Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS School Board Member Bullies Teenage Girl


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, Nehor isn't alone. A whole bunch of people are on the same page. So I'm surprised you are giving her a break like you are, IMO. Did you see how the parents felt? 

I'm not "giving her a break":

  • "She {Natalie Cline} was in error.  And it was a problematic thing to do/say anyway."
  • "Elected officials {like Natalie Cline} should not use social media posts to discuss any particulars regarding a teenager."
  • "If a crisis arose every time an elected official {like Natalie Cline} said or did something boneheaded or ill-advised, we would be in crisis mode nonstop."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not "giving her a break":

  • "She {Natalie Cline} was in error.  And it was a problematic thing to do/say anyway."
  • "Elected officials {like Natalie Cline} should not use social media posts to discuss any particulars regarding a teenager."
  • "If a crisis arose every time an elected official {like Natalie Cline} said or did something boneheaded or ill-advised, we would be in crisis mode nonstop."

Thanks,

-Smac

But I expect better from a public representative like this. Shouldn't I? This is Junior High behavior or younger, that bullies act like.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:
Quote

 

Quote

There is enough variety in both belief and practice among Latter-day Saints that the marker itself is not a source of dislike. I do have markers that I see that trigger instant dislike, but then we’d have to get political. And I don’t like any people who have those markers. 

So your like and dislike of Latter-day Saints is purely about their political views, not about their affiliation with and observance of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

That is not what he said.  

He said Latter-day Saints qua Latter-day Saints is not the "marker" that is the "source" of his "dislike."  Instead, he said that "instant dislike" of some Latter-day Saints is "trigger{ed}" by markers which are "political."

So when he dislikes Latter-day Saints (obviously not all of them), is is because of their political views.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You are constantly inserting your own prejudice onto other people, and then claiming it is their point of view.  It is dishonest and insulting.

I don't think I did that here.  And I have no "prejudice" against Latter-day Saints, so I can't really "insert" it "onto other people."  Nor have I claimed that SU is "prejudiced" against Latter-day Saints.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I wish you would think a little more before you respond to posters.  

Feel free to disregard my posts.  Your personal judgments and condemnations of me as a person carry little probative weight.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

He NEVER said purely about their political views.  

Sure seems like it.  He differentiates Latter-day Saints he likes from Latter-day Saints for whom he has "instant dislike" based on "markers" which are, in his wording, "political."

4 hours ago, california boy said:

He was giving you an example of what he didn't like about some Church members

I understood that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See the above quote from Aaron Eckhart.  If someone neither believes in the tenets of our faith, and does not consider himself a Latter-day Saint, I don't want to force that designation onto him.

I saw it, but htere is a large gulf between Aaron Eckhart who does not describe himself as a Latter-day Saint, and other people who do both claim to be Latter-day Saints and believe in some doctrines/tenets but not others.  

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are people who are only nominally Latter-day Saints.  I don't say that to denigrate them, but to describe their posture toward the Church.

If they, and the church, don't see themselves as nominal members only, then you are definitely denigrating them.  Having had much experience with you on these forums, I for one don't trust your ability to judge the "posture" of others "towards the church" or to assess a person's heart on such matters.  Believe it or not, one can posture oneself against some doctrines and practices in the church, and still be in an overall posture that is favorable towards the church.  I think you have a hard time with that nuance and tend to denigrate anything that counters your perception of what a members should be, do, and say. 

I have met many of those members in the Waters of Mormon Facebook Page. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God exists, is perfect and loving and benevolent, and is our Father.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and our redeemer and Savior.

We are here on this earth participating in what is commonly called the "Plan of Salvation."

Christ instituted His Church on the earth during the 2,000 or so years ago, and then restored it through Joseph Smith in 1830.

God calls and speaks through prophets and apostles, and vests in them some portion of His power, referred to as the "Priesthood," and authorizes them to speak and act on His behalf, to administer the ordinances and affairs of the Church, and to otherwise govern the Church via revelation from God and common consent from the membership.

The scriptures are imperfectly preserved/transmitted portions of prophetic writings.

These (and, I suppose, a few others) are "official doctrine{s}" of the Church, and I think that is beyond reasonable dispute.

This is not a definition of doctrine.   These are simply undisputed doctrines.   I never said that there weren't undisputed doctriens, I said that what constitutes doctrine is unclear.  That his been made abundantly clear over and over and over on these boards and elsewhere. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:
Quote

My comment isn't "gatekeeping."  It was just enunciating fairly mundane and noncontroversial parameters for what people mean when they use the term "Latter-day Saints."

