antishock8 wrote:Prove you're free. Walk away.
Are you illiterate? I told you I ALREADY DID THAT ONCE. I CAN. I DID.
Daniel Peterson wrote:TAK wrote:Who am I ? Nobody dumb enough to believe in Joseph Smith..
This is the kind of welcoming, respectful discourse that is attracting believers here in droves. I predict a bright future for serious discussion here.
William Schryver wrote:We all know that you're really just a dorky-looking fat man who used to be a dorky-looking kid who wished he could hang with the cool people in high school, but was too freaking geeky to even get a date until he was eighteen-years-old. You aspire to cool, but you don't even know what it means. Cool is tossing fish food in a piranha tank and then smacking the little bastards with your fist when they rise to the bait.
And of course you'd regard my most recent work as "increasingly obnoxious." After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat [this presumably referring to the act of stroking one's glans during a masturbatory act] for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.
cksalmon wrote:This is the kind of tawdry, base ridiculousness that makes defenders of the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look utterly and profanely ridiculous, given that (per LDS Will), his LDS wife, his LDS stake president, and certain LDS associates of, yes, FARMS love this stuff.
cksalmon wrote:This is the kind of tawdry, base ridiculousness that makes defenders of the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look utterly and profanely ridiculous, given that (per LDS Will), his LDS wife, his LDS stake president, and certain LDS associates of, yes, FARMS love this stuff.
Daniel Peterson wrote:If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.
cksalmon wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:TAK wrote:Who am I ? Nobody dumb enough to believe in Joseph Smith..
This is the kind of welcoming, respectful discourse that is attracting believers here in droves. I predict a bright future for serious discussion here.William Schryver wrote:We all know that you're really just a dorky-looking fat man who used to be a dorky-looking kid who wished he could hang with the cool people in high school, but was too freaking geeky to even get a date until he was eighteen-years-old. You aspire to cool, but you don't even know what it means. Cool is tossing fish food in a piranha tank and then smacking the little bastards with your fist when they rise to the bait.
And of course you'd regard my most recent work as "increasingly obnoxious." After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat [this presumably referring to the act of stroking one's glans during a masturbatory act] for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.
This is the kind of tawdry, base ridiculousness that makes defenders of the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look utterly and profanely ridiculous, given that (per LDS Will), his LDS wife, his LDS stake president, and certain LDS associates of, yes, FARMS love this stuff.
Daniel Peterson wrote:cksalmon wrote:This is the kind of tawdry, base ridiculousness that makes defenders of the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look utterly and profanely ridiculous, given that (per LDS Will), his LDS wife, his LDS stake president, and certain LDS associates of, yes, FARMS love this stuff.
If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.
or even publicly approved by them
Runtu wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.
Dan, Will is the one suggesting that you guys privately enjoy this kind of crudeness, so appealing to the idea that Mercury et al. are worse in public doesn't help.
But, according to Will, some FARMS associates are following this running exchange and are privately delighting in his "tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors."
Runtu wrote:Dan, Will is the one suggesting that you guys privately enjoy this kind of crudeness, so appealing to the idea that Mercury et al. are worse in public doesn't help.