Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
You constant anger has brought us to this are DAVEH: FWIW..I don't know why you (or any other TTers who may think similar) think I am angry. FTR..I am NOT angry. Nor do I rise to anger easily. I just don't quite understand why some TTers are so quick to ascribe certain things to me, and then fail to prove their case or apologize when asked to do so. I try NOT TO SHOUT IN MY REPLIES. So, what is it that makes you or anybody else think I'm angry, Dean? You are asking me to do the impossible. DAVEH: Not at all, Dean. I'm just asking in the spirit of fairness that IF you can't prove you case, then either be careful of what you say about someone or apologize if you do say something the other person claims is in error. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing.If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so DAVEH: I share your frustration with that, Dean. I tried to do likewise, and couldn't even figure out how to access them at all. I thought there would be a link at INNGLORY, but could not find it. I suspect I can figure it out with a little time, but was too tired and went to bed instead. It would be nice if some of the more astute TTers who know how to access the archives would give us a brief lesson, or perhaps point us in the direction of a tutorial. see it I am wrong. DAVEH: I could make a joke about this, Deanbut I won't. I'm sure a lot of TTers think I'm wrong about many of the things I post. And, perhaps I am in error at times. I'm certainly no genius, and with my weak memory, I sometimes forget what was said previously. In reality, few TTers ever seem (I knowthat's a stretch) to ever come to change their minds and adopt the other poster's viewpoint. That often means that one of the two is either wrong in their closely held beliefs, or there is a massive misunderstanding between the two. Andmaybe a little pride sometimes gets in the way of good communication here. BTW.I also want to commend you for the obvious change of demeanor you've exhibited lately. It has been very noticeable, and it is appreciated by all. Let me also thank you for taking on the thankless job of moderator. Though we may disagree on many things, your willingness to moderate TT is appreciated. Dean Moore wrote: cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement. DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaningless If you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience, but I will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above. .. ...and hollow. It seems to me that one who fa lsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? cd: Was it fair to ask for proof every time Kevin made a statement? Know this DavH-in my short time on TT I have found that if one reacts with hardness/anger then this cause others to reacts the same way-then we fight and knowledge is lost.You constant anger has brought us to this area and you- nor you church- is looking very good. You are asking me to do the impossible. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing-my computer will not even allow me to join this list or the preaching list and I have to contact David to sign me up on TT. If you think someone is being unfair because they cannot do the impossible then you a wrong. If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so-and see it I am wrong. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Amen to all that the Canadian Pastor has said. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DH/CD: DH engaged in an exchange with Iz to which CD took exception BIG TIME. Threats were actually made. I saw it as much ado about nothing. DH did not mean what CD took him to mean. Iz actually apologized. DM, IMO, handled it badly as did Perry. OK guys, enough is enough. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 06, 2006 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/6/2006 1:32:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement.DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaninglessIf you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience, but I will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above..and hollow. It seems to me that one who fa lsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? cd: Was it fair to ask for proof every time Kevin made a statement? Know this DavH-in my short time on TT I have found that if one reacts with hardness/anger then this cause others to reacts the same way-then we fight and knowledge is lost.You constant anger has brought us to this area and you- nor you church- is looking very good. You are asking me to do the impossible. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing-my computer will not even allow me to join this list or the preaching list and I have to contact David to sign me up on TT. If you think someone is being unfair because they cannot do the impossible then you a wrong. If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so-and see it I am wrong.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DH/CD: DH engaged in an exchange with Iz to which CD took exception BIG TIME. Threats were actually made. I saw it as much ado about nothing. DH did not mean what CD took him to mean. Iz actually apologized. DM, IMO, handled it badly as did Perry. OK guys, enough is enough. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 06, 2006 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/6/2006 1:32:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement.DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaninglessIf you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience, but I will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above..and hollow. It seems to me that one who fa lsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? cd: Was it fair to ask for proof every time Kevin made a statement? Know this DavH-in my short time on TT I have found that if one reacts with hardness/anger then this cause others to reacts the same way-then we fight and knowledge is lost.You constant anger has brought us to this area and you- nor you church- is looking very good. You are asking me to do the impossible. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing-my computer will not even allow me to join this list or the preaching list and I have to contact David to sign me up on TT. If you think someone is being unfair because they cannot do the impossible then you a wrong. If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so-and see it I am wrong.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/6/2006 1:32:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement.DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was meaninglessIf you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with much patience, but I will not tolerat e sin or other forms of wrongness- as mentioned above..and hollow. It seems to me that one who fa lsely accuses and then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean? cd: Was it fair to ask for proof every time Kevin made a statement? Know this DavH-in my short time on TT I have found that if one reacts with hardness/anger then this cause others to reacts the same way-then we fight and knowledge is lost.You constant anger has brought us to this area and you- nor you church- is looking very good. You are asking me to do the impossible. I tried to search again last night in the archives and cannot use the lousy thing-my computer will not even allow me to join this list or the preaching list and I have to contact David to sign me up on TT. If you think someone is being unfair because they cannot do the impossible then you a wrong. If you are able to use the archives then you will have to do so-and see it I am wrong.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
cd: Davh I make decisions
in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement
until the past belief is change to be something other than what I
thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have
other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over
words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until
something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in
the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this
time in the wrong with my statement.
