why me Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Thanks for the psychoanalysis. You have a special mind-reading talent, which accounts for much of your ability to exasperate the critics (IMO). You may notice, however, that Charity and I don't disagree quite so much after all. Could it be that you and I don't disagree either? You might look over our latest exchange and see what you think. Or you might not. You seem warmly satisfied with your self-congratulations.Actually the dude, correct me if I am wrong because I am just a simple minded guy but do I detect a change in your stance toward DNA? You don't seem such a firm believer that the DNA issue proves the lds church to be a farce. I see a much more softer position from you these days...or did I just misunderstand something?
The Dude Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Actually the dude, correct me if I am wrong because I am just a simple minded guy but do I detect a change in your stance toward DNA? You don't seem such a firm believer that the DNA issue proves the lds church to be a farce. I see a much more softer position from you these days...or did I just misunderstand something? I've tried hard to be clear what DNA can and cannot say about the BoM. I spend almost as much time correcting "simple minded" critics as I do "simple minded" apologists -- well, actually I spend more time on the apologists because they are so resistant. They assume I'm just another DNA critic, but I am not. No doubt if I went over to RfM and tried correcting folks, I'd get lynched just like Dan Vogel did a few weeks ago -- I'm just not angry enough to let everything fly as long as it makes the church look bad.I think you guys take a defensive stance against me because, overall, I'm a critic of the Church. But if you pay attention you will see that I'm very measured on the topic of DNA.So, thanks for noticing, why me. Maybe cdowis will notice too.
YH8 Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 You seem warmly satisfied with your self-congratulations.Who does? You are a piece of work!
Fortigurn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 I think you guys take a defensive stance against me because, overall, I'm a critic of the Church. But if you pay attention you will see that I'm very measured on the topic of DNA.That's what I've seen. I've always viewed you as very balanced. I don't understand why they repeatedly abuse you the way you do. They also frequently over read your statements as if you're saying a lot more than you are. It seems to be part of the defensive 'persecution complex'.
why me Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 That's what I've seen. I've always viewed you as very balanced. I don't understand why they repeatedly abuse you the way you do. They also frequently over read your statements as if you're saying a lot more than you are. It seems to be part of the defensive 'persecution complex'.This is because you haven't been here that long. The dude goes back a long ways and he wasn't always so soft around the ears as he now is. I remember when the dude was a firebrand, a real spitfire on these here boards. But with age and with experience he has mellowed his tone. But many, still remember that spitfire fighter. It is hard for some to see the new dude...a man of peace but action...a man of intelligence but sobriety...a man of wisdom....but modest...and a man of great depth....but understanding.
Fortigurn Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 This is because you haven't been here that long. The dude goes back a long ways and he wasn't always so soft around the ears as he now is. I remember when the dude was a firebrand, a real spitfire on these here boards. But with age and with experience he has mellowed his tone. But many, still remember that spitfire fighter. It is hard for some to see the new dude...a man of peace but action...a man of intelligence but sobriety...a man of wisdom....but modest...and a man of great depth....but understanding. His approach may have softened, but I doubt considerably that he has ever changed his balanced stance on the DNA issue.
The Dude Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 This is because you haven't been here that long. The dude goes back a long ways and he wasn't always so soft around the ears as he now is. I remember when the dude was a firebrand, a real spitfire on these here boards. But with age and with experience he has mellowed his tone. But many, still remember that spitfire fighter. It is hard for some to see the new dude...a man of peace but action...a man of intelligence but sobriety...a man of wisdom....but modest...and a man of great depth....but understanding. And even so, there's a poll over on MormonDiscussions for who will be banned next from the MAD board. You can vote for me (for emoticon misuse and fire spitting), or Fortigurn (for complimenting people), or Sethbag (for complaining about his deleted signature lines). (you can also vote for Zakuska, but that's got to be a joke).Anyways, I don't want to be banned from MAD. So get ready for the butt kissing. Come here Chaos!
why me Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 And even so, there's a poll over on MormonDiscussions for who will be banned next from the MAD board. You can vote for me (for emoticon misuse and fire spitting), or Fortigurn (for complimenting people), or Sethbag (for complaining about his deleted signature lines). (you can also vote for Zakuska, but that's got to be a joke).Anyways, I don't want to be banned from MAD. So get ready for the butt kissing. Come here Chaos! Don't worry, you won't be banned. I have it on good intelligence that the dude is here to stay...and that intelligence is my own reasoning. And Fortigurn got lost in that shuffle. Fort hasn't always been so complimenting and I can see wny his compliment was misunderstood. It was a natural mistake. And Zak...well he could be banned for mayo but that is of course a worse case scenario. Anyway, it is good to see the new dude on these here boards. I will give two thumbs up...
Homestar Runner Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Should we start our own poll and vote on whether anyone over there will actually discuss the topic, and attempt to deal with the phrase "Human Lymphocyte Antigens"?
The Dude Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Should we start our own poll and vote on whether anyone over there will actually discuss the topic, and attempt to deal with the phrase "Human Lymphocyte Antigens"?What do you think that sort of evidence tells us?
Doctor Steuss Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 And even so, there's a poll over on MormonDiscussions for who will be banned next from the MAD board. You can vote for me (for emoticon misuse and fire spitting), or Fortigurn (for complimenting people), or Sethbag (for complaining about his deleted signature lines). (you can also vote for Zakuska, but that's got to be a joke).Anyways, I don't want to be banned from MAD. So get ready for the butt kissing. Come here Chaos! I think you've got as much of a chance of getting the boot as Uncle Dale or Tarski. As Mr. Scratch puts it, you guys form a holy Trinity of sorts.
why me Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 Should we start our own poll and vote on whether anyone over there will actually discuss the topic, and attempt to deal with the phrase "Human Lymphocyte Antigens"?The phrase sounds obscene. I wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot long pole.
Homestar Runner Posted February 22, 2007 Posted February 22, 2007 What do you think that sort of evidence tells us?Oh, I have no clue. I just posted something about it, and you said you might look into it. It just seems to be a bit more on the topic of DNA, than taking a poll about who is going to be banned.I was just bashing the other board. Sorry, I thought that's what everyone else was doing. HSR
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.