Vort

Ten-miler Elphaba --> Help! Lib man eater!

That was not written by William Shakespeare, but by someone else of the same name.

I'll take you up on the offer. Assuming you are correct, why do you think that any Priesthood ordinance done under explicit instruction of the senior apostle of Jesus Christ on the earth would be invalid?: Do you likewise think Alma's baptism was invalid because he apparently baptized himself, rather than being baptized by someone else? I have heard many people complain about the lack of depth in our adult Sunday School and quorum classes. Maybe I just happen to have lived in a series of exceptional wards (or maybe I'm one of those shallow people who would not recognize the deep, meaty doctrine if it bit me in the rear end), but I have never found this to be the case. On the contrary, we talk about important and meaningful things in all such classes -- though I will happily admit that the conversation rarely or never turns to eschatalogical predictions, the past or future apostasy of the LDS Church, or the positioning of ancient American airfields. I don't know you, Hill-Billy, but my experience teaches me that those who moan the loudest about the lack of teaching "deep doctrine" are those who are involved in fringe movements or ideas and who simply wish to ride their gospel hobby horse to the exclusion of other doctrine. Hopefully, this bears no strong resemblance to present company.

If he has paid into social security, he has something from that.

Doesn't even have to be virgin olive oil. (Biting my lip to keep from making further comments about the virgin olives that were sacrificed...oh, darn.)

MS Word has built-in spell check. [/helpful_hint]

Agreed. Who does a daughter grow up to be like? If God's love is unconditional, why will there be people condemned to hell?

Unbelievably enough -- and I am the first to admit it's hard to believe -- there are any number of women who would happily give me carnal knowledge of themselves for the asking. If I wished to do so, I could fornicate with women (and men) until my Fornicator fell off. The availability of "free" and "easy" sex astonishes me.

Truly a pyrrhic victory -- especially for those of us who have only ever slept with our wives.

My wife throws like a girl.We have five children.Quod erat demonstrandum.

Sorry if this viewpoint has already been expressed. I expect this has to do with beliefs on the atonement. Most of non-LDS Christianity believe that the atonement was completely accomplished on the cross; thus, the cross is their symbol of redemption. Latter-day Saints believe the atonement was accomplished primarily in the garden of Gethsemane, or at least that it was begun there. Thus, for Latter-day Saints the cross is primarily a symbol of torture and painful death, not of redemption.

He sure bullied around Shawn Bradley, both on and off the court. Good for him for stepping up in this tragic case.

Which was the first post you read?

All General Authorities (and mission presidents, I believe) are eligible to receive a modest living stipend. From what I have heard, few actually accept the stipend. I don't know if President Monson does not not -- it would be fine with me if he did -- but I think it's entirely possible that he makes enough off of book royalties and retirement income that he does not need the stipend.

Of course, I was not implying anything about your wife in my silliness. However, I do believe that everyone who eats meat should slaughter an animal at least once per year. No one should believe that meat (or eggs, or milk) comes from a store. I am no vegetarian, but I do think that any adult who eats meat ought to be willing to slaughter the animal to get it. If you aren't willing to slaughter the animal, don't eat meat. I also believe that our national meat consumption would decrease significantly if all meat-eaters were required to slaughter at least one animal per year.

I love animals, too. Especially lambs, pigs, beef, and chickens. Question to the vegetarians: If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

I have always been a responsible user of credit. Even at our biggest financial strain, when I was out of a job for many months and we had tremendous pressures, we never missed a credit card payment. I have had my oldest credit card (Chase) for, what, fifteen or twenty years. It has been through three banks on two buyouts. I have never missed a payment, never been late with a payment. I have had tens of thousands of dollars through the years that I have put on that card and paid off. Two weeks ago, I got a notice that they were jacking my interest rate up to 22.24%!!! I called to ask about it. Bottom line, reading through the nonsense: They don't feel they are making enough money off of me, so they want me to close out my line of credit. It's just their way of saying, "Thanks for twenty years of faithful use! Now go away." It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

