DAVEH: May I assume your answer means Perry did not analyze you
correctly, and that you will not be apologizing to those you offend,
Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
Your
Filthy garments are Rejected by God, just as your righteousness is,
they are NOTHING but FILTHY RAGS!
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What difference does it make why the LDS folks in SLC are offended by
the likes of you waving their underwear around like fools.
DAVEH: I just thought you would want to take Perry's advice..........
*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. Evidently arrogant people
don't get it. *
............to heart, Kevin. Apparently, contrary to Perry's mistaken
opinion......you still.......don't get it, Kevin. And, IFF
Perry's next statement is correct.......
Evidently arrogant people don't get it.
.........then logically, would that not make you arrogant?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
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 y ou 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.
N o wonder they are offended I would not want anyone to know
about such foolishness.
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 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.
A
totally arrogant and insensitive reply, in my opinion.
>From: Dave
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>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
>>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
