Bridgett Meyers: The Un-anti-Mormon

[_MsJack]

Oh, sorry Jack, I just wondered why you no longer use your husbands last name as your own.

Is there a reason I should?

Rather odd, is it not?

It's not.

[_MsJack]

Are you soliciting content, Jack? If so, I think I'd like to contribute. Maybe something on reading the Bible seriously for the first time and the effect it's had on my teaching. Or maybe an "atheist's" encounters with the Numinous. That term is in quotes because me and whoever the patron saint of geology is had a long talk during a traffic jam this evening...

Blixa, having you guest-blog for me would be a treasure. Feel free to send me something or give me more details in private.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Here are some old OPs, Scratch, all from the Celestial room. Did you participate or add anything of intellectual value to any of them?


http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =3&t=19044

Nice going there, Droopy--you managed to last one whole page without spiraling out of control.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18547

This thread was launched in a fit of rage after the narrator kicked your butt on MDD. I'll concede that it was a noble attempt on your part to be civil, but this was already tainted by your prior interaction with Ericson.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17915

This one's pretty good, too, Droopy. You actually held out over multiple pages.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17632

With this one, my thinking is "meh," since it's largely just a rehash of many of the same things you've been harping on in more aggressive and problematic ways. So, this fails too on account of your "history."

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17605

This is merely "Part II" of the earlier one.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17598

An OP with one response from Moksha. (Plus, it's clear that this was yet another of your "lobbed attacks"---i.e., you lashing out and trying to be civil after you got banned from a thread on MDD.)

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15123

Check out this post from moderator Liz a bit further along in this thread (lol):

(Moderator Note) Droopy...There are NO personal attacks allowed in the Celestial Forum. I split out your comments here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&p=373608#p373608

Splitting threads is a pain the behind....and having to split threads from a poster who knows better is ridiculous. This is your one and only warning. Next time you post a personal attack in one of your threads in Celestial, I'm moving the whole thread out. Understood?

Rofl! Did you not bother to read this ahead of time?

Look, Droops: I'll concede that you've given this "intellectually and philosophically substantive" thing the good college try. You probably deserve a C- or thereabouts. But "hundreds" of such posts? Not so much.

[_Droopy]

Asking for evidence is hardly a "tactic," Loran.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But the problem is that everything with you is just a rhetorical tactic. You've been playing your games too long, and your approach is quite well known, at this juncture.

You're not asking me for evidence at all, you're just baiting a hook. Its all very old and standardized by now.

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

Here are some old OPs, Scratch, all from the Celestial room. Did you participate or add anything of intellectual value to any of them?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19044

Nice going there, Droopy--you managed to last one whole page without spiraling out of control.

Strike one. Scratch isn't really interested in the many serious threads I've started seeking stimulating debate and discussion, but just a reason to attack me. As I suspected.

This thread was launched in a fit of rage after the narrator kicked your butt on MDD. I'll concede that it was a noble attempt on your part to be civil, but this was already tainted by your prior interaction with Ericson.

Strike two. The reason I start a thread is irrelevant. Secondly, Mr. Ericson was rarely if ever anything but patronizing and snarky to everyone who challenged his preposterous neo-orthodox theory that there is no settled, official doctrine within the LDS church, and no way to tell what is established and what isn't.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17915

This one's pretty good, too, Droopy. You actually held out over multiple pages.

Strike three. More baiting.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17632

With this one, my thinking is "meh," since it's largely just a rehash of many of the same things you've been harping on in more aggressive and problematic ways. So, this fails too on account of your "history."

You wanted examples of intellectually serious posts. I give them. But, as with Daniel and others in the apologetic milieu, it appears that I'm damned if I do and damned equally, if I don't.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17605

This is merely "Part II" of the earlier one.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17598

Yes, and a separate post.

An OP with one response from Moksha. (Plus, it's clear that this was yet another of your "lobbed attacks"---i.e., you lashing out and trying to be civil after you got banned from a thread on MDD.)

The alleged reasons for a thesis and the stating of a position are irrelevant. And who cares how many responded to it. By the way, how was it you neglected to point out that this post had 265 views?

Snip repetitious verbiage...

Look, Droops: I'll concede that you've given this "intellectually and philosophically substantive" thing the good college try. You probably deserve a C- or thereabouts. But "hundreds" of such posts? Not so much.

Many hundreds, over some ten years, most of which were derailed and/or turned into flaming ad hominem free-for-all's by you, and people like you.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am sorry Droopy but this is not the case. Just go up to the celestial thread on finances where you did almost nothing but personally attack Harmony. I can double check later but I do not think she did anything to attach you or bait you. You often swoop into threads in full attack rhetoric mode.

As I said, I respond periodically over time with passion and aggressiveness, and I can and do use personal attacks now and then.

I think you said when you are attacked then you attack back. But really Droopy you frequently drop in and are in full attack mode before anyone pounces on you. If you think other wise, well deny away.

I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of my posting history is an attempt at intellectual discourse, much of which has been historically rebuffed here and derailed, as are many attempts at serious discourse by others.

There has been some of that but the majority? I am skeptical.

Unfortunately, the "evidence and support" you mention here is usually, upon critical inspection, either intellectually weak-kneed or simply bogus.

Yes you both claim that about each others sources so whatever. I tire of it from both of you frankly.

But enough.

Okie dokie.

You want, as is usual, to defend the critics of the Church, which is your prerogative,

Not so. I already responded to this false charge. And today I made a comment to Scratch about his unnecessary attack on Stem. So stop making this false accusation.

but I have no desire to engage you in any further in an argument over who is the lesser or greater evil, with you as moral referee above the fray.

I am no moral referee at all. But you certainly are not either. And I think deep down you know I am right.

Adios amigo.

[_Droopy]

Come to think of it, Jason, you and I mended our fences quite a while ago, and have had a civil and respectful relationship since that time, and on reflection, I have no intention of going back to old trading of low blows.

Consider this an apology, and I'm going to bow out of this particular thread, at this point, so as not to continue on the same path.

[_Darth J]

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =3&t=15123

The thing is, Droopy, that the substance in that thread did not come from you.

Nor did you ever address any of the questions I asked you, including the most salient one: in what U.S. jurisdiction is your "traditional definition of marriage" codified into law?

[Guest]

The alleged reasons for a thesis and the stating of a position are irrelevant. And who cares how many responded to it. By the way, how was it you neglected to point out that this post had 265 views?

Snip repetitious verbiage...

Thor, droopy, you are a clown considering you posted this just the other day:

"Notice, Kevin, how many people are no longer fool enough to bother responding to your narcissistic witch hunt threads any longer? The longer you continue, the more your irrelevance and isolation will grow.

Its only a matter of time." - http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20111

by the way - that thread of his had 360+ views...LOL...

Your assault on the English language, hs-level-"intellectualism" and abuses of your thesaurus were entertaining for a bit....But now your posts (and your obvious need for some kind of acceptance) are just getting sad - talk about irrelevance, you act like a teenager that nobody seems to "understand"...

[_Yahoo Bot]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15123

The thing is, Droopy, that the substance in that thread did not come from you.

Nor did you ever address any of the questions I asked you, including the most salient one: in what U.S. jurisdiction is your "traditional definition of marriage" codified into law?

California.