DAVEH: Then it appears that your comment to me a few days ago was
meaningless
If you DavH fear that as moderator I will treat you unfair-I
assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness-with
much patience, but I will not tolerat e sin or other forms of
wrongness- as mentioned above.
.and hollow. It seems to me that one who falsely accuses and
then refuses to present the evidence is not tolerating sin, but rather
committing sin. Where is the fairness in that, Dean?
Dean Moore wrote:
-
Original Message -
From:
Dave
Hansen
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
2/5/2006 1:22:54 PM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
I know you supported
fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a
failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that
happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to
use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if
you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so.
DAVEH: While my memory may be weak, I pretty much know what I
believe. I don't support somebody becoming violent over words. What
I might have said, and which you may have misunderstood is that I can
understand why someone my be pushed over the edge into violence by
another's words. Dean, there is a huge difference between
understanding such, and supporting such. For you to insist I supported
such is simply a lie.
I've told you before that I have not suppo
rted this right to harm others
, and I'm telling you now that I don't support violence over words. I
can state such because it simply is not a position I've ever believed
in taking. There is no way I can prove it to you (when I've never said
it), but I've certainly explained my believe about such now. For you
to insist that I do support violence over words is an outright lie, and
is easy for you to prove if I said such. It is impossible to prove
otherwise if I didn't say such. Dean, you have the easy out on
thisknowing what I believe (from my above comments), just say that
you must have misunderstood what you previously read and that you now
apologize for making an erroneous statement that mischaracterizes what
I've said in the past and what I believe about this matter. Failure to
either present the proof or apologize for lying about what I said
constitutes a sin, does it not Dean?
cd: Davh I make
decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a
statement until the past belief is change to be something other than
what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I
have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other
over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until
something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in
the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this
time in the wrong with my statement.
Dean Moore wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hansen
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech
thingy
If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you.
DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to
reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is
YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying
to the effect that I supported this right to
harm others.
I don't have the time nor the
inclination to do so
DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that
I have never said that I supported this
right to harm others. For you to make that claim
is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it.
Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend
over backwards to give you fairness is me rely empty words
that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no
intention of being fair.
