Are Ex-Mo's TBM's in reverse?

[_solomarineris]

In your comments to DCP you mentioned Dyslexia. Should it happen that you yourself are dyslexic, all you need to do is tell me and I'll shorten my remarks to you so that we can communicate more easily.

Yea,
If you shorten your remarks the public would benefit from it.
As for dyslexia.
He, (DCP) is either an Idiot or have dyslexic dysfunctions. Or I am sure he is doing it intentionally as he does with Scratch, Antishock8.
In my book, it is not called for, I don't intentionally degrade people's monikers.

I don't need to pm you or have a personal conversation with you.
Until the owner expresses otherwise this is a free forum.
If you have a problem with it just let me know, I'll avoid you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

[PP:] one whose intellect is rivaled only by small appliances

ROTFL!

[_Jersey Girl]

In your comments to DCP you mentioned Dyslexia. Should it happen that you yourself are dyslexic, all you need to do is tell me and I'll shorten my remarks to you so that we can communicate more easily.

Yea,
If you shorten your remarks the public would benefit from it.
As for dyslexia.
He, (DCP) is either an Idiot or have dyslexic dysfunctions. Or I am sure he is doing it intentionally as he does with Scratch, Antishock8.
In my book, it is not called for, I don't intentionally degrade people's monikers.

I don't need to pm you or have a personal conversation with you.
Until the owner expresses otherwise this is a free forum.
If you have a problem with it just let me know, I'll avoid you.

Again, you totally miss the intent of what I stated to you, solo.

On the Masses Poll Thread, you commented as follows:

You know, this is not funny,
Are you saying you never been LDS?
If so wtf do you know about ex Mormon anger? (see your previous post).
Eh?

Is THIS the thread you were thinking of when you wrote that? If so, here is my reply to you for I feel it best fits this particular thread.

You know what would be refreshing, solo? If you would read my posts for what they say instead of trying to read my mind and ask a simple question or two.

There is no part of me that minimizes ex-Mo anger regarding their experiences, sense of disappointment/betrayal, their angst at being shunned by people of their former church family whom they considered friends, shunned by their family, loss of social network, business connections or being excluded from their own child's wedding on account of their apostasy.

If you think the OP here had ANYTHING to do with my criticizing "ex-Mo anger", you would be squarely wrong on that count. It was merely intended as an observation based inquiry.

Sheesh.

No. I've never been LDS. If you think my having never been LDS negates my ability to read/observe what constitutes a cross section of a sub-culture of society, and to offer an objective opinion or pose a question to a primarily LDS related board after many several years of also being friends with LDS and encountering them on boards like this for 10 years, I can't help you.

If what you desire is for your posts to meet with no opposition at all, then don't engage me. Sit there, post whatever you wish, and ignore challenge so you don't have to think at all.

Note: I have edited this post at least 3 times already. I put in a bit of extra effort to make my posts readable to those who read them or wish to respond. That is an effort on my part to show respect to you and others. I ask nothing more of you than what I have already extended to you.

[_Ray A]

I also recognize that I am hypocritical on this point, because calling a man a d**k doesn't seem the quite same to me. Maybe it's because it's more commonly used in society that it doesn't stand out, I don't know. But I do recognize my own hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy there. It is more conventionally used in society, and therefore more acceptable. Which reminds me, and I'm not making this up, there's a politician named Richard Head. Probably one of the less benign forms of parental cruelty I've come across. (PS: He uses his full name - always!)

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray

No hypocrisy there. It is more conventionally used in society, and therefore more acceptable. Which reminds me, and I'm not making this up, there's a politician named Richard Head. Probably one of the less benign forms of parental cruelty I've come across. (PS: He uses his full name - always!)

Omg. That's terrible and hysterically funny all at the same time!

[_Ray A]

Back to the OP.

One example, the recently posted thread about an LDS woman reading the Book of Mormon on youtube. What she's doing makes sense given that she's active LDS. The question I have is why are ex-members investing time searching for people like her?

Perhaps Richard Hill should have a look at this ("About The Three Nephites")? She may be misquoting the Book of Mormon. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[_antishock8]

antishock -

Thank you for appreciating the substance of my posts. I do have to say, again, that I intensely dislike when you use female body parts to insult female posters. I know that my personal disapproval of that doesn't affect you, but I still have to say it.

I also recognize that I am hypocritical on this point, because calling a man a d**k doesn't seem the quite same to me. Maybe it's because it's more commonly used in society that it doesn't stand out, I don't know. But I do recognize my own hypocrisy.

Sorry. No can do. I'm a fifth wave feminist which means I'm free to not give a crap about your feelings, all the while supporting your right to equality and to not give a crap about men in general. Especially the kind that hate cauckholsters like Jersey Girl.

I'm very secure in my feminism.

[_beastie]

Sure, beastie. In my observation, the themes are repetitive and as Porter noted, they are often made by new posters to RFM.

They are however, often responded to and engaged by regular posters.

Not very scientific!

I don't think this evidence supports your assertion at all, including the fact that "regular posters" may respond.

Your larger point, however, that there are similarities between exmormons and Mormons is likely correct. We are products of the same culture, after all. Some of those similarities may be flattering; others may not. I just don't think that there is any serious evidence supporting the specific assertion that "many" exmormon posters end up spending an equivalent amount of time on boards as Mormons do on being active Mormons.

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't think this evidence supports your assertion at all, including the fact that "regular posters" may respond.

Your larger point, however, that there are similarities between exmormons and Mormons is likely correct. We are products of the same culture, after all. Some of those similarities may be flattering; others may not. I just don't think that there is any serious evidence supporting the specific assertion that "many" exmormon posters end up spending an equivalent amount of time on boards as Mormons do on being active Mormons.[/quote]

beastie,

Here is what I stated in the OP:

For all the criticism's of how much of a time investment TBM's devote to church callings and weekly activities, how are the Ex-Mo posters any different given the time invested in posting about Mormonism after they've exited?

I've not once attempted to forward the idea that Ex-Mo's spend an equivalent amount of time posting about Mormonism that TBM's spend in their callings/activities.

My assertion, simply put, is that it's hypocritical for Ex-Mo's who criticize TBM's for devotion to their church involvement when they likewise devote time to involving themselves in the church "from the outside" as it were. Not an equivalent amount of time.

Your free to you own opinion on that count and thanks for contributing to the thread!

[_Jersey Girl]

Sorry. No can do. I'm a fifth wave feminist which means I'm free to not give a s*** about your feelings, all the while supporting your right to equality and to not give a crap about men in general. Especially the kind that hate cauckholsters like Jersey Girl.

I'm very secure in my feminism.

I have to wonder if I'm the only person who finds your urban dictionary references to female genitalia as a rhetorical device in discussion just a little more than creepy.

I assume not.