/*if you won't list the imaginary offense about SP's th en
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 happen
There 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 apparen tly
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? &nb sp; 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:
Why? Jjust because it is really the Street Preachers
fault?
*Maybe DH was angry.* Of course he equates SP in front
of the Temple as Obnoxius etc blah blah blah. But *he
WILL not list just what exactly is so OBNOXIOUS about
it*. anyway SP 's at the Temple have nothing to do with
his off color Humor [sic]
It is all about offense not right & wrong .
it is only
wrong if you can find someone to be offended by it.
Right?
*It seems DH is saying it is OK to talk
about his
bedroom if it is done in jest.*
*//* */Charles Perry Locke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
A totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my
opinion.
>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 TTe rs 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 (shoutin g)
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 co uple 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 t he 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 you rself 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 wh en
>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 d ouble 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 be nt 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
>>