balls in your court play it or drop
it your choice:-)
FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you
simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern
for it
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/5/2006 1:22:54 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so.DAVEH: While my memory may be weak, I pretty much know what I believe. I don't support somebody becoming violent over words. What I might have said, and which you may have misunderstood is that I can understand why someone my be pushed over the edge into violence by another's words. Dean, there is a huge difference between understanding such, and supporting such. For you to insist I supported such is simply a lie. I've told you before that I have not supported this right to harm others , and I'm telling you now that I don't support violence over words. I can state such because it simply is not a position I've ever believed in taking. There is no way I can prove it to you (when I've never said it), but I've certainly explained my believe about such now. For you to insist that I do support violence over words is an outright lie, and is easy for you to prove if I said such. It is impossible to prove otherwise if I didn't say such. Dean, you have the easy out on thisknowing what I believe (from my above comments), just say that you must have misunderstood what you previously read and that you now apologize for making an erroneous statement that mischaracterizes what I've said in the past and what I believe about this matter. Failure to either present the proof or apologize for lying about what I said constitutes a sin, does it not Dean? cd: Davh I make decisions in life due to past experience-as such I will not change a statement until the past belief is change to be something other than what I thought it was, having said that- my statement remains till I have other knowledge. If you do not now support the right to harm other over words then I commend you-but sin cannot be laid at my door until something other that what I said is presented-If I find myself to be in the wrong I will of course apologize-but do not believe I am at this time in the wrong with my statement.Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you.DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is me rely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. ; Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. cd: I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so. DAVEH: While my memory may be weak, I pretty much know what I believe. I don't support somebody becoming violent over words. What I might have said, and which you may have misunderstood is that I can understand why someone my be pushed over the edge into violence by another's words. Dean, there is a huge difference between understanding such, and supporting such. For you to insist I supported such is simply a lie. I've told you before that I have not supported this right to harm others, and I'm telling you now that I don't support violence over words. I can state such because it simply is not a position I've ever believed in taking. There is no way I can prove it to you (when I've never said it), but I've certainly explained my believe about such now. For you to insist that I do support violence over words is an outright lie, and is easy for you to prove if I said such. It is impossible to prove otherwise if I didn't say such. Dean, you have the easy out on thisknowing what I believe (from my above comments), just say that you must have misunderstood what you previously read and that you now apologize for making an erroneous statement that mischaracterizes what I've said in the past and what I believe about this matter. Failure to either present the proof or apologize for lying about what I said constitutes a sin, does it not Dean? Dean Moore wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is me rely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. cd: I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so.Some time prior to Ivan- around 17 mths ago should do-now excuse my granddaughter is crying. If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken. ..implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof... if you want to prove your innocence ...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean?? ? Dean Moore wrot
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/4/2006 1:31:57 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you.DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is merely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. cd: I know you supported fighting words DavH-go and see for yourself.You have often spoken of a failing memory now you are certain I am lying about a event that happened appx. 2 yrs ago?Are you so sure?Beside I do not know how to use the archives and the last time I attempted to do so failed-so if you want to prove me wrong you are the one who will have to do so.Some time prior to Ivan- around 17 mths ago should do-now excuse my granddaughter is crying.If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken...implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof...if you want to prove your innocence...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean???Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said.DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Dave, you wrote so much that I almost hate offering you such a short answer, but that really is all that is necessary here. What you fail to understand is that your post that escalated the problems was a joke hinged upon two TruthTalk members who were not married to each other, but had their own spouses, and you intimated that one of them had sexual knowledge of the other one. This broke the ad hominem rule because you implied sin on the part of two members of the list. Your comment was provoked by another TruthTalk member asking you a personal question, and she also crossed that line. The difference is that she apologized and dropped the subject whereas you refused to drop it, even bringing private conversation to the list. Then when I talked to you about it, BEFORE you were removed from the list, you told me that you were wrong and deserved to be removed from the list. Now you are trying to make out like there is some kind of double standard. I'm sorry, but I don't see it, at least in regards to the reasons for removing you from the list. Speech against Mormonism or Protestant Christianity or Roman Catholicism is allowed. What is not allowed is speech which attacks individual members in a personal and emotional way. If people attacked you personally, then we would have some problem. If they are attacking your beliefs or religious practices, that is fine. Now in regards to free speech, I do not think it should be illegal for the KKK to march down the streets of a Black community. If the Black community attacks them