One thing I find troublesome is the demand that one person research the posts of the demander. I just won't do it.
And I find baseless accusations troublesome. You are quick to lump me into a certain category and I am left to wonder why and what I have written here brings that on. Thus I ask for evidence. You are an attorney and I would think such a request is not unreasonable. Even example from memory would do.
My impressions are formed after time and experience on this Board. But, if you believe that none of you posts are attacks against known and living persons or against the Church, then you have my most sincere apologies. Indeed, I will take that as a given here without qualification and you have my apologies and I won't lump you in with the likes of the rest.
A perusing of my postings would find that I often defend more than complain about the Church. I do not make personal attacks typically unless attacked and then I do try to refrain from like kinds responses. I have already apologized to you for any mean spirited comments I have made to you in anger. The only exception to this is when I respond to the foolishness that spews from the likes of PP/Boax& Lidea. Mercury as well at times.
My critical posts about the Church mostly focus on historical and cultural issues and I believe are fair and honest inquiries and discussions. For example, polygamy and polyandry are issues that have caused me questions and concern about the why's and what fors as well as about why the Church has not been more open about it. Not once have I referred to Joseph Smith and a philanderer, adulterer, fornicator or worse, as many do here. I try to keep the discussion in the realm facts as best as we can discover them. If in your mind that is still crossing over to the dark side and causes you to view me as a hypocrite there and second lifer whatever that means then so be it. If I could discuss this in an open forum in my ward on Sunday without fear of punishment or even causing others to doubt it would thrill me.
I also find it a little unethical that he asked your permission to email your family regarding your post here, and yet, he had actually already done it. I mean, really, what was the point?
Yes, this is the part that got under my skin. My family didn't need to see a post that I meant to be annonymous.
I think you know otherwise what the truth is here.
Sending the post to GoodK's family was a real 'dickhead' move, Bob.
Why? His/her father is one of my best friends and a client (on the very matter of the daughter) as well. Do you think GoodK has an expectation of privacy by posting an email on this board WHOSE DISTRIBUTION LIST HAS MY NAME ON IT?
It doesn't matter, you shouldn't have done it. Other than you, the folks here didn't know the names of the persons involved, so your sending it to family members only served to make things worse.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote:One wonders why almost every thread Bob posts one becomes, well, about Bob.
How odd.
You are indeed correct. Suggestions directed in my direction?
If you are really interested I suggest you drop the constant haranguing about what awful hypocrites you think so many of us here are. Stick to the issues and subject. We all know extremely well, since you have said it hundreds of times, you thoughts on this. Since new anonymous hypocrites join the board periodically perhaps you can do a post about your views on this maybe once every two weeks.
For other posters, don't attack Bob personally even if he annoys you. Better to ignore it. Now I need to practice this myself.
I'm still waiting for verifiable news that a Mormon P-Hood holder has regenerated a missing limb.
If God can raise the dead, why can't he regenerate a missing limb?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note) Bob--- GoodK has asked that his/her gender remain ambiguous. Please honor that request. I have had to edit several of your posts. Please PM me if you have any questions. Liz
If you can see their gender, they are not wearing a big enough fig leaf.
liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note) Bob--- GoodK has asked that his/her gender remain ambiguous. Please honor that request. I have had to edit several of your posts. Please PM me if you have any questions. Liz
If you can see their gender, they are not wearing a big enough fig leaf.
guy sajer wrote:I'm still waiting for verifiable news that a Mormon P-Hood holder has regenerated a missing limb.
If God can raise the dead, why can't he regenerate a missing limb?
I chopped my head off and it grew back. As proof I present the fact that I'm still posting.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
liz3564 wrote:(Moderator Note) Bob--- GoodK has asked that his/her gender remain ambiguous. Please honor that request. I have had to edit several of your posts. Please PM me if you have any questions. Liz
Here's my question - I can see editing out identifiable "real life" information, such as full names, addresses, etc., but editing out gender references? Is this a board policy? Where does it end? We're all grown ups here.
In this particular case, GoodK came on the board and made him/herself known as an acquaintance of rcrocket's. Any fallout from that is of his/her own making. Editing someone's post to remove gender identification in that case seems particularly silly.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)