Are all religions cults? OP actually started by Liz

[_Jason Bourne]

ok I'm over it

Glad I could help.

[_marg]

ok I'm over it

Glad I could help.

You've been on my ignore list for sometime, for good reason.

[_Chap]

You've been on my ignore list for sometime, for good reason.

But ... but ... if he is on your ignore list, how is it that you sometimes respond to his posts? Do you have some form of ESP?

[_marg]

You've been on my ignore list for sometime, for good reason.

But ... but ... if he is on your ignore list, how is it that you sometimes respond to his posts? Do you have some form of ESP?

Yes, I have ESP. It sort of makes sense if you think of a computer screen. Without even reading his posts, I can visualize what he has written as if I had read it off a computer screen.

And my husband, son, neighbour, and friends will testify to that.

[_Jason Bourne]

Glad I could help.

You've been on my ignore list for sometime, for good reason.

I try to be civil and reasonable with you.

I am not sure what I do do deserve your disdain. Perhaps you just cannot handle my sharp insightful intellect.

But you marg really are a pompous ass.

[_antishock8]

Well, after seeing Gaz, The Nehor, Droopy, and Mr. Peterson turn into rabid anti-homosexual bigots, it's not hard to see Mormonism as less church and more cult. The vitriol, unfortunately, is par for the course.

[_marg]

Glad I could help.

You've been on my ignore list for sometime, for good reason.

I try to be civil and reasonable with you.

I am not sure what I do do deserve your disdain. Perhaps you just cannot handle my sharp insightful intellect.

But you marg really are a pompous ass.

It's not disdain Jason. It's a time saving endeavour. I'm sure you appreciate not everyone is worthy of your time.

[_Jason Bourne]

It's not disdain Jason. It's a time saving endeavour.

I thought you were ignoring me.

I'm sure you appreciate not everyone is worthy of your time.

Cute.

Feeling good today?

[_JAK]

liz comments: ” With all due respect, JAK, this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. Was this woman a member of the LDS Church?”

The question is irrelevant. However, the issue of morality of having 14 children as this woman has is a moral question. It’s a health question. It’s a rational issue as she is quite unable to finance the rearing, the feeding, and the educating of these 14 children to adulthood.

The only reason I stated that your mentioning of your story was a bit of a red herring was because you had specifically stated "Jason may wish to consider this" before going into it. Jason had been debating with Marg about what the LDS Church taught that was or was not moral. I didn't state that as a means to offend you. If I did, I apologize.

That was also the reason I asked the question about the woman belonging to the LDS Church. I thought you were integrating more information into the debate between Jason and Marg.

I agreed with you that it was an interesting sidenote, and, frankly, I think we both agree that this was not a responsible action on this woman's part.

The questions you raise are appropriate with regard to the funding of this series of multiple events and of this individual who is relying on financing which she is quite unable to fund. The story was widely covered in the USA on major television networks as well as in newspapers.

I do remember the story being covered, but I don't remember all of the details. I did not realize that the woman already had six children. I knew that she had eight babies. That was all I remember about the case. The information you presented about her already having six children, and not being able to provide for any of them was what prompted my other questions. I was genuinely curious. If you choose not to answer my questions, that's fine. I suppose I can look up the information. I just didn't know all of the details, and you seemed to.

I also fully recognize that you as moderator can entirely delete my comments, edit them to make them appear contrary to what I have stated, or move them to some other location making it impossible for them to be followed or tracked. So I take the risk in addressing what has been previously stated and addressed under this topic. I find that exercise of deleting or modifying original posts deplorable and dishonest. But I post this recognizing that you or some other moderator can obliterate a comment which you don’t like for any reason or whim.

When have I done any of the things you claim here, JAK? The only time I have ever deleted or modified an original post was when that post explicitly went against the board rules which Shades established. I also think it deplorable to simply obliterate a comment on a whim, or edit a comment to make it appear contrary to what someone has stated. If you feel that I have done this, please supply a link where you feel this has been done.

As far as splitting the comments from the Wayneman thread into this topic, I provided reference links so that those who were participating in this conversation would know exactly what was going on. And, I split the comments so that the conversation could be more streamlined, and continue without posts being lost in a thread which had gone way off topic for several pages.

+++++++
liz mentioned:
I do remember the story being covered, but I don't remember all of the details. I did not realize that the woman already had six children. I knew that she had eight babies. That was all I remember about the case. The information you presented about her already having six children, and not being able to provide for any of them was what prompted my other questions. I was genuinely curious. If you choose not to answer my questions, that's fine. I suppose I can look up the information. I just didn't know all of the details, and you seemed to.

liz,

Nadya Suleman, the 33-year-old California woman

See this

Further Details

Second point: To read carefully exactly what I did say and what I did not.

JAK previously:
I also fully recognize that you as moderator can entirely delete my comments, edit them to make them appear contrary to what I have stated, or move them to some other location making it impossible for them to be followed or tracked. So I take the risk in addressing what has been previously stated and addressed under this topic. I find that exercise of deleting or modifying original posts deplorable and dishonest. But I post this recognizing that you or some other moderator can obliterate a comment which you don’t like for any reason or whim.

liz:
When have I done any of the things you claim here, JAK?

Notice I did not make "claim" about what you had done, but rather addressed the fact of what you could do at any whim. There is a difference. I hope you see I made no claim that you had done something.

I have seen other moderators do exactly what I described that you could do, not that you did do. Please re-read my original post which addressed this issue if you are in doubt.

[_Yoda]

Notice I did not make "claim" about what you had done, but rather addressed the fact of what you could do at any whim. There is a difference. I hope you see I made no claim that you had done something.

I have seen other moderators do exactly what I described that you could do, not that you did do. Please re-read my original post which addressed this issue if you are in doubt.

Any moderator of any message board has the technical ability to edit posts. It's the nature of the beast. The fact that you prefaced responding to me by pointing out that I could, if I chose, edit your post and change the meaning of it, is offensive. Why did you bring up the point if you were not afraid of my doing something?

I do not have the reputation of doing that, and, in fact, have never done that to any poster here. Doing such a thing would be extremely unethical and appalling.

The only person on the Moderating Team who has moderated longer than I have is Shades, so yes, I take my moderation responsibilities seriously.

Also, I can honestly say that everyone who has served as a Moderator here has tried to do his/her best to simply carry out Shades' vision for the board. No one is perfect, and we have all made mistakes from time to time in moderating.....but I think that when those mistakes have been made, we have owned up to them, and made a sincere effort to improve. I don't recall any moderator purposely editing posts to further his/her own argument.

Doing something like that would run completely counter to everything Shades has tried to set up here.