for doing this, they are in the wrong. The Blacks who attacked should be rounded up and prosecuted if this were to happen. Otherwise, we send the message that the unlawful and unruly have the right to prevent free speech. That being said, I do think there can be restrictions upon free speech in residential neighborhoods in regards to volume and certain kinds of provocative behavior. I also think there are ethical considerations that those who engage in free speech should consider. I personally do not go into residential neighborhoods to preach a loud message because I think that begins to infringe upon the privacy rights of individuals. This is not at all the same as preaching on a plaza in a downtown area where community buildings are located. As long as the message being proclaimed outside these buildings does not hinder the business or activities being conducted inside the buildings, we should recognize the right for people to express dissent or opinion. This is a traditional public forum. Lastly, let me reiterate again, that TruthTalk is not a church. If it were, then those who refused to repent of sin would be removed from the list. We also would not ask questions of those who disagreed with Bible doctrine. We would engage more in reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with patient teaching in sound doctrine. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy You apparently think that we think we have free speech here. We don't. DAVEH: Good. We can agree on that then. I was under the impression that you meant for free speech to be a part of TT, yet much of what I see on TT says it is not. That you have one rule (ad-hom) would indicate that bounds have been set to allow free speech outside those bounds. Yet that also is not the case, as the moderator has the power to create his/her own rules of what speech can freely be discussed here. In reality, there is little speech allowed in TT that does not meet the parameters set by the Christians who are in control of TT.the list owner (you) and the moderator of the moment. I have no problem with that, as long as everybody understands that free speech and TT are not always compatible. I knowthis is old ground. I just want to let you know that I understand this aspect of TT. What I've been trying to point out though is what I see as a double standard in the Christian world of street preaching, if not TT. I know that is probably getting to be a tired subject, but let me briefly explain after posting your last comment You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between traditional public forums where free speech may be conducted, and private religious meetings or moderated e-mail lists where free speech is not conducted. DAVEH: You previously stated. The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue ...and below you stated. If you don't believe in the public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent, then you do not believe in freedom of speech. .in an attempt to make me feel that the LDS Church is wrong for not allowing dissent to be openly expressed. Then a few days ago, you elaborated. T
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Innocent until - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 04, 2006 13:31 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you.DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is merely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say.If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken...implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof...if you want to prove your innocence...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean???Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said.DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. DAVEH: YikesDid I really write that (yes)...I need to reread stuff before I post it! What I meant to say Dean, is that it is YOU who should apologize to me IF you cannot find evidence of me saying to the effect that I supported this right to harm others. I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so DAVEH: OK Dean..To make this simple for you, let me state FTR that I have never said that I supported this right to harm others. For you to make that claim is another false accusation, and you should apologize for making it. Failing that, your comment that I assure you that I will bend over backwards to give you fairness is merely empty words that once again represents another lie, as you apparently have no intention of being fair. balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) FWIW.I find it very interesting (if not telling) that you simply make stuff up, and then stubbornly stick to it with no concern for it's impact if it is erroneous. As I've stated before, it is easy to prove what I've said by merely quoting my previously posted words. However, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I have no way to post the words I didn't say. So no, Deanthe ball is NOT in my court. The ball is in the court of the person making the false accusation.in this case, YOU! You made the claim, and the onus is upon you to prove it or apologize. Let me give you some advice, Dean..You'd be smart in this case to swallow your pride and apologize for making the false accusation. Tenaciously holding to a lie speaks volumes about a guy who claims to be fair. Think about the logic of it, Dean. Here you are in TruthTalk, purporting to be fair (presumably as a moderator, though you did not specifically say such) AND a Christian making up a bold faced lie about somebody (me) that you are trying to convince that Mormonism is a lie, and then you have the audacity to say. If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken. ..implying you are too arrogantly righteous to need to prove your own words. Then you simply think you can put the burden of proof... if you want to prove your innocence ...on the accused! Is that really how you want TTers to view your self perceived image of fairness, Dean??? Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said. DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DAVEH: You have only been a moderator one day, Deanand already you are posting lies. If you will post my comments that suggest that I supported this right to harm others, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot find such, then I will apologize to you. Until then, it is obvious to me that you are making stuff up to cast me in a dim light and diminish what I have truly said.DAVEH: OKThen I will expect you to not falsely accuse without evidence to support you accusation. cd: If you think I am going to search archive for you -you are mistaken.I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so now-but if you want to prove your innocence then use these keywords-"DaveH" and "Fighting words"- search a couple of years back should bring results-balls in your court play it or drop it your choice:-)
