/*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 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: [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 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 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 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 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 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 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
>>
