Can we ban joseph, Loran, and Simon?

[_schreech]

I have much more respect for the TBM that realizes that it takes and stands on his or her faith. Not so much the defender that tries to intellectually defend his or her faith as rational.

Wait, wait, wait....who here is trying to "intellectually" defend the LDS church? Certainly nobody on this site has attempted this or i would have noticed....

[_asbestosman]

What matters is whether any court is likely to take an action based on the alleged infringement of the law seriously.

This post by MsJack on another thread is very much to that point:

Correct. In fact we already know that courts will take infringement seriously in some circumstances even if those cases are rarely prosecuted. The problem here is that I don't know how those mentioned narrowly-defined circumstances are interpreted. Does linked to only mean via hyperlink, or does it mean linked via image tags? As I mentioned, using image tags for images on another host can rob that host of bandwidth without giving it advertising revenue for compensation. How the courts will rule on such issues is a mystery to me even though I do understand how the web works and despite MsJack's information.

There's also a second issue: namely that the tides may be changing. My guess is that they won't change much, but it's not up to me. Those who are pushing for change make some decent points about intellectual property and compensation / attribution even if I think some of the rhetoric is overblown (like grand theft of an automobile).


Honestly though, the biggest mystery to me is why Joseph has that as his pet peeve. Is he a photographer by chance--maybe close friends with one? Most people don't even think about picture copyrights in the first place. It's a bit odd to me, and while I grant that Joseph is one of the strangest posters I've ever seen it's not like I see a pattern among strange posters fixated on picture copyrights.

[_Chap]

Over at the Foyer, you see, I became an LDS non-person erased from the board that the exmo faithful might remain pure. That's intellectual Stalinism, not McCarthyism.

Not really. The Foyer, as I understand it, is a privately owned bit of cyberspace that says specifically that it is off limits to attack posts against exmos by TBMs. You went into that private space, but ignored that rule.

They own it. They pay the fees to the ISP. They get to decide what happens there - you know, private property and all that? If you go there, you have to obey the rules or get booted over the side.

Similarly, I accept that a chapel-full of LDS engaged in Fast and Testimony Meeting can reasonably eject me if I barge in and start bearing my loud testimony about the lack of historical plausibility of the Book of Mormon, despite polite requests that I desist. Their private property. Their rules. I'm fine with that.

That's the American Way, isn't it?

[_Droopy]

Teabaggers...uh huh. Keep exposing yourself for what you are schreech. I won't try to stop you.

lol - what am i?

Ask Kevin Graham for a list of his colorful nouns and adjectives and apply them accordingly.

I have engaged in a great deal of "apologetics" over the years, defending the church at the MADboards, at a defunct board called "Answering Mormonism" (dating to the late nineties), two very left leaning email lists on Yahoo, Mormon-L and Mormon Thinker.and here, over the last five years or so.

Um, so? I am guessing there isn't a single LDS apologist that would claim you...Just because you have access to a thesaurus and love to regurgitate LDS/Bircher talking points, doesn't mean you are an "apologist"...

Speaking of regurgitation, don't think I don't see that you are doing nothing more than aping the typical ad hominem attacks on my intelligence long the favorite of the gang leaders here who deploy theses same tactics against anyone who disses them. Not a single original thought in your head? Don't worry, Scratch and the rest of the posse will help you overcome your linguistic limitations.

Now, on to a serious question (as if this will make any difference): What views, philosophies, and political policy prescriptions do I believe in and teach that can be found among the birchers?

....dear elohim....you are an angry, sad, little man...

Now I see you're following Scratch into the swamp at even greater length, making up for me a quotation that I never wrote or posted.

I can see why the exmo posse attacks people like William, me, Wade, Simon, DCP etc. so mercilessly, especially when we rain on their parade by knocking them silly in open debate: they need desperately to bring us down to their level.

[_Droopy]

Wait, wait, wait....who here is trying to "intellectually" defend the LDS church? Certainly nobody on this site has attempted this or i would have noticed....

That, however, would require you to have some substantive understanding of the term "intellectual."

Go to the showers Schreech.

[_Chap]

... people like William, me, Wade, Simon, DCP etc. ...

Something tells me that at least one person on that list might have preferred to have been left off it.

[_Droopy]

Well said, sock. The apologists are at a big disadvantage, since the fundamental claims of Mormonism cannot withstand scrutiny outside of the assumptions of faith.

This, of course, can be easily contested on a philosophical, as well as psychological level.

On a historical basis, it is a complete disaster.

Also, easily and successfully contested, for generations.

Obviously, the only weapon they have, and it is a sorry one to be sure, is "oh, yeah, well you can't prove it isn't true." To which I will always respond, "why should I think it is in the first place?"

I've never heard that argument used by a serious LDS. But then, Kish is just clowning around, playing with words.

There really is no good answer to the latter question. The discussion is over before it even began.

This is, perhaps, because, regarding the gospel, it is the wrong question.

[_Droopy]

... people like William, me, Wade, Simon, DCP etc. ...

Something tells me that at least one person on that list might have preferred to have been left off it.

And who might that be?

[_schreech]

Now I see you're following Scratch into the swamp at even greater length, making up for me a quotation that I never wrote or posted.

I can see why the exmo posse attacks people like William, me, Wade, Simon, DCP etc. so mercilessly, especially when we rain on their parade by knocking them silly in open debate: they need desperately to bring us down to their level.

Oh zuess...you are dense...I love when self professed intellects prove how dim they really are each time they post...anyway...the reason why the "exmo posse attacks people like william, you, wade, simon" is because you are a bunch of narrow minded, intellectually-stunted, irrational, knee-jerk, clueless goofballs who have no problem looking foolish in order to defend your version of the momo church...The more you know!

[_schreech]

That, however, would require you to have some substantive understanding of the term "intellectual."

Go to the showers Schreech.

What does having "some substantive understanding of the term intellectual" have to do with going to "the showers"...Is this your attempt to come out of the closet? I am wondering if your posts would make way more sense if i just substitute "intellectual" with "homosexual"