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
David Miller wrote: >> free speech has limitations. >> We recognize that. DAVEH: > Really! Who determines those limitations? > ... those things are determined by law. Yes, and the foundation of law is God, not whatever men decide the law should be. DaveH wrote: > On the other hand, it seems that some SPers > have little regard for what others want to hear, > and hence feel within the law to preach however > they want, disregarding others' ears and what they > want or not want to be heard. I can't speak for all Street Preachers, but I can say that I am conscious of what others want to hear. The problem is that sometimes God sends me to deliver a message that others don't want to hear. People yell at me all the time, "go home, get out of here, you are not welcome here, we don't want to hear what you have to say, etc. etc." The nature of Satan is to tell God's messengers, "Shut Up!" What we understand is that the sword of God is God's Word. To wield the sword, we must speak it. Therefore, if we shut up, the kingdom of God cannot be advanced. DaveH wrote: > ... when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like > the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, > and only consider what THEY want to hear. > For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted > on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There actually might be some interpretation of FCC standards that could apply, but we hope that people just have enough maturity and decency to understand that we do not welcome obscene speech. > There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that > appliesother than what the moderator makes up at > his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable > to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants > to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. > At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted > from TT. You were not booted for sexually explicit speech. You were booted for not cooperating with the moderator who was trying to steer the discussion away from the vulgar and profane. You brought his private converation to the list, contrary to guidelines that the moderator made clear. You have even told me many times that you deserved to be booted from the list for doing that. Now you are trying to make out like you suffered for righteousness' sake over free speech. DaveH wrote: > Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and > do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying > a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim > their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if > you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one > shouldn't complain when others do likewise. If the Street Preachers were using the "F" word in their speech to your church, I would agree with you that this would be wrong. If they are preaching that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that your church is idolatrous and causing people not to believe in Jesus Christ, that is a different matter. In regards to buying the street... this is like a legal loophole which preyed on the love of money within men. If it was righteous, the cause could have been made without offering money, arguing that it would be for the public good. What is foul is that the argument would not stand on its own merits. Your church resorted to the love of money to sweeten the pie. This is not much different than bribery. Here, we give you these millions of dollars, and you let us do what we want. DaveH wrote: > However, when one respects the rights of others to hear > what they want (or not want to hear something particular), > then one might expect to receive the same treatment > whether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that > many SPers feel that way, though. I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I do not object to the LDS sending out their own debaters to speak on the public sidewalks where the preachers speak. That is perfectly fine. What I object to is how they attempt to manipulate people with money to make sure that only their view is shared and others who disagree are silenced. If you don't believe in the public forum and the free exchange of ideas and freedom to express dissent, then you do not believe in freedom of speech. David Miller wrote: >> They want to regulate what is done outsides >> their buildings as well as inside. DAVEH: > That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem > with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting > obscenities on TT, eh DavidM! No, it is nothing like that. I do not agree with the idea of people shouting obscenities at Mormons from street corners. People should have a recourse to grievances against those in authority. They should be free to express dissent. This is a form of checks and balances that prevents the corruption of those in authority. David Miller wrote: >> The church of Je
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Well said, Perry. - Original Message - From: Charles Perry Locke To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Dave, sounds like you'er still a little sore for getting booted off of TT for continuing a banned topic. Old news...move on. I also think your concept of free speech is a little twisted. Free speech laws apply in a public forum, but TT is not a public forum. It is a private discussion group. The owner of the group has the right to request common decency, and ban those who use profanity if he wishes. Just like in your home, if says something that offends you, you can kick them out. However, if you meet them on the public sidewalk they can say whatever they want and you cannot do a thing (legally) to prevent it (unless, of course, slander is committed, then you have legal recourse). Why do you think the mormon church is trying to buy public property? To make it private so they can control what is said there and who says it. You also seem to be a legalist. You seem to forget common decency when there are "laws" that say you can do something. Read Alexander Soltzenitsyn's address to the 1975 graduating class at Harvard for an excellent treatise on legalism and common decency. Perry From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyDate: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:17 -0800 free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear. For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise. However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too?DAVEH: I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOWI don't think JW waved underwear in the faces
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
