We Appreciate The Help ... But Can'T Let Anyone Know It Came From Mormons

[KevinG]

Perhaps we can merge this with the "Labels aren't helpful" thread?

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps we can merge this with the "Labels aren't helpful" thread?

Hmmm. I'll admit I haven't read that thread in its entirety, but I'm not seeing the connection. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me?

[Kenngo1969]

I see that you restrained yourself from correcting my latest error ... {done}

Bless ya!

It's hard. I have to do the rhetorical equivalent of climbing into a straitjacket, but I can do it ... sometimes!

[cdowis]

I'd like to address your objection, but I'm not sure I understand it

I have no interest in explaining to you the difference among rumor, gossip and lying. Perhaps you should ask your attendant.

I suspect that there are many things that you are unable to understand.

You would be thread banned if Kenngo wasn't asking you to resolve your problem with him. Knock it off.

[Calm]

Hmmm. I'll admit I haven't read that thread in its entirety, but I'm not seeing the connection. Perhaps you can connect the dots for me?

Don't make him please. Just take it on faith that his joke is hilarious (as they always are), guffaw dutifully three times and leave it at that.

[Kenngo1969]

I have no interest in explaining to you the difference among rumor, gossip and lying. Perhaps you should ask your attendant.

I suspect that there are many things that you are unable to understand.

You seem to have brought a grudge against me into the thread from elsewhere, but I don't, for the life of me, know where from. If you'd like to enlighten me, you're welcome to send me a PM. I would've thought I was relatively well-versed in the difference between the three things you mention. I have no idea to whom you're referring when you speak of "my attendant." You're right, there are many things I'm unable to understand. This interaction, for instance, has me baffled.

P.S.: OK, I spent two hours last night reviewing all of my posts for the last year, and couldn't find anything even remotely resembling an interaction with you which might've provoked animus toward me. Whatever your grudge against me is, if you let it go, your load will be lighter; and if it's older than a year, you really ought to let it go ... (As if you're actually going to see this, I know ... You drove by, fired a quick volley, and now you feel no need to return.)

[Kenngo1969]

Don't make him please. Just take it on faith that his joke is hilarious (as they always are), guffaw dutifully three times and leave it at that.

Yeesh, I've got someone coming at me, apparently, with unexplainable malice on the one hand, and someone else coming at me with inside jokes on the other. It's almost enough to make me regret starting the thread!

[Calm]

Well I know that feeling like one is on the outside of a joke, if KevinG feels like explaining it, I will now flip my position and encourage him to.

Me, I don't think it is so much the other thread (though any thread that goes on that long discussing whether or not labeling is useful is funny in and of itself in a absurd way), but just the title that when considered in light of what is reported in the article is somewhat humorous.

[KevinG]

Don't make him please. Just take it on faith that his joke is hilarious (as they always are), guffaw dutifully three times and leave it at that.

Ouch. I have been damned by faint praise.

[KevinG]

There is a whole thread about how labels like anti-Mormon and TBM are not useful or helpful.

I was making a very bad pun (is there any other kind) about the labels being switched on the LDS food support.

Label (as in name) = Label (as in food wrapper) = word play.

I think if you missed it you were probably looking for something more sophisticated than I was offering.

[Kenngo1969]

Don't make him please. Just take it on faith that his joke is hilarious (as they always are), guffaw dutifully three times and leave it at that.

Ouch. I have been damned by faint praise.

There is a whole thread about how labels like anti-Mormon and TBM are not useful or helpful.

I was making a very bad pun (is there any other kind) about the labels being switched on the LDS food support.

Label (as in name) = Label (as in food wrapper) = word play.

I think if you missed it you were probably looking for something more sophisticated than I was offering.

Uuuuuyhhhhh!!! (OK, despite the fact that I feel really stupid now because all of that just went over my head [and trust me: I'm a sucker for puns and wordplay and such, but sometimes that's pretty difficult to pull off in a medium such as this], I'll play along ...)

On the usefulness of labels ... the Mormons found the first label useful, the relabelers, not so much; the relabelers found the second label useful, the Mormons, not so much. And one should really try, no matter how useful s/he finds the label, to avoid using labels/labeling in a manner that might get one in trouble with the federal government!

[cdowis]

This interaction, for instance, has me baffled.

I am baffled why you would misrepresent my post. To avoid future misunderstandings, please put me on ignore mode and I will do the same.

[Calm]

It looked that way to me too, cdowis. Came across as rather mean to me with the "attendant" comment. And apparently the mod as well. If he misrepresented your post, it just might have been because it was written in a way that was easily misinterpreted.

[Kenngo1969]

It looked that way to me too, cdowis. Came across as rather mean to me with the "attendant" comment. And apparently the mod as well. If he misrepresented your post, it just might have been because it was written in a way that was easily misinterpreted.

If I knew what I have allegedly misrepresented, I could address any misunderstanding. Holding a grudge is easier, I guess. And I have no idea who my "attendant" is supposed to be.

[Stargazer]

I am baffled why you would misrepresent my post. To avoid future misunderstandings, please put me on ignore mode and I will do the same.

I found this a bit perplexing, too, actually. I interpreted his post that you have taken so badly as a request for elucidation, not an attack on your credibility, sanity, or anything else. On the other hand, I do see that how it was worded might have contributed to your misunderstanding his intent.

Wouldn't be the first time that a missive written with no malign intent was taken as such by the receiver.

Perhaps you two should get together with the intent of ironing out this misunderstanding, and iron it out. It can't be too hard. I don't think that either of you have risen to the level of unforgivable personal insult yet.

My 2 cents.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps the Church could dispense a label to those not wanting to have the Churchs name on the goods. It would just say " NOT "

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps the Church could dispense a label to those not wanting to have the Churchs name on the goods. It would just say " NOT "

"This nourishment brought to you by a Devil-worshipping, soul-destroying cult. Bon appetit!"

P.S.: "If you prefer, you could always fast."

[KevinG]

I don't think that either of you have risen to the level of unforgivable personal insult yet.

Avada Kedavra?