Not in an official capacity, no.  But unofficially?  You bet.  I do represent them.  I do speak for them.  I am one of them.  

In general, I like most members of the Church.  

So do I.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I respect their values and find most to be decent people.  

Same here.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

While I strongly disagree with many of the policies and some of their doctrine, I don't think the Church has no value.  

I concur.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Some of my Children are still in the Church and raising their own children in that religion.  I fully support their decision to do that.  

Okay.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If I thought for one minute you represented the beliefs of most members, then I guess I would have to re-evaluate what I think of Church members in general.  Your posts can be summed up in three words.  Attack. Attack.  Attack. 

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What you state above has been expressly repudiated.

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So do I.

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "doctrine" or "revelation" are you referencing here? 

I rest my case. My uncle, a lifelong Latter-day Saint believes all three of those doctrines. And here we have a lot of wishy-washiness from you. It’s not so easy to pin down what counts as  doctrine and what’s not. Latter-day Saints are not a monolith. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

What you state above has been expressly repudiated.

This deserves its own post. The word you are looking for is disavowed, and as Teddy Aware points out - that word is open to interpretation apparantly. Last I checked, Teddy is a latter-day saint. It’s really difficult to pin down any doctrine that applies to all church members.
 

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
On 2/11/2024 at 11:29 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

All I need in order to form conclusions are allegations?  You're literally using the word "alleged", which literally means "Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed".  And then you're saying whoever doesn't just unthinkingly swallow allegations, without thinking, without searching for more information, is doing it wrong. 

I mean, I've come to expect such behavior from you, @The Nehor.  But holy crap, watching it spread to mapman and his post-likers is disconcerting.

Facts matter, people.  Avoiding a rush to judgment until you know what the heck you're talking about, is important. 

If you're gonna mob up and attack, please keep it online.  Again, it doesn't work well when it translates into physical action against real humans in real life. 

The facts are not in dispute. The social media post exists. It was posted. It targeted a child.

An alleged adult (see how I used alleged? Not the way your post suggests I did) posted something that would inevitably lead to increased danger to a minor. That alone is damning! You need more information. What information? An adult in a position of authority is bullying a child. What exculpatory evidence are you expecting to come out that will make that okay? There was a pressing need to insinuate a child is transgender for some validating reason?

Link to comment
On 2/11/2024 at 2:37 PM, Pyreaux said:

What do you think is love? You are a part-Jewish soldier with the Allied Forces during WWII. You find yourself separated from your platoon, alone until one night you run into a random Nazi German soldier who is also lost and so you forge a temporary truce. Getting cold and dark you were able to start a fire. You let him warm himself up, after all, maybe you'll find he's not in favor of the War. Nope. In a very fervent manner, he then proceeds to do his best in broken English to regale you with the virtues of using eugenics to improve the genetic quality of a human population and assorted Nazi propaganda against Jews. Is it wrong to then dislike everything about him? His beliefs, his government, even his self. You have food, and he is starving. Regardless of anything else you do or say, do you share food with him? If you do, is having compassion and mercy upon your enemy not love? To love some one, does it require you like his beliefs, his people, or his personal character?

image.jpeg.cebed03355a6c3829ad5f2de042d9360.jpeg

PUNCHING TIME!!!!!!!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  She was speaking in her personal capacity.  On social media.  She said nothing about the Church, its teachings, her membership in it, etc.

Her comment cannot reasonably be construed as being "heavily tied to the church."

I think she was.

Which, if true, would constitute behavior that is "in error" and "problematic."

I recently defended John Dehlin (!) against similar charges:

Ironically, your accusation only holds if it is describing online behavior that uses charged language calculated to foment a negative emotional response.  You do that all the time, but if someone who dislikes your comments responded with threats, I doubt you would own responsibility for those threats.  

And yet, they are not "women."  They are biological men - males - who either have a mental disorder (Gender Dysphoria) or are otherwise asserting something that just ain't so.

Interestingly, the next phase of our discussion may well involve you publicly berating/insulting me because I disagree with the notion that a biological male can "identify" as a woman and thereby become one, and that it is hateful/intolerant/bigoted to hold this view.  Is this "bullying" by you?  Is it "cruelty" when you express an opinion someone else may dislike?  And if if someone were to come along, read your comments, and be inspired to issue some sort of threat against me, would it be reasonable to allocate fault for that threat to you?

