Vort

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.

Amazing. Here is a rule by which we can know truth: Any coin, when flipped, will come up heads. What's that, you say? Your coin flip came up tails? Then you can safely ignore that result, because we know that any coin, when flipped, will come up heads. Thus we can prove that coin tosses always and only produce heads, or that the Trinity is a true doctrine.

Whether the distinction between murder and manslaughter arose from the Bible, I don't know, but manslaughter is certainly specified in the Bible as distinct from capital murder.

How did you get a guy 20 years younger than you to propose? Goooooooooo COUGARS!!!

It is a term that is inended to describe a Biblical doctrine. But it is not Biblical doctrine. You (or someone else) just made the word up. No scriptural usage at all. Wrong. It is used throughout the Bible. A few examples: Matthew 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ... John 20:30 ...οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ Revelation 22:19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ Speaking of which, you might wish to review the proper usage of the apostrophe in the word "it's". With all due respect, I think you do not understant the Trinity. It is the doctrine that there is one being that is God who exists as three persons. What leads you to believe that I don't understand the creedal Christian concept of "Trinity", invented after Paul's death and formalized in the fourth century AD? It's because the two statements were meant to go together. When i registered the option was LDS/Christian or something to that effect. So "Christian" wasn't good enough for you? You felt that you had to misrepresent yourself? Seriously? You could figure out how to select "Christian/LDS", but you couldn't figure out how to select "Christian"? What makes you think you're qualified to make a distinction between the Lord's Church and what you think it should be? John 4:24. God (which is in reference to the Father) is Spirit. This proves nothing. How does being a spirit disqualify one from having a body? THE SAME VERSE OF SCRIPTURE says that we must worship "in spirit". If your interpretation is correct -- this scripture proves that the Father has no body because he is "spirit" -- then you must believe yourself incapable of worshiping, since you DO have a body. I have brought this point up before. You ignored it. Dishonesty? Or just an oversight? Here's your chance to set the record straight. Why? YOU are the one making the strange claim -- that an existent being is incorporeal. Prove it. Besides, the Bible has numerous references to God as having a body. Here is a quick sampling: Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image. Genesis 5:1 ...in the likeness of God made he him. Genesis 32:30 I have seen God face to face. Exodus 24;10 And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet as it were a paved work... Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses...two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. Exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. John 14:9 ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. 2 Corinthians 4:4 ...Christ, who is the image of God.

Prove it from the Bible. So far you have been doing a lot of brickbat-throwing and haven't backed up any of your peculiar doctrine from scripture.

True enough. Then why do you believe blatantly false, anti-Biblical things? Are you saying that you are dishonest? Naturally. No one can possibly disagree with you without being either (1) a liar or (2) a fool. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mister "I'm-an-LDS-Christian". Nah. This is pure revisionist creedal Christian doublespeak.It is Biblical.Then show for me in the Bible where the term "Trinitarian Monotheist" occurs. You claim it's Biblical, and you claim you are truthful. Then show where the Biblical term comes from.

Can you please show me the Biblical usage of the term "second person of the Trinity"? I seem to have missed that. Didn't you just get through saying that you are a monotheist? Now you're just using nonsensical Augustinian word redefinition. "One really means three, and many is still one." Then why didn't you choose one of the other "Christian" options available to you? I can derive no meaning from this. I think there are some words missing or something. Prove it from the Bible.

An interesting statement. Perhaps you are right. Then what are we to make of your very next sentence? How do you know this? Do you know every "honest person who recognizes that Being is what defines what something is"? Then how can you possibly state what all such persons "will see"? (Answer: You can't.) Nah. This is pure revisionist creedal Christian doublespeak.

He said his tolerated but disliked grammar problems. He didn't say anything about spelling problems. (Personally, I'm more irritated by the latter than the former.)

This is blatantly false. Even your own "Christian" doctrine, whatever it might be (and it apparently is not Latter-day Saint, despite your profile), must surely teach that Christ was born of a woman, resurrected after death, and walked and ate fish and honeycomb with his disciples after his resurrection. Ergo, body. So since you have a false concept of God -- seeing as how you reject that he has a body, in clear contradiction to plain Biblical teachings -- are you then claiming that you cannot worship him?

You are correct, of course. My assumption was that, when a non-Latter-day Saint discussant enters a forum specifically dedicated to "LDS GOSPEL DISCUSSION" and proclaims that he doesn't believe LDS doctrine, all intelligent participants would recognize the discussant as one who states obvious facts as if they were profound insight, and would therefore assign no relevance to his statements. But I could certainly be wrong. Maybe there are indeed folks on this very forum who, upon hearing someone say "If you don't breathe every few seconds, you will turn blue", would respond, "Wow, that's fascinating. Why do you think that? Can you tell us more?" And perhaps those on a forum dedicated to discussing pro-life topics who read a new participant's statement "I'm an abortionist, and you are all wrong!" would likewise say, "Hey, that's really amazing. Thanks so much for the insight." But I doubt it.

I would be tickled to find this is true, but it sounds like statistical cherry-picking. Do you have a reference for this?

Just so. Thank heavens (literally) we have true prophets to help keep us from the false prophecies and interpretations of men. What does God being spirit have to do with whether or not he is corporeal? Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? If so, then based on the above scripture, are you therefore contending that it is impossible for mortal humans to worship God? After all, as long as we are in possession of mortal bodies, we cannot worship him "in Spirit". Right?

And yet Miami is infamous for its out-of-control murder rate. Such laws do not work unless they are stringently applied, and even then they are likely just to generate a bunch of lifers. The key is to change the hearts of the people, and laws don't do that. In any civilized society, laws are the last resort to modify behavior. We are using them as a first resort, with the result that we are losing our freedoms even while our society decays around us due to lawless behavior.

I think your post to me was exactly as disrespectful as was my post to sola -- which is to say, not disrespectful. (But please do tell me if you reported me.) I was offering my opinion, just as sola was offering his. But you have avoided answering any of my questions, which I will reproduce here for your convenience: What does it add to a discussion for a non-Latter-day Saint to say "I don't believe LDS doctrine"? (The obvious response to which is, "Well duh.")What sense does it make for someone contributing to a discussion about LDS doctrine to deny it and then say, "I don't believe LDS doctrine"? (See previous obvious response.)If you think sola's coming onto this particular forum and announcing his disbelief of LDS doctrine is perfectly acceptable, how is it "fair" for you take issue with me for simply stating my own opinion? That it seemed that way to you hardly establishes your opinion as fact. Red herring. I neither said nor suggested any such thing. Based on what you have said above, I seriously doubt it. Heaven forbid I offer an honest opinion on a discussion board. Yet somehow I manage to pull it off! EDIT: You know, I have to modify my first statement. Your post to me was not "exactly as disrespectful" as was mine to sola. Yours was much more disrespectful because it was much more personal. I wrote nothing about sola personally; I merely noted that his disdain for LDS doctrine rendered his opinions of little gravity in this forum. In contrast, you called me out by name, claiming I had acted badly. So in retrospect, I would say that you did indeed treat me much more disrespectfully than I treated sola. But I'm not worried about it. I'm just waiting to read your answers to my questions that you ignored before.

What was courageous about it? It was designed to pander to his base while mollifying his opposition. Can you point out the brave parts of what he said?