That is unexcusable behavior in my opinion.
??? unexcusable behavior..........what's that
mean? Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before discussing my behavior
as being unexcusable.
FWIW........Not only do I consider your behavior to be less
than stellar as well, your opinion as an anti-Mormon doesn't mean a lot
to me, Perry. You are simply too biased against Mormonism to have
valid argument worthy of consideration. Furthermore, you've made a
public statement announcing that you are going to grind your ax against
Mormonism. So your actions come as no surprise.
But as the moderator of TT, you are correct.....I should be more
respectful of your wishes when you request that I take the discussion
off-line. And for that, I owe you an apology.......but am not sure
why, as one of your two posts yesterday simply asked me if we could
take the discussion off-line. (And no....I did not want to take it or
this one off-line either.) The post below however, firmly requested
such. It's just a little difficult for me to do so when you post
whatever you want, and prevent me from doing the same. I don't know
if you have noticed, but IMO I've not treated you any worse than you've
treated me. You just happen to hold the big stick.
So..........IF you have rules to be obeyed on TT.....post them, and
when I feel you are violating them, I'll just pitch it back to you. If
on the other hand, I violate them first, then bring it to my
attention. Contrary to Deans assertion that I'm a crybaby over
this.....that's nonsense. I'm just going to mirror back what you send
my way. So far, I've only heard of one firm rule....no
ad-homs.....and your request to take the sexual threads off-Forum a
month or so ago.....which I did. I think your action on that one was a
bit too restrictive, as you publicly made some false accusations that
were not resolved. Which is why I violated your desire to keep this
last one private. You have made false accusations and refused to back
them up with factual quotes to support your position. Then before the
topic can be properly discussed, you ban further posts.
Do you want to make up new rules for TT, Perry? If not.......is
the ad-hom rule going to be adequate, or are you going to continue
banning discussions for no other reason than you think they are
disruptive? In the past, disruptive posts haven't seemed to trouble
you too much. Now that they are a bit closer to home, you seem to be a
little overly sensitive to them though.
The question is why do you feel the need to ban topics if there are
no complaints of ad-homs?
BTW........I'm copying this to Blaine, as I suspect he will be
curious as to what is discussed related to Mormonism off-line, and as
an LDS TTer, I think there is some pertinence to him in this
exchange.......I hope that is OK with you. I suspect a few other
TTers would also like to know what's going on, but you've pretty well
eliminated that possibility, Perry.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave, this was a private post to you, which you brought on-line. That
is unexcusable behavior in my opinion. Furthmore, as moderator I
asked you to discontinue this thread, or take it private. You have
violated that by continuing it online. My goal was to resolve these
discussions with you between ourselves instead of continuing to disrupt
the group. If you wish to continue this discussion off-line, address me
privately and we will. This is your last warning.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: TruthTalk <[email protected]>
Subject: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800
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.* T_*hese 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
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
