Maxel Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 GrandmaAri: If you can't link sources, you can't expect us to believe what you're saying when all linked resources (from reputable sources) show evidence to the contrary. That being said- can we drop the AIDS tangent? It brings absolutely zero to this conversation; it's relation to the OP is purely hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 What a rude young man you are! I'm sure your parents would be proud. It's really none of your business what my sources are... this isn't a debate team. It's a forum, where people may freely express their opinions without being shot down. I would expect better from a member of the Church!Regarding this subject...I find your beliefs...as well as your caustic attitude...to be most illogical!Respect is given where respect is earned. I call a spade a spade -- and I back it up with evidence.You can't make extraordinary claims without providing a source and expect to be taken seriously. This is a debate, is it not? All arguments are debates. The statement that "AIDs is easily spread via coughing/sneezing" is not an opinion. It is an incorrect statement and one that you use with intent to deceive.I'm absolutely fine with you making that claim.. provided you can put your money where your mouth is. Ignorance has no place in an intelligent discussion.. so please validate your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MormonMama Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Guys, this person has proven that she's just a troll. She's just looking to get a rise out of everyone, and will say any outlandish thing she can to do so. I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't even believe half of what she's said. I'd recommend just ignoring her from now on. She has nothing important or intelligent to say, so why waste any more of our time with her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 You did not say that those who assume another's sources are incorrect are judgmental and close minded? Nope, you did, demonstrably so. Maybe you mean to say that you did say the above (the only reasonable claim in light of the evidence) but that you are not assuming that someone else's information is false?Nope, without having seen sources you've assumed them false. Maybe you aren't assuming, that its only after careful review of sources you've reached that conclusion... oh wait, they haven't been shared, that can't be it.Oh, I know, you are waiting for somebody to share them before you conclude them to be false.Oh shoot, there goes that theory.That's demonstrably false. I'd demonstrate it of course, but you've already informed me that such would be an exercise in futility.Did you not imply that I am judgmental and close minded? Yes, you did, demonstrably so. "How ironic". I have learned by sad experience, whenever I provide sources in this forum, it is not well received. It's called, "shooting the messenger". And all I have to say about the rest of your post is "blah blah blah". lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 · Hidden Hidden I don't do shame. Right. Let me phrase it this way:I would expect better from a member of the Church! Link to comment
Dravin Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Ignorance has no place in an intelligent discussion.. so please validate your claims.To quote Snow:"Prediction: can't and won't."Maxel brings up a good point though, she's not going to respond how you want her to, we've entered violence against a deceased equine territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 · Hidden Hidden Ignorance has no place in an intelligent discussion.. so please validate your claims.To quote Snow:"Prediction: can't and won't."Maxel brings up a good point though, she's not going to respond with cites, we've entered violence against a deceased equine territory. Link to comment
MrsAri Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Guys, this person has proven that she's just a troll. She's just looking to get a rise out of everyone, and will say any outlandish thing she can to do so. I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't even believe half of what she's said.I'd recommend just ignoring her from now on. She has nothing important or intelligent to say, so why waste any more of our time with her?You have no idea what I am or who I am. I understand the basic concept involved in attacking the messenger...'tis a Saul Alinsky tactic used to focus on and discredit the person, as opposed to discussing the subject at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 I am now responding as a moderator. Drop the subject regarding the AIDS debate. Obviously GrandmaAri will not provide references for her beliefs. Back to the OP or this thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 You have no idea what I am or who I am. I understand the basic concept involved in attacking the messenger...'tis a Saul Alinsky tactic used to focus on and discredit the person as opposed to discussing the subject at hand.Edited for mods. Mods -- can you delete her intentionally misleading posts, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted September 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 You guys can all hold your breath waiting for a source from Ari. She never gives them. Ever. She gets off on everybody getting all flustered about it. Elph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Edited for mods. Mods -- can you delete her intentionally misleading posts, then?bmy, I think this thread has shown the correct and factual links to disprove her assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 bmy, I think this thread has shown the correct and factual links to disprove her assertions.I have to admit.. I only wanted it done to annoy her. I think you're 