Dr. Shades wrote:Wrong again. Those gems are in their precise and proper context; that's what makes them so funny.
If you disagree, then find one that's out of context and explain why it's out of context.
If my quote from MADB / MDD had been brought here without commentary, I wouldn't have objected. It was when Equality framed it by asking whether the JC Penny catalog would be my next target of opprobrium that I objected.
Now, I grant that I may not have been as clear in the original as I thought I was. That's certainly possible. I believed at the time I wrote it that I was clarifying under what circumstances viewing swimsuit magazines could be considered wrong by mentioning that the crux of the issue for Mormons was sexual arousal (and not a list of good vs bad images). As I recall (but cannot find the original thread), that very issue of swimsuit catalogs had been in dispute. When Equality framed the quote by assuming I was targeting magazines instead of the general feeling of lust, I felt misrepresented.
Again, I may not have been as clear as I thought I was when I wrote it. However, I do feel that the quote was used in a way I did not intend. Whether the mistake by Equality is ultimately my fault due to a lack of clarity, a simple mistake on Equality's part, or perhaps a malicious misrepresentation I do not know. While I am biased into thinking I was clear, I have to consider that there are other hints that I may not have been clear enough in the original quote. I think, then, in that case it would have been better to have asked for clarification instead of making assumptions. However, I also realize that it can quickly become overly burdensome to continually ask for clarification or consider all possible or even likely interpretations.