The only thing on this forum that consistently harshes my mellow is dishonesty in communication, or at least my perception of dishonesty in communication. It is the single factor that will reliably set me off. Here are a few hypothetical situations. For each, please tell me two things: Is this dishonesty, or is it something else?What is the appropriate response to this?Now, the hyptheticals: A new user, very young, joins the site, and proceeds to tell everyone about her views on social topics. To the shock and amazement of absolutely no one, her views are typical leftist ideas, as if read off a checklist.(No, I don't think this is dishonest, either. I'm just starting off easy.) A new user joins the site and invites everyone to discuss his pet topic, specifying a web site he has built. (Let us assume that his stand on this topic is exactly contrary to that of most forum members.) He assures everyone that all will be treated with great respect and that there is nothing at his web site in the least offensive to anyone who may disagree with him. A quick check at his web site shows this to be utterly false. A new user joins the site, determined to show forum members the evils of their beliefs. He introduces his own scriptural exegeses (either developed by him or of longstanding tradition) to substantiate his point. When his exegeses are called into question, he provides no further substantiation or even argumentation of his point, but simply maintains that he is right and you are wrong, and that any honest and intelligent person would clearly agree with him. (Note significantly that he is not bearing testimony of these things; rather, he maintains that the scriptural text proves his point while refusing to offer further substantiation of his claims.) A list member produces a rant including historical condemnation of an entire group or race (referred to as "we" and "us", as in, "For three hundred years, we <bully group members> raped and beat up this poor group of <victim group members>"). Another list member objects to this usage, claiming that neither he nor his ancestors (all part of the "bully" group) were guilty of such things and providing a counter-example of a member of the "victim" group who gravely and unjustly abused a personal family member (part of the "bully" group, of course). The first list member makes no response except to say that his usage was appropriate and the second list member is wrong. List Member Y makes some statement that advances a proposition. List Member X disagrees with that proposition and asks questions about how Y could believe such a thing. Y responds in detail to X and provides some questions of his own for X to answer. X partially answers one or two of Y's questions, making no attempt to answer the others, then asks Y some more questions. Y again answers every question in detail, and reposts his questions for X to answer (in convenient list form). X continues to ignore Y's questions, but then starts complaining that Y sure is being a meanie and why doesn't he get off her back, anyway?A list member posts a detailed analysis of some point. During the subsequent discussion, List Member Z posts his own questions and objections. Someone points out to Z that his objections were answered in the original analysis. Z goes on to post other objections, and people continue to point out to him that his objections were answered in the original analysis. This does not stop Z. It quickly becomes apparent that, though speaking (or writing) from the heart, Z has not read AND WILL NOT READ the original analysis.Interested to hear feedback. I may add more scenarios as they occur to me. And by the way, I believe that all of these hypotheticals (except for the first) are dishonest. That is why I'm asking about them. PS PC, I liked your answer to C. Wish I could Thank and Laugh in the same post...

Having and responsibly using credit cards is the fastest and most effective way to build up your credit short of paying on a home mortgage -- which you are not likely to get without a good credit history. But I agree, if you can't avoid credit card debt, you should avoid credit cards. It can be tough to go through life with no credit history, but no history is better than bad history. Plus your life is much less unpleasant.

My online personality and my avatar are equally similar to their real-life counterparts.

Meaning your real-life language is more G-rated or more R-rated?

I don't know why people do that. I suppose it comes down to an endorphin rush that some people feel when buying things on credit, coupled with a willful ignorance of the reality of the debt incurred. (I say "willful" because anyone legally capable of using a credit card understands, at least intellectually, that they h ave to pay for what they buy.) What do to about it? If your wife recognizes the problem and is willing to acknowledge it, the best thing to do is for her to give up her credit cards permanently (or at least for a few years, long enough to establish some good habits and develop self-discipline). She should ask you to put her on a budget and give her an allowance in cash, then she should only ever use that cash for buying things. Good luck with this.

So when's the first date?

Very cool. Am I correct in attributing the law's success as much to its apparently widespread announcement as to its actual existence?

Anyone else find this humorous? P.S. I don't disagree with your overall assessment of the state of public education in the US, though I would be surprised to learn it's much better in Canada. The root problem is that parents don't take responsibility for their children's education. They have completely shrugged that off onto the government and happily taken the position of complainer. For this, the corrupt and despicable teachers unions (e.g. the NEA and its state-level incarnations) are as much to blame as anyone.