SJ: This topic came up again because on November 3rd of last year, Polycarp posted an apology. I publicly (right up near the top of the 2nd page of this thread, refused it. So, after a few other threads showed that Poly & I really didn’t bear any malice or distrust towards/between one another, I thought it would be only right and fair to publicly accept Poly’s apology in the very thread it was offered. I did that on January 25th of this year.
Sadly, one of your average run-of-the-mill bigots (as opposed to one of my average run-of-the-mill bigots) leaped in with both feet, no knowledge, and both eyes closed and commenced spewing.
I sent email to Polycarp today relating the above