d acceptable when we talk about free speech. The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say? The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth. If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? David Miller. - Original Message ----- From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/1/2006 3:14:32 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-)had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-)DAVEH: Perhaps they (the debaters ) wanted to go inside to listen to what James White had to say. :-) --- cd: White spoke later on that night-we went to hear what he had to say then covered another event in town-a game I think. No debater was ever hindered from coming or going.We also do not shout fire to cause a roit-We shout Jesus Christ to help, the poor lost blind brainwashed Mormons whom God has chosen for salvation-big difference even as you cannot see it. Woe unto the ones that make evil good and good evil. Dean Moore wrote: If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. --- cd; Good post David-they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) Lonnie,Kevin,Ruben,and Larry Craft had a good time with their best. Larry C. also had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Good on ya mate! - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: February 01, 2006 09:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 2/1/2006 3:09:49 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy You make some good points, DH. What do you know fo James White's presentations -- respectful ? cd: The guy went to the Mormon Temple-stood there a couple of hours-only handing out tracks that nobody took from him-left to get coffee-and left for the day.Wrote on his site that he stood there all day long and handed out thousands of tracks( I went to his site and spoke on this as he told me himself that he handed out thousands-I told him "I was right behind you and I didn't see him hand out one track"-He asked me which one I was and I said "I am the one who told you that you are standing in the place of a preacher so get too preaching"-and White told me not to contact to him again).He quit going too the temple-and blamed that on us also, but does still take money from people pretending to go to the Temple. White and Hinn have a lot in common.Concerning the waving the underwear-If someone states that their special underware helps them get to heaven-I will hold them up and declare that this is not a way to righteousness but Jesus Christ is .If& nbsp;one makes that wrong that is between them and God. He is one busy hombre, that's for sure. jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> free speech has limitations. We recognize that.DAVEH: Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by law. On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear.For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that appliesother than what the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that time...the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT. Butwhen others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise.However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatmentwhether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though.They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.DAVEH: That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM!buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogueDAVEH: Who says??? Why do you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that theory?I understand you guys invited James White. Why
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) DAVEH: Perhaps they (the debaters ) wanted to go inside to listen to what James White had to say. :-) Dean Moore wrote: If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. --- cd; Good post David-they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) Lonnie,Kevin,Ruben,and Larry Craft had a good time with their best. Larry C. also had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
as
inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the
world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their
own assembly to hear what they have to say?
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue,
not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those
outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others
gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them
a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would
discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to
address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only
people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.
If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best
debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of
dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them
and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost
if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have
a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I
understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers
too?
David Miller.
-
Original Message -
From:
Dave
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free
speech when it benefits them..
You don't really believe in free speech, do you.
..yet are so opposed to it...
please do not forward posts to us that use the F
word.
when it offends them?
When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference
time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not
appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they
perceive their rights to free speech
being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.
David Miller wrote:
Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use
the F word.
David Miller
I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free
speech, do you.
David Miller.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth. If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
ers, not spend millions of
dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them
and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost
if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have
a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum?
I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street
Preachers too?
David Miller.
-
Original Message -
From:
Dave
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free
speech when it benefits them..
You don't really believe in free speech, do you.
..yet are so opposed to it...
please do not forward posts to us that use the F word.
when it offends them?
When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during
Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do
not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they
perceive their rights to free speech
being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.
David Miller wrote:
Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F
word.
David Miller
I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free
speech, do you.
David Miller.
