me kindly clarify.

I believe he was talking to me, but I bet his opinion of you isn't much higher. In this case, I'm in good company.

Since you are anonymous, I form few to no opinions of you as a person. I can only judge your posts. Similarly, I am reading Alan Greenspan's book. Since I don't know him as a person, I can only comment upon and judge his writing. Sometimes we tend to shortcut our posts and attack the messenger when really we intend to attack the post.

In your case, I have little to go upon except to say that your posts (1) demonstrate a moral ambivalence about anonymous attacks in public and (2) you might want to understand what it means to employ the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Just because I sign my name on letters I write, or in my letters to editors in newspapers, does not mean I am appealing to authority.



rcrocket

[_Who Knows]

This is what I was referring to as I was expressing a future of bleakness. Thinking that the "one true church" was simply a facade for the type of organization that you and others on this board perceive it to be.

I guess I was trying to figure out if your 'happiness' was/is tied to the LDS church being true. (therefore, if it's not true, the future looks bleak to you). Is that correct?

[_Zoidberg]

I form few to no opinions of you as a person

I'm seriously considering that you might think people on this board have a particularly short attention span. How am I to understand this:

Internet posting is filled with the dishonest and the cowardly, along with the honest and courageous. For every Tal Bachman, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, and Kevin Graham who are unafraid of using their own names when posting, we have you, Jason Osbourne, MMS, Mr. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi. Like I say, we get the moral and the immoral.

???

So am I mistaken in assuming you were implying that I am dishonest, cowardly and immoral? Or am I to understand that this is what you are referring to when you say you have formed "few" opinions of me as a person? In this case, it was three too many.

your posts (1) demonstrate a moral ambivalence about anonymous attacks in public

Since you and I seem to have a different definition of "attack", I would be careful attributing moral ambivalence to me. However, for the sake of the argument, I will appeal to the authority of the dictionary, which should, no doubt, impress you:

1. The act or an instance of attacking; an assault.
2. An expression of strong criticism; hostile comment: vicious attacks in all the newspapers.
3. Sports
a. An offensive action in a sport or game.
b. The players executing such an action.
4.
a. The initial movement in a task or undertaking: made an optimistic attack on the pile of paperwork.
b. A method or procedure: Our attack on this project will have two phases.
5. An episode or onset of a disease, especially an occurrence of a chronic disease: an asthma attack.
6. The experience or beginning of a feeling, need, or desire: an attack of hunger; an attack of melancholy.
7.
a. Music The beginning or manner of beginning a piece, passage, or tone.
b. Decisiveness and clarity in artistic expression: a careful performance, but one lacking the rigorous attack the work demands.

Kindly point out which of these definitions would be applicable to the OP. If you have your own definition of attack, I apologize for making assumptions you rely on dictionary definitions for communication like the rest of us. However, you might want to point out that you have your own language in the future to avoid such confusion.

I would say that the definition 4a is perhaps useful in describing what mms is doing; what he's going through can be described as the initial movement in the task of figuring out who (if anyone) he owes his spiritual allegiance. I also happen to have nothing against initial movements in a task or undertaking in public; no moral ambivalence there.

and (2) you might want to understand what it means to employ the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Just because I sign my name on letters I write, or in my letters to editors in newspapers, does not mean I am appealing to authority.

No, stating your personal preference for signing your name certainly doesn't. But that's not what you have done. You have accused people who prefer anonymity of being dishonest, immoral and cowardly pretenders.

You also said:

Who is the more believable? Who is accorded respect and status on the boards? Would you tend to trust Quinn vs. Decker? Urbanity and an even keel is essential to the best attack against the Church.

I rest my case.

[_rcrocket]

I rest my case.

As I have pointed out before, chest beaters have no credibility. Just let your statements speak for themselves. I'm glad that you see no problem with anonymous posts.

rcrocket

[_Zoidberg]

As I have pointed out before, chest beaters have no credibility.

I'm glad you have admitted you have no credibility. However, let me make it clear that I think you have no credibility not because you happen to be very pious, but because you have not said anything that I find true, justified or substantiated.

[_rcrocket]

As I have pointed out before, chest beaters have no credibility.

I'm glad you have admitted you have no credibility. However, let me make it clear that I think you have no credibility not because you happen to be very pious, but because you have not said anything that I find true, justified or substantiated.

Well, I certainly concede that I lack in many areas. I apologize for my lack of credibilty.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

As I have pointed out before, chest beaters have no credibility.

I'm glad you have admitted you have no credibility. However, let me make it clear that I think you have no credibility not because you happen to be very pious, but because you have not said anything that I find true, justified or substantiated.

Well, I certainly concede that I lack in many areas. I apologize for my lack of credibilty.

rcrocket

Hey, no problem, Bob. Nobody's perfect after all, right? In any case, the only place where you really lack "credibilty" is in your lectures to others on their morals. Perhaps you'd like to tell Zoidberg about the time that you manipulated that MMM letter in order to create a historical spin-job? I'm sure one of these days you'll learn your lesson, my old friend. Until then, carry on.