She impliedly was.

She did?  She used that phrase?  Where?

Ironically, you are doing pretty much what you are saying Natalie Cline did.  You are using emotionally charged rhetoric to evoke a negative response toward another person.

I think it was a mistake, that is, "an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong."

Meh.  This is hostile emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

By all appearances, Cline's comment was not that the person is "insufficiently feminine," but instead that the person is a biological male playing in a female athletic event.  As it turns out, Cline was incorrect.

With all the news coverage, I think this stuff won't happen.  

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

I think it was an error, that is, "a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech" or "belief in something untrue; the holding of mistaken opinions."

Apparently Cline thought a particular basketball player to be participating in a women's high school basketball game was a male.  As it turns out, the player was not a male, but rather a female.  Cline's surmise was . . . an error.

Again, this is emotionalistic mindreading on your part.  You are imputing motives onto a person you've never met and do not know.

And if by "idiotic standard" you are referring to differentiating participation in sports (most of them, anyway) based on sex, I disagree with that.  I think such differentiation is eminently reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Genocide is a concerning indiscretion. Jaywalking is an abominable and reprehensible crime against society. Bullying is an “error” and is “problematic”. See any problems here?

You did defend John Dehlin but don’t pretend this was some fearless overcoming of some inner bias. You dislike the people who were attacking John Dehlin even more.

Then there is a lot of tone policing which I will ignore.

I am imputing on her motives that she has previously demonstrated repeatedly. Kline has history.

You think the news coverage will prevent the child from being bullied by her peers or even other adults? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh wow, you are naive.

Okay, so if Cline wasn’t in error and was instead stirring up trouble for a minor that was transgender would Cline’s surmise that this is correct in any way justify putting a child in this much potential emotional and possibly physical danger. Note that if she were right the threat to the child would be greater.

Again, her motives are not secret. Cline has not been subtle in her bigotry before this incident. I am not going to assume a potential for this being innocent when a bigot who has previously spouted bigotry proceeds to bigot with great bigotry again.

By “idiotic standard” I mean assuming some innate ability to accurately determine who is transgender by sight and finding some women wanting for not appearing feminine enough whether they are cisgender or transgender. Transgender people are often not identifiable. This is one reason they are so feared. This is also a reason why trying to stir up hatred against them can and will end up hurting people who aren’t transgender. It will also obviously hurt a lot of people who are transgender but for some that is just not a problem.

Also surely someone on the school board could, if they thought a player was transgender, quietly look into it. Instead she ran to social media to stir up hatred against a literal child. This is loathsome.

Amazing that some people concerned about “grooming” can explain away an adult deliberately and publicly humiliating a child as an “error”.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By “idiotic standard” I mean some inane ability to accurately determine who is transgender by sight and finding some women wanting for not appearing feminine enough whether they are cisgender or transgender.

Doing this with minors is insane….

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So do I.

Same here.

I concur.

Okay.

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac

You know SMAC, one of the biggest reasons why I dislike your posts so much is you feel you need to pull apart every single sentence and make a comment about every single part of a sentence.  When you do that, you totally take away the context of what the person is saying.  In doing this, you distort even the most simple of statements into a unrecognizable response.  

I get that sometimes a post may have more than one point.  But seriously, a single sentence doesn't need to be broken down word for word so you can make some comment out of context the whole sentence.  I have asked you to not do that to my posts multiple times.  Quit that.  I don't like my thoughts being taken out of the context that I write them.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, california boy said:

You know SMAC, one of the biggest reasons why I dislike your posts so much is you feel you need to pull apart every single sentence and make a comment about every single part of a sentence.  When you do that, you totally take away the context of what the person is saying.  In doing this, you distort even the most simple of statements into a unrecognizable response.  

I get that sometimes a post may have more than one point.  But seriously, a single sentence doesn't need to be broken down word for word so you can make some comment out of context the whole sentence.  I have asked you to not do that to my posts multiple times.  Quit that.  I don't like my thoughts being taken out of the context that I write them.

You’ve got me wondering how someone can systematically “pull apart every single sentence and make a comment about every single part of a sentence” of a given post, and yet somehow be taking things out of context? Isn't what you’re describing the virtual opposite of taking things out of context?

