Mormon Times article on DCP

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:23 pm

Bob wrote:I'm sticking with my personal rule.

Then you owe Skippy an apology.

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:24 pm

rcrocket wrote:I don't follow this Board with religious fervor.

Your 1,651 posts and counting suggest otherwise.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:24 pm

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Talking behind someone's back about their sexuality certainly is gossip. I presume you admit to being a married heterosexual. Would it not be gossip to discuss your sex life behind your back?

I can't understand, therefore, why you must continue to bring up Quinns' homosexuality. Isn't it rather unfair to him?

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:27 pm

rcrocket wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Talking behind someone's back about their sexuality certainly is gossip. I presume you admit to being a married heterosexual. Would it not be gossip to discuss your sex life behind your back?

I can't understand, therefore, why you must continue to bring up Quinns' homosexuality. Isn't it rather unfair to him?

I simply bring up the apologists' gossip about his homosexuality (including with his SP), and the fact they use his homosexuality to help their blackball campaign against him.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:05 am

Bob wrote:I don't follow this Board with religious fervor. I have never heard or seen him/her refer to a particular gender. If I don't know any better, I go with the avatar.

Interesting that you were conveniently able to "miss" multiple references to Skippy's gender in this very thread PRIOR to you referring to her as "him".

Post by **_harmony** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:50 pm

rcrocket wrote: I can assure you that if you were an expert testifying in your area of expertise before a jury, and it came out that you regularly insulted and maligned a major faith and its adherents all in the worship of the false god of anonymity, you'd be discredited and laughed from the stand.

I want to know what criteria you use to define a major faith. And do you afford a minor faith the same consideration? Are the Scientologists a major faith? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Quakers? The Shakers?

Post by **_silentkid** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:50 pm

liz3564 wrote:
Bob wrote:I'm sticking with my personal rule.

Then you owe Skippy an apology.

It's not that crocket doesn't want to apologize, it's that he physically isn't able to do so. An apology would signify some sort of fault on his part and we all know that he is never wrong.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:00 pm

I apologize.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:00 pm

harmony wrote:
rcrocket wrote: I can assure you that if you were an expert testifying in your area of expertise before a jury, and it came out that you regularly insulted and maligned a major faith and its adherents all in the worship of the false god of anonymity, you'd be discredited and laughed from the stand.

I want to know what criteria you use to define a major faith. And do you afford a minor faith the same consideration? Are the Scientologists a major faith? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The Quakers? The Shakers?

Ok. Minor faith.

Post by **_silentkid** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:09 pm

rcrocket wrote:I apologize.

I stand all amazed.