--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
- Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/31/2006 12:09:34 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech. The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say? The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth. If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. --- cd; Good post David-they already sent their best debaters out but they didn't stay around long:-) Lonnie,Kevin,Ruben,and Larry Craft had a good time with their best. Larry C. also had James White for breakfast and didn't break a sweat:-) Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Judy's theology, David, may be 'the spirit of the Antichrist'. I believe that it is. - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: January 31, 2006 12:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity expresses itself in many ways. The homosexual agenda and the feminine movement is part of it. It is the spirit of Antichrist. The concept is expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7. Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel. Daniel 11:37 (37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy 'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'? Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David. Lance PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no su
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
I did generalize too much. I know some who do not wave underwear and preach condemnation to the masses. Talk about generalizing !! But what I have seen expressed on this site and (especially) on that other site is the very thing I had in mind when I wrote the post in question. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John, the list of SP's that you got on is indeed profane. I tried to help them with a list, but they are so unruly and unable to keep the foul language off that I cancelled the list, taking a lot of criticism for doing so. In fact, I tried this twice over the years. Nevertheless, they wear their faults openly before all, and they are not necessarily worse than the white-walled Christians who appear proper on the outside. Furthermore, not all Street Preachers are as you describe. Some, like myself, deplore the foul language, and we constantly reprove those preachers who seem to think that they are in a men's locker room and are therefore free to behave in a profane manner. I believe in living in public and private the same life. No different behavior from me in the men's locker room, or in this Octagon that you have observed. In many ways, trying to generalize about Street Preachers is like trying to generalize about the homeless. It is such a diverse group, that it cannot be done fairly. I support street preachers, and now my church is supporting one as well. There are some that you can trust not to misrepresent the faith, and it is a shame that your church is not out there in the streets compelling people to follow Jesus Christ. Every church should have a few street ministers within it. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. In this valley (where I live) - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingyThe working of iniquity expresses itself in many ways. The homosexual agenda and the feminine movement is part of it. It is the spirit of Antichrist. The concept is expressed in 2 Thess. 2:7. Paul's foundation is from the book of Daniel. Daniel 11:37 (37) Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy 'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no understanding of the issues'? Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity', David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David. Lance PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman', David? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for bette
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
John, the list of SP's that you got on is indeed profane. I tried to help them with a list, but they are so unruly and unable to keep the foul language off that I cancelled the list, taking a lot of criticism for doing so. In fact, I tried this twice over the years. Nevertheless, they wear their faults openly before all, and they are not necessarily worse than the white-walled Christians who appear proper on the outside. Furthermore, not all Street Preachers are as you describe. Some, like myself, deplore the foul language, and we constantly reprove those preachers who seem to think that they are in a men's locker room and are therefore free to behave in a profane manner. I believe in living in public and private the same life. No different behavior from me in the men's locker room, or in this Octagon that you have observed. In many ways, trying to generalize about Street Preachers is like trying to generalize about the homeless. It is such a diverse group, that it cannot be done fairly. I support street preachers, and now my church is supporting one as well. There are some that you can trust not to misrepresent the faith, and it is a shame that your church is not out there in the streets compelling people to follow Jesus Christ. Every church should have a few street ministers within it. David Miller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. In this valley (where I live) - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech. The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say? The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth. If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church. Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers too? David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you...yet are so opposed to it...please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David MillerI have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
cd: John I am not even going to address this as I hope you understand better at some point in time. - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/29/2006 10:41:04 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. In this valley (where I live) - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isnt intended to protect peoples right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least thats how we see it in Canada. Of course, its no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a private moral choice. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, theres still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are rules about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often cant express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like Jesus can heal you, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. Its also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on o
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
'deceived by the working of iniquity'? 'no
understanding of the issues'?
Please elaborate on 'the working of iniquity',
David. Please help Debbie and myself understand the issues, David.
Lance
PS:Have you ever played the game 'hangman',
David?
- Original Message -
From:
David Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 29, 2006 17:39
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word.
As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and
doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was
that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made
heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity,
you have no understanding of the issues involved here.
David Miller
- Original Message -
From:
Lance
Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40
PM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
- Original Message -
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech
thingy
Is the
picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of
its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my
part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing
something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that
last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction
between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently
offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so
more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s
been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et
al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is
unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us
does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash
out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free
speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth
of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell
them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to
divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur
or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public
doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free
speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on
the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in
Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes
an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not
allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also
argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that
property.
Even if the
message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and
that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the
circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these
cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t
express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be
gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect
most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive
about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the
implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as
that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message
unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the
person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of
signage.
