A formal apology...

[_Yahoo Bot]

Also, my anonymity, which makes me worse than a terrorist. Don't forget that one.

Actually, I've never said that at all, but I have been [get out your dictionary, a non-typo is coming] wont to describe anonymous posters as manifesting sociopathic tendancies, especially mods who challenge the paternity of posters who post in their real names.

Hopefully I got a lot into that one sentence to please/offend many.

[Guest]

Also, my anonymity, which makes me worse than a terrorist. Don't forget that one.

Actually, I've never said that at all, but I have been [get out your dictionary, a non-typo is coming] wont to describe anonymous posters as manifesting sociopathic tendancies [sic], especially mods who challenge the paternity of posters who post in their real names.

Hopefully I got a lot into that one sentence to please/offend many.

Just think of all my posts as press releases from Buffalo, Buffalo and Bernhardt, LLC.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Oh, of course. I'm sure that that limited liability partnership wrote its own statements. I imagine that a limited liability partnership has a strong courtroom presence when it personally appears before a judge.

I'm really surprised at your statements. It kind of reminds me of Sock Puppet's claims about federal and state relations; it is as if he had a sort of TV lawyer's view of what the law ought to be.

Posts from institutions are not anonymous. Indeed, when made under the name of the institution, they are considered more authoritative than if made by an individual. Like an editorial from the NY Times. Unsigned ones are statements by the newspaper institution, signed ones are not. Statements 10K from GM are statements of the institution, statements by the CEO are not. Statements by a Vatican Council are statements by the Church, statements by the Pope are not necessarily, although Bulls would qualify. Statements by the Methodist General Conference are statements by the entity; by its president, not.

Of course, there are exceptions. Statements by the Pope or Pres. Monson saying: "This is the Church's official position" could be more effective, perhaps, than a church website pronouncement.

And, your reference to lawyers appearing in court is, of course, bogus. Lawyers, not law firms, appear before courts -- at least in federal practice. A lawyer speaking in court is not speaking for his law firm, but for himself and his client. Thus, the example of my firm's website is quite apt. If I were to speak about my firm, even though I am a full partner, I would not have the authority the same as a website.

But, carry on. You're funny.

[_Drifting]

I do, but I am a bit cross that, because of my association with the Church, I have to accept that I was complicit in racism. That embarrasses me.

However, you are right to point out that the Church has changed and no longer discriminates against anyone because of their race (except within the lesson 'Choosing an Eternal Companion' but that's a different thread).

It only discriminates based on sex and sexuality now...

I wouldn't affiliate in any respect with a religion that embarrasses me. But, then again, I live in a state where nobody gives a hoot whether or not you go to church, much less the Mormon church.

But, then again a second time, I accept the argument that people are weak, unwilling to take a stand for one's principles, just so that people won't talk about them. Imagine that, being afraid to leave an embarrassing religion over fear that somebody will criticize you for doing so. I wonder if people who leave the Ku Klux Klan over embarrassment with its policies are fearful that people will condemn them for doing so. All sorts of people have spines like jelly, I suppose.

Are you referring to me?
Is that how you see me?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Are you referring to me?
Is that how you see me?

You're anonymous. I see you as nothing, really.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Are you referring to me?
Is that how you see me?

You're anonymous. I see you as nothing, really.

And, a word to the wise. Never take anything personally on boards like this, particularly if you are anonymous.

[_Drifting]

Are you referring to me?
Is that how you see me?

You're anonymous. I see you as nothing, really.

Then what was your point?

I assume by your angst over anonymity that 'Yahoo Bot' appears on your birth certificate...

[_Yahoo Bot]

Then what was your point?

I assume by your angst over anonymity that 'Yahoo Bot' appears on your birth certificate...

I have no angst, no fear, no concern, no trepidation. I come here to be entertained, to learn and to practice my apologetic absurdities to see how they are received by idiots and the intelligentsia.

I don't get mad, angry or upset.

Often my interest in poking the egos of the Kevin "Red" Grahams of this board causes some folks to think I'm angry, but that is not true. I speak in the tones of the challenging and the mocker, not the defensive and whining tones of the challenged and mocked.

Bot is a Hungarian name. Yahoo is my nickname.

I mock you. That is my point. I mock you to see if you'll come up with a better argument, and sometimes that happens. Don't take it personally. You're anonymous.

[_Chap]

I speak in the tones of the challenging and the mocker, not the defensive and whining tones of the challenged and mocked.

Course you do.

[_Drifting]

Then what was your point?

I assume by your angst over anonymity that 'Yahoo Bot' appears on your birth certificate...

I have no angst, no fear, no concern, no trepidation. I come here to be entertained, to learn and to practice my apologetic absurdities to see how they are received by idiots and the intelligentsia.

I don't get mad, angry or upset.

Often my interest in poking the egos of the Kevin "Red" Grahams of this board causes some folks to think I'm angry, but that is not true. I speak in the tones of the challenging and the mocker, not the defensive and whining tones of the challenged and mocked.

Bot is a Hungarian name. Yahoo is my nickname.

I mock you. That is my point. I mock you to see if you'll come up with a better argument, and sometimes that happens. Don't take it personally. You're anonymous.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was interested in you and why you post. I just wondered what your point was when you said...

But, then again a second time, I accept the argument that people are weak, unwilling to take a stand for one's principles, just so that people won't talk about them. Imagine that, being afraid to leave an embarrassing religion over fear that somebody will criticize you for doing so. I wonder if people who leave the Ku Klux Klan over embarrassment with its policies are fearful that people will condemn them for doing so. All sorts of people have spines like jelly, I suppose.