What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggested....don't you think you owe them an apology?
May I quote you?
DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!
The best you can do is draw some imaginary picture in your mind of "waving their underwear around like fools"
Fools wear them as a RELIGIOUS _expression_!
They are the equivilent of the Pagan ROMAN CATHOLIC Scapular.
They Trust their scapular LDS trust undies.
No wonder
they are offended I would not want anyone to know about such foolishness.
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.
DAVEH: Your retorts are so predictable, they are simply laughable Kevin! :-D
What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools. The point is that you are offending them (not me) by doing such. As Perry suggested....don't you think you owe them an apology?
If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out.
DAVEH: ??? Huh? Just exactly what do you think I said that would justify that reaction? Please quote my specific comments so that we can see what you are talking about. If you don't have any specific quotes, then we can assume you are making this up!
Kevin Deegan wrote:if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's then stop whining about it.If you said such about someones wife, they would be justified in punching your lites out. The State of Utah would see it this way too.On the other hand LDS who assault SP's because they are offended go to jail. That is after they find the smallest SP to attack from behind. Or better yet slam an elbow into the back of a Women holding a scripture sign. Must have been OFFENDED by the BIBLE. By the way it was a good thing here husband did not see that one. That is OK because God will judge. I bet He is even more upset knowing that the Woman that LDS THUG hit from behind has cancer!Spare me your whining if you can not discuss the problem seek couseling.Get over it your Religon is VILE & I will not Respect it.Aint gonna happenThere is NOTHING Sacred in Mormonism.It is a good thing we are not in the OT cause they were told to TEAR DOWN the groves!In America there is Freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to avoid offense.If you are OFFENDED by SP's take the recommendation of the Supreme court Plug your ears and avert your eyes!
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Maybe DH was angry.
DAVEH: LOL.....Even you should know me better than that, Kevin. I simply don't get angry. (Or at least I haven't yet....I wonder what I would really say/do if that situation ever to happen....)
he WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about it
DAVEH: Why should I list such? I am not the one offended by it, Kevin. Obviously, there are a lot of LDS folks in SLC who are offended though. I tend not to take offense at such silly stuff, but apparently others do. They are the ones you should be apologizing to, according to Perry....
the principle I was taught is that when you offend someone you apologize...even if you didn't mean to, even if you were joking, even if you think they are faking offense, apologizing is the right thing to do. Izzy got it. Kevin got it.
.........So Kevin....did you g et Perry's message??? If so, will you be apologizing to the folks you offend in SLC? Now....assuming you did not get the message (and will not apologize to those you have offended), would you be surprised if I continue offending the hypocrites of TT?
It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk about his bedroom if it is done in jest.
DAVEH: Isn't that what some TTers were doing when asking me about when and how I wear my underwear? I just replied in kind. Or, did you really think they were serious? C'mmon now, Kevin.....you are a smart guy, aren't you!
Now the big question, Kevin.....had I seriously responded to those very personal questions as though they were not asked in jest, would you have been able to avoid mocking, demeaning and denigrating my answers?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
>From: Dave
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>Subject: [TruthTalk] DaveH's Reply to the Controversy
>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:52:53 -0800
>
>*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. *
>
>DAVEH: Thank you for your apology, Izzy.....But, as I'm sure you already
>know.....it is not necessary to apologize to me. (Though the thought and
>consideration is most appreciated.) I had taken absolutely no offense at
>a ll in what you had posted. And....I suspect that you took no offense at
>what I posted in reply. (If I am wrong about that, let me know and I'll
>offer a sincere apology.)
>
> As for other TTers being offended.....that rather surprises me. As
>Perry correctly surmised, my comments were all done in a humorous
>tone........./While I am sure Dave is joking,/.....that was not intended to
>offend anybody. (I am mystified as to why anybody would take personal
>offense at such humor anyway.) I was merely trying to keep the
>conversation at the same level as those responding, while trying to make a
>point at the same time. That point is that many TTers seem to have a
>double standard. On TT it is OK to publicly discuss and mock personal
>things (whether they be religious ceremonies, religious clothing or even
>sexual practices) of somebody who has a presumed inferior (from the
>majorities persp ective) belief or position in life. Some TTers even brag
>about their right to publicly ridicule and demean Mormons' beliefs and
>practices, right at the doorstep of LDS religious gatherings. And what
>further and truly amazes me, some TTers support their obnoxious actions,
>regardless of how offens ive they are to other people. Sure....it is legal
>for them to do that, but IF LDS people find their tactics and behavior
>offensive, do those practicing such tactics and behavior ever back off in
>deference to the LDS folks' feelings???
>
> So.....when I publicly post some (what I consider, and I suspect a few
>others will agree to be) entertaining material in TT in reply to questions
>that were I to directly answer would undoubtedly bring ridicule and
>derision, then why would anybody be offended? Did I attack anybody? If
>not, then I did not violate any ad-hom rules?.....none! Were my posts
>distasteful?.....No more than those who asked the questions, IMO and also
>in the opinion of some TTers without an ax to grind. I do not recall using
>any foul language, or obnoxious (shouting) mannerisms. I merely tried to
>respond politely, humorously and in kind to each post that was made about
> the discussion. Yes....I did try to /drag in/---as Perry put it in a
>private post---others to illustrate the absurdity of what was being
>discussed. Until your own ox is being gored, there is little motivation
>for some to get excited! :-)
>
> Yet is is apparent that a couple TTers have fairly thin skins and took
>offense at my comments related to them. If street preachers truly are
>unable to discern humorous content, and have so little latitude for the
>rights of others to use free speech that is not even lewd.....then how do
>they tolerate truly ugly behavior? It simply amazes me that some street
>preachers demand the right to be obnoxious and irritate others without
>regards to offending them, and then feign offense when somebody treats them
>far more respectfully in TT. (And in fairness to the street preachers on
>TT....I realize that not all have complained about what I have posted
>here.....thank you for your tolerance....my comments are not directed
>toward you.)
>
> Soooooo (excepting Izzy)........for those TTers who claimed offense and
>continue to believe........
>
>/*Dave owes an apology to all of us,*/
>
>..........because of what I directly said to or about them.....I view you
>as being big hypocritical *cry-babies*.....a term that was once used in TT
>to describe me, but seems much more applicable to some TTers who *whine*
>all the time about how offensive I am. Buck-up folks. Most of you are
>adults, and if you can't tolerate a Mor mon boy's playful and tame comments
>that were made in an effort to diffuse a potentially unpleasant subject,
>you're going to have big time trouble in the real world.
>
> In reviewing all the posts that came in today about this, I fail to see
>anything I said that would have directly or even indirec tly attacked or
>offended anybody. If you disagree, feel free to either post on TT your
>reasons for disagreeing, or send them to me off-Forum. If you can show me
>where I /crossed over the line/ as Perry suggested, then I'll offer you a
>sincere apology.
>
> If on the other hand, you can get a laugh (or perhaps even crack a
>smile) out of what has been posted regarding this matter, then I commend
>you for avoiding the arrogant indignation trap. It is not my intention (as
>Judy implied) to bring discord to TT. If anything, I prefer to posture my
>posts to alleviate the tension here. That's why I use lots of smilies to
>help others know when I am joshing around for the sake of levity. For
>those who took offense at what I posted, go back and look at the smilies
>before you dig yourself deeper in a huff. Even Izzy knows how smilies
>work. And, Dean has been known to use them often, but perhaps he overlooks
>them when reading others' comments. As for Perry....do you have a single
>funny bone in that body, Perry!?!?!?! ;-)
>
> In fairness to Perry....I realize that you are the moderator, and as
>such cannot take everything quite a lightly as other TTers, especially when
>the problem pertains to another TTer. However, you did claim a personal
>offense....which I view rather dimly.
>
> Welllllllll........I took a risk in posting the above, as our TT
>moderator has privately cautioned (requested might be a better term) that I
>avoid continued discussion regarding this matter. However, I do believe I
>have a right to respond to the many comments that have been posted today,
>and I also believe there is a lesson to be learned in all this. And that
>lesson is the double standard that some TTers have. They can dish it out
>(as Izzy has been known to say), but they seem to h ave a problem when it is
>served up for their own consumption. If any of you want to hammer this
>Mormon boy or his beliefs, that is your privilege and right. But then
>don't complain when I fail to turn the other cheek....it is one of my many
>flaws! Nor should you get your noses bent out of shape over a few humorous
>comments.....it is unbecoming of a Christian to be so weak kneed! :-)
>
>
>
>
>ShieldsFamily wrote:
>
>>*And I apologize to all, especially to DaveH for provoking him. * Now move
>>on, Class! iz
>>-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