It’s also no
surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the
line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a
little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness
being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are
influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is
to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws
tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obvious
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
DAVEH: Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them.. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. ..yet are so opposed to it... please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. when it offends them? When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street. David Miller wrote: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. David Miller I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Just for the record -- Debbie's point is without debate. The kind of SP that calls names and passes harsh judgment is neither biblical nor deserving of consideration within the Christian community. I find it rather humorous to hear SPs huddle in their little corner of the world, cuss, throw glows, and generally make fools of themselves -- all in the name of the Lord, of course -- and then present that they are not underserving of pesecuation. More than than - their contribution to the over-all effect of evangelism by the Church Catholic is so minor as to be nothing more than a blip in time. They could all stop preaching tomorrow and the "significance " of their collective effort would not be missed. In this valley (where I live) - SPs are not supported because of the unpredictable nature of their rhetoric and the harm they engender towards the Church. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? Its not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, Im in no rush to characterize it that way. But hes surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. Theyd argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think thats been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, its to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offencefree speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isnt intended to protect peoples right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least thats how we see it in Canada. Of course, its no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an attack and what constitutes a private moral choice. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, theres still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are rules about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often cant express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like Jesus can heal you, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. Its also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe theres a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of oursfor better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I dont think is appropriate is to get
Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy
Title: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. As for the offense issue, the offense is purely offense of the gospel and doctrine of Christ. If we did exactly the same thing but the message was that everyone is free to engage in homosexuality, we would be cheered and made heroes. You and Debbie have been so deceived by the working of iniquity, you have no understanding of the issues involved here. David Miller - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: January 29, 2006 13:47 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy Is the picket'n'preach thing being addressed quite squarely? It’s not a question of its illegality, and whether it is unethical is open to question; for my part, I’m in no rush to characterize it that way. But he’s surely doing something offensive. Certain people on reading this would latch onto that last sentence and ignore the preceding one, failing to note my distinction between offensive and unethical. They’d argue that the gospel is inherently offensive, and it is, of course--although, not insignificantly, it is so more typically as addressed to moral and religious people. I think that’s been part of your underlying point all along, that (a) the offence David et al give is not that which is inherent to the gospel, hence it is unnecessary; your other, current point is a separate one: (b) when any of us does something offensive, it’s to be expected that the offendee will lash out at that person and try to keep them from giving further offence—free speech or not. This is a separate point and has nothing to do with the truth of what the person is saying. It's all the same to people whether you tell them to fuck off or call them a sodomite or tell them they are open to divine judgment or call them what they consider foul names for wearing fur or driving a gas-guzzling SUV--or whatever. That one does so in public doesn't help any. (In fact it probably compounds the offensiveness.) Free speech isn’t intended to protect people’s right to conduct public attacks on the private moral choices of others. At least that’s how we see it in Canada. Of course, it’s no surprise if there is debate on what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes a “private moral choice”. And if you're not allowed to do certain things on someone's private property, you can also argue about spirit and letter of the law when it comes to the limits of that property. Even if the message itself is not offensive, there’s still the manner of delivery, and that's not just a matter of pickiness. There are “rules” about the circumstances under which it is OK to deliver certain messages, and these cultural rules are like the grammar of a language: people often can’t express the rule, they just know when it has been violated. Some may be gracious and accept the message despite the violation, but one can expect most people to get hung up on the violation. There may be nothing offensive about a message like “Jesus can heal you”, for example--except the implication that there is something pathological about the person, true as that may be of all of us--but I venture that to give this kind of message unsolicited you are supposed to be in a certain relationship with the person, and then you are supposed to give it privately, not by way of signage. It’s also no surprise that people in a diverse society differ on just where to draw the line on offensiveness and breaking the rules. I wonder if maybe there’s a little more homogeneity in Canadian society on these things, inoffensiveness being such a core value of ours—for better or for worse. You and I are influenced by our culture, obviously. What I don’t think is appropriate is to get too morally stuck-up about either position. I hate it when my inlaws tout as morally superior per se a custom that is obviously pure cultural convention from their European background. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be taken aback if I get roundly told off for not observing it among them! But in any case David's other post suggests that he and others engaging in such activity glory in their persecutions. If so, what’s the argument? I thought they were expressing chagrin at the persecution? (What ever happened to the shake-the-dust-off-your-sandals principle?) That's likely already more words than this issue is worth, Lance, so I’ll stop blathering! D -Original Message- From: Lance Muir [HYPERLINK mailto:[