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering

I get lots of people wondering.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

how someone can systematically “pull apart every single

It requires effort but pulling apart single people is quite doable.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

sentence and make a comment about every single

I only comment on them because those single people are really cute.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

part of a

So you admit it is not whole? Fascinating.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

sentence” of a given post,

That post got off lightly considering its crimes.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

and yet somehow be taking things

I think taking things is problematic. Especially if they don’t belong to you.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

out of context?

I would keep it in context to avoid confusion.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Isn't what you’re describing the virtual

I believe the kids call it the rizz these days.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

opposite of taking things

Oh, so the person put the things back. Well, that might mitigate the problematic aspects.

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

out of context?

How many times are you going to repeat this question? Of course things should be contexted and not out of contexation. More contexation is my preference though reasonable minds can disagree I suppose.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, california boy said:

You know SMAC, one of the biggest reasons why I dislike your posts so much is you feel you need to pull apart every single sentence and make a comment about every single part of a sentence.  

I dislike most of your posts is that because they are predominantly self-referential, and tend toward the emotional rather than the evidentiary/analytical/substantive.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

When you do that, you totally take away the context of what the person is saying.  

Providing a verbatim quote and then responding to it, and including links to the post to which I am responding, is not reasonably characterized as "tak{ing} away the context."

16 hours ago, california boy said:

In doing this, you distort even the most simple of statements into a unrecognizable response.

Then feel free to disregard my posts.  

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I get that sometimes a post may have more than one point.  But seriously, a single sentence doesn't need to be broken down word for word so you can make some comment out of context the whole sentence.  

Tell you what, I won't presume to tell you what to say or how to say it, and ask that you reciprocate.  Alternatively, feel free to disregard my posts.  Either way, let's dispense with the whinging.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I have asked you to not do that to my posts multiple times.  Quit that.  

As Captain Barbossa put it: I decline to acquiesce to your request.  Means "no."

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't like my thoughts being taken out of the context that I write them.

I am not doing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I am not the arbiter of doctrine.  The Church and the scriptures are.

This presupposes that either “the church” or “the scriptures” are univocal.

I'm reminded of the coastline paradox:

Quote

The coastline paradox is the counterintuitive observation that the coastline of a landmass does not have a well-defined length. This results from the fractal curve–like properties of coastlines; i.e., the fact that a coastline typically has a fractal dimension. 
...
The measured length of the coastline depends on the method used to measure it and the degree of cartographic generalization. Since a landmass has features at all scales, from hundreds of kilometers in size to tiny fractions of a millimeter and below, there is no obvious size of the smallest feature that should be taken into consideration when measuring, and hence no single well-defined perimeter to the landmass. Various approximations exist when specific assumptions are made about minimum feature size.
...
The coastline paradox is often criticized because coastlines are inherently finite, real features in space, and therefore, there is a quantifiable answer to their length.
[17][19] The comparison to fractals, while useful as a metaphor to explain the problem, is criticized as not fully accurate as coastlines are not self-repeating and are fundamentally finite.[17]

See also the Sorites Paradox and the "Continuum Fallacy":

Quote

The sorites paradox (/sˈrtz/;[1] sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that results from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
...

Continuum fallacy[edit]

The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard,[9][10] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy[11]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.

Strictly, the sorites paradox refers to situations where there are many discrete states (classically between 1 and 1,000,000 grains of sand, hence 1,000,000 possible states), while the continuum fallacy refers to situations where there is (or appears to be) a continuum of states, such as temperature. 

Some people, apparently including yourself, propose that because X cannot be defined with exacting mathematical precision, it either A) cannot be defined at all, or B) does not really exist.  This doesn't really work.  

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When in fact they are self contradictory about every possible point of doctrine. 

Well, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

I saw it, but htere is a large gulf between Aaron Eckhart who does not describe himself as a Latter-day Saint, and other people who do both claim to be Latter-day Saints and believe in some doctrines/tenets but not others.  

Hence my reference to a "Latter-day Saint" as someone who "who is a member of, and generally subscribes to and professes belief in, the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

19 hours ago, pogi said:
Quote

I think there are people who are only nominally Latter-day Saints.  I don't say that to denigrate them, but to describe their posture toward the Church.

If they, and the church, don't see themselves as nominal members only, then you are definitely denigrating them. 

No, I'm not.  I am the world's leading authority on my motives and meaning.  I do not use the phrase "only nominally Latter-day Saints" in a denigrating way.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Having had much experience with you on these forums, I for one don't trust your ability to judge the "posture" of others "towards the church" or to assess a person's heart on such matters. 

Right back atcha.  I don't trust your ability to judge my motives.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Believe it or not, one can posture oneself against some doctrines and practices in the church, and still be in an overall posture that is favorable towards the church. 

Strawman.  I never suggested otherwise.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you have a hard time with that nuance and tend to denigrate anything that counters your perception of what a members should be, do, and say. 

I think you like to impute motives and then attack them as strawmen.  

19 hours ago, pogi said:

This is not a definition of doctrine.   

I was not attempting to give a definition of doctrine.  I was providing examples of things that plainly fit into that category.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

These are simply undisputed doctrines.

See?

19 hours ago, pogi said:

I never said that there weren't undisputed doctriens, I said that what constitutes doctrine is unclear. 

See my previous comment to SeekingUnderstanding about the Sorites Paradox.  

This Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine" does a pretty good job of defining the term as it is used in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

19 hours ago, pogi said:

That his been made abundantly clear over and over and over on these boards and elsewhere. 

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Tacenda said:
Quote

I'm not "giving her a break":

  • "She {Natalie Cline} was in error.  And it was a problematic thing to do/say anyway."
  • "Elected officials {like Natalie Cline} should not use social media posts to discuss any particulars regarding a teenager."
  • "If a crisis arose every time an elected official {like Natalie Cline} said or did something boneheaded or ill-advised, we would be in crisis mode nonstop."

Thanks,

But I expect better from a public representative like this. Shouldn't I?

Yes.

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is Junior High behavior or younger, that bullies act like.

Again, I have not excused or justified what Ms. Cline said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

God exists, is perfect and loving and benevolent, and is our Father.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and our redeemer and Savior.

We are here on this earth participating in what is commonly called the "Plan of Salvation."

Christ instituted His Church on the earth during the 2,000 or so years ago, and then restored it through Joseph Smith in 1830.

God calls and speaks through prophets and apostles, and vests in them some portion of His power, referred to as the "Priesthood," and authorizes them to speak and act on His behalf, to administer the ordinances and affairs of the Church, and to otherwise govern the Church via revelation from God and common consent from the membership.

The scriptures are imperfectly preserved/transmitted portions of prophetic writings.

These (and, I suppose, a few others) are "official doctrine{s}" of the Church, and I think that is beyond reasonable dispute.

For the record, I personally disagree with every point of doctrine here. That’s why I’m not a Latter-day Saint. But I don’t *dislike any of them. It would be nice if they were true. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For the record, I personally disagree with every point of doctrine here. That’s why I’m not a Latter-day Saint. But I don’t *dislike any of them. It would be nice if they were true. 

I'm glad to hear that you don't dislike them.

I suspect most of what you do dislike about the "doctrines" of the Church have more to do with extrapolated principles and applications of doctrine, rather than doctrine per se.

By way of example, the Law of Chastity limits sexual behavior to between a husband and wife for the purposes of procreation and/or the strengthening the marital union. 

I suspect you do not necessarily object to these parameters, but rather that you find them too restricted.  That is, you have an alternative, and presumably larger, set of parameters which differentiates appropriate sexual behavior from inappropriate sexual behavior. 

I further suspect that this set of parameters are not based on marriage, but rather on "consent."

Am I in the ballpark?

In practice, you do what the Church does, just with a different rationale.  And yet I suspect that, for you, the Church's "doctrines" regarding marriage and sexuality are, in broad measures, objectionable and terrible.  (Conversely, I find a consent-only-based sexual ethic ends up creating all sorts of problems. But that's a discussion for another day.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.  I am the world's leading authority on my motives and meaning.  I do not use the phrase "only nominally Latter-day Saints" in a denigrating way.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not denigrating to a person who views themselves and participates as a Latter-day Saint in more than name only?   Seriously, who do you think you are?

Wasn't it you in the other thread who was just talking about the need to root out prejudice?  All you are doing is building up orthodoxy as the only real way to be a Latter-day Saint and creating a denigrating prejudice against those who are unorthodox. 

"Unorthodox" would be a much less denigrating term to use.

Quote

nom·i·nal·ly
[ˈnämənəlē]
ADVERB
nominally (adverb)
in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality:

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

I haven't been following this thread slavishly, so perhaps this has been posted already.  If so, please forgive the duplication.

https://www.deseret.com/2024/2/12/24071028/natalie-clines-state-school-board-district-resignation-legislature

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...