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Wow....she gets beat up over this?????? Jadams posts unsubstantiated crap all the time and never gets this kind of treatment. At least she can spell and doesn't use run on sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 "Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let man label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country- hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.” - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) Did you not imply that I am judgmental and close minded? Yes, you did, demonstrably so. "How ironic". I have learned by sad experience, whenever I provide sources in this forum, it is not well received. It's called, "shooting the messenger". And all I have to say about the rest of your post is "blah blah blah". lol No - it's hardly a case of shooting the messenger. You are not a messenger. You often have a decidedly distasteful point of view and simply cite a bunch of bull on the web to back it up. Edited September 23, 2009 by pam had massager instead of messenger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Guys, this person has proven that she's just a troll. She's just looking to get a rise out of everyone, and will say any outlandish thing she can to do so. I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't even believe half of what she's said.I'd recommend just ignoring her from now on. She has nothing important or intelligent to say, so why waste any more of our time with her?I don't think so. She and her husband have been on and off the board for a long time - banned several times. I think that she or they really believe the grunge they post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I worked with a guy about a year ago who is a member of the Church and came out about his homosexuality about a year ago. He isn't active in the Church right now (I know that in his situation it's his own choice); but I wondered what would be protocol in the church if he and his partner were to begin attending regularly. They wouldn't be banned, would they? Would their bishop confront them? How is that handled within the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Good question. I honestly don't know how that would be handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Good question. I honestly don't know how that would be handled.They're allowed to attend. It's completely up to them if they choose to partake in the ordinances -- no one can tell them not to as far as I'm aware. That is between them and God. The Bishop can advise them not to.. but that is not binding.They should be encouraged to take the sacrament if they are celibate.I don't think so. She and her husband have been on and off the board for a long time - banned several times. I think that she or they really believe the grunge they post.I'm afraid this is true. Perhaps she/he will shrink back into the shadows once again.. talk about a blessing. It's no fun poking sticks at out-dated arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Theoretically- The man and his partner would be welcomed so long as they didn't show any public display of affection (maybe holding hands would be ok... Probably up to the discretion of the bishop). Eventually, they would find the Church a waste of time or desire to join. From that point on, it's their choice if they want to give up their homosexual lifestyle and focus on becoming disciples of Christ or not. Either way, I doubt they'd be attending as a gay couple for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 They're allowed to attend. It's completely up to them if they choose to partake in the ordinances -- no one can tell them not to as far as I'm aware. That is between them and God. The Bishop can advise them not to.. but that is not binding.They should be encouraged to take the sacrament if they are celibate.I'm afraid this is true. Perhaps she/he will shrink back into the shadows once again.. talk about a blessing. It's no fun poking sticks at out-dated arguments I never thought they wouldn't be allowed to attend. I just wondered about the conditions if any that might be placed on them if they do. I agree with Maxel that as long as there is no PDA...they would probably be fine. I just thought it an interesting question and not something I had thought of before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Also, maybe we could drop the GrandmaAri tangent? It's going nowhere. If she wants to post her opinions and claim they are fact, but cannot back them up, then don't respond. Unless she's breaking a rule, I don't see the need for this kind of reaction. Even if she were, there still wouldn't be justification for this kind of response from non-moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Also, maybe we could drop the GrandmaAri tangent? It's going nowhere. If she wants to post her opinions and claim they are fact, but cannot back them up, then don't respond.Unless she's breaking a rule, I don't see the need for this kind of reaction. Even if she were, there still wouldn't be justification for this kind of response from non-moderators.Especially since some of those posts going against her would be in violation of rules 3 and 4. We don't want the moderators having to stop these types of posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) Oh my, what have I missed? lol Incidentally, I have references to back up my POV; however, as I've stated numerous times, my sources are unpopular in this forum. Therefore, it would be a waste of time to quote said sources. I've come to the conclusion that some people are just bored and want to pick a fight. I'm very disappointed that this is happening in an LDS forum. Edited September 23, 2009 by GrandmaAri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts