I’m off for now. I’ll respond to any more lies and misrepresentations tomorrow. Hell, maybe another honest, impartial person will post!
In the meantime, please see the only on-point, intellectually honest post in this entire thread other than my own:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4014481#post4014481
I think we need a new term on the SDMB.
It would refer to situations in which a Pittor starts a thread in which he winds up looking more like a hysterical whack-job that the Pittee.
I suggest the term [COLOR=orangered]ambushed.
As in, "I think you’ve [COLOR=orangered]ambushed yourself with that one, you over-excited ferret-felcher, you. "
Regards,
Shodan
p.s. spooje - does.
“Orangered”? That’s even better than “ambushed”!
Reading this thread, one question springs to mind:
Who is this ambushed person and how have I avoided his/her frothy-mouthed laugh-a-thon posts for four years until now?
Umm…dude? You want an “honest impartial opinion” from a person who’s not involved and doesn’t really give a shit about either side?
Tough, 'cause here it is. Your quote here:
certainly sounds to me like you are saying, in a snide manner, that the purpose of the interview is to allow the bishop to ask questions which they achieve some “gratifica(tion)” from. Your implication was quite clear in my reading of it as it stands, otherwise you would not have used the little half-word with elipses. My opinion is you were making a little dig and got called on it. My further impartial and disinterested opinion is that you just accept that and let it go. If you want to keep a debate/discussion on an entirely serious level, then don’t use little dramatic “slips” like that.
You mock people for not knowing what you really meant, when all we have to go on is your words posted here.
Also, why are you expecting people in the Pit to debate the “facts”? This never ceases to amaze me. Just like how people post personal, heartrending stories here expecting sympathy and decorum, and are shocked when someone does a drive-by to flame them - you should not be surprised that few are going to debate your points logically here.
Badtz: Read Una Persson’s posting above.
& yet the links to the “true stories” about the LDS you provide are anti-LDS hate sites.
OK, I am an idiot. I never used color before.
That should have read -
The one thing that ambushed doesn’t realize is that nobody cares if he is correct or not. He very well may have had a point when this all started, but it got lost in all his huffin’ and a puffin’.
Not to mention that ambushed has made a grave mistake by exposing one of his ‘hot buttons’. And he is not disappointing by dutifully dancing everytime somebody pushes it.
adam: I see no valid point at all from the OP.
It insinuates that some of the time this is true – it seems to me that ambushed has provided some citations to support this point of view, I guess it could be argued that they are not trustworthy, coming from “anti-LDS” sites (but then you’d hardly expect to find articles critical of LDS to be found on “pro-LDS” sites).
It most definitely does not mean, nor insinuate, “that the purpose of the temple recommend interview was for the purpose of [the Bishop’s] gratification”, and this is the crux of the matter, Monty really did misrepresent what ambushed said, and now a thread of inconsequential drivel results.
I sense some bandwagoning going on, which is not helpful – it makes it near impossible for the disinterested reader to understand what the fuck is going on.
Whatever, ambushed, you seem to have allowed this or that slight to get to you – but this rant is not doing you any favours. I cordially recommend calling it a day.
Mr. Manson! please calm down or we will have to sedate you.
Also, if you’d posting the entire OP in blue, it would’ve been more believable. huh!
Got news for you, TGW: the raving loon did not put in “some” or “on occasion.” His little stunt was to insinuate–and quite clearly, at that–the recommend interview was to be providing gratification to the priesthood leader conducting the interview.
I, therefore, did not misrepresent any of that fool’s crap.
Well, I don’t think we need to hear any more. The judges have made their decision.
[sub]:: friedo reaches beneath a podium and withdraws an envelope :: [/sub]
…And the winner for this year’s Jackie* in the category Mormonism is:
[sub]:: drumroll :: [/sub]
ambushed!
[sub]:: wild applause ::[/sub]
Make your speech quick. You have to stop talking when the music starts.
[sub]
*Jack Dean Tyler Memorial Award
[/sub]
Has Ambushed been listening to too much Henry Rollins**?
Uh! We could debate the semantic nuances of “often”, “occasionally”, and, “some of the time”, but you surely agree that none of them means either “universally”, or, “all of the time”?
But do you know what, even if ambushed had said “universally”, it still doesn’t follow that he asserts that the “gratification” is the purpose for the interview. That would be akin to asserting that the purpose of baseball is the seventh inning stretch.
ambushed might have some anti-LDS axe to grind, this may be wholly without foundation based on some unsupportable prejudice, he might be the world’s leading fuckwit, he might be a raving loon, he might deserve to be pitted for all eternity for crimes against ths SDMB, I don’t know, but he did not say what you said he said.
We could debate the semantics of those words had they been used, TGW (I like the abbreviation–reminds me of "The George Washington); however, they weren’t used.
And he sure did say what I said he did. That’s why I quoted it.
Sorry, TGW: The loon o’ the day actually did say “often.” It’s still quite clear to me–and to others–that he did that to insinuate that the interview was being conducted to provide gratification–the child abuse he so foolishly ascribes to the bishopric.
I totally agree with you ambushed. None of them have even a passing acquaintance with the truth. They’ve lost it’s number and aren’t planning on calling directory enquiries. John Keats said that truth is beauty and beauty truth and something else about an urn. That probably means that the truth is fragile and beautiful and some people just can’t handle it, including Tom Cruise I think.
I love the truth, me.
I should have said “its number”. Apologies to jjimm for incorrect use of the apostrophe and to the truth for dissing it with poor grammar.