|
Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to be
unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those
who walk after the Spirit understand God's Word.
3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance because what I
addressed was personal accusations and this is what you are
doing right here.
Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh well! What's
new....
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am). Let me
take another run at it. On those occasions in
which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S
WORD(s) on given issue, do you not implicitly or explictly indicate that the
one(s) with whom you are speaking do not? Would you have genuine difficulty if recalling many such instances over
the last 6 months?
What then, am I attempting to say? YOU DO THAT
WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT WHICH YOU DO
WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION.
Do you understand?
Do you agree with this assessment?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 14, 2005 08:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double
Standard
No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the
case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the
Word of God, and not everything I write is the
Word of God because that would have to include opinion at
times along with personal stories. So what is
the point you are trying to make here? Is it good to be calling one
another hypocrites and disrespecting the
Moderator? Where do you think this kind
of attitude leads??
When you describe that which you say as THE
TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as OTHER THAN
the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the very thing that
you speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'. Would you not
acknowledge this to be the case?
We should make accusing each other
personally a matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations to be
both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or
not? Why give the
enemy a platform to tear each other down.
DAVEH: I don't think you understand the nature of my
posts, Perry. I'm not talking about your sexual
experiences. I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as practiced
on TT. Is the double standard on TT not a fair
topic? Why should I have to discuss that matter
offline? Is this not relevant to all TTers,
Perry?
I find it very telling that you
make false accusations against me.......
you suggest I
might have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual
experiences,
.........which I did not do. Go back and
read my exact words if you don't believe me. If you can't find
them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for yourself that you
are again accusing me of something I did not do.
you suggest
that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some
sexual connotation,
..........That has been suggested
before on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to
discourage such comments. Now you want to ban me from posting
something other TTers can post with no retribution. This is
simply another example of a double standard.
you try to spin
Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual
references.
.........I merely stated the truth about
Deans sensitivity to such things. This was not an ad-hom
attack. Is the truth now a problem on TT? People
have said a lot more vile things about me with no condemnation by the
moderator. Why the double standard now,
Perry?
these amount to false
accusations,
DAVEH: How can that possibly
be a false accusation if it is true, Perry? If
anything, it is you who is making false
accusations about me in this matter. Once again....a TT
double standard.
the intentions of spinning Dean up on a
banned topic
DAVEH: You are absolutely
wrong again, Perry. You simply fail to understand the nature of
my posts. My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all. It
is you who I am trying to enlighten as to the Christian
hypocrisy involving the double standard practiced on TT with regard to
Mormons. Until you as the moderator recognize it, why
should I discontinue pointing it out every time it occurs? Is
not the TT double standard an acceptable discussion
topic?
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, you suggest I might have some knowledge of
Izzy's sexual experiences, then you suggest that saying "one
of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual
connotation, then you try to spin Dean up by
suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual references. These
amount to false accusations, with the intentions of
spinning Dean up on a banned topic. Any more posts from you
containing sexual references and I will have to take you off the
forum until you agree not to do so. Take any issues you have up with
me, offline, at this address, not on the forum.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment **
Date:
Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:29:32 -0800
* Please try to
/refrain /from making sexual references, especially /false
accuastions/.*
DAVEH: Let's see if I
understand this, Perry. Recently I asked some questions that
were no more sexually oriented than what you commonly make, Dean
then claimed foul......and you banned further discussion based on
the /perception /you and Dean had about what those comments might
have implied.
Now you have made a comment
that can be perceived to be sexually charged..........
*If
lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! *
..........and you don't want to recognize the double
standard? It is interesting that when you or other TTers
make any kind of denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with
sexual implications, nothing is considered off limits. When
I point out this obvious double standard, I am cautioned by the
moderator to /refrain /from bringing the discussion to the TT
table under the guise of making/ false accusations/. It must
be convenient to have a moderator who can see non-LDS posters
through one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely
different perspective of LDS posters through the other, more
critical eye. I suppose if one has an ax to grind against
LDS theology, and is not embarrassed to publicly admit
such....then it should not surprise anybody to find that person
practicing a double standard. The curious part about this is
that it happens on a forum called /TruthTalk/, where /truth /is
presupposed to be the dominating factor, yet it seems to be
suppressed when it comes to recognizing the Christian hypocrisy
found here.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
* Please try to
/refrain /from making sexual references, especially /false
accuastions/.* This is not the forum for that? I am sure there
are many discussion forums about sex if that type of discussion
interests you.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perry's Sexually Suggestive Comments
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:07:35 -0800
**If lucky,
you may become one of his many spirit wives! **
DAVEH: I wonder if Dean is going to rebuke
you for making such sexually suggestive comments,
Perry! If not, will we then have another example
of hypocritical Christianity in TT?
Charles Perry
Locke wrote:
Just be sure you remember your
secret password and secret handshake so Joseph Smith will
allow you entrance into heaven. *If lucky, you may become
one of his many spirit wives! *
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Signing off...
Date: Mon,
12 Dec 2005 18:19:35 EST
I guess I never
got to know you, Christine--but hope to meet you in the
great beyond--you may be required to testify at the
Bar of God as to what you
have seen and heard on TT--
Blainerb
In a message dated 12/11/2005
11:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am signing off. I have gotten
sucked into the world of TT, and I think it
would be beneficial to my GPA to bid adeiu.
Thanks for all the discussions. I
have learned a
great deal. May the Lord bless you and keep you all.
It would be cool to meet you all in real
life some day. But maybe not all in
the same
room. I wonder how that would turn out... :-)
-Christine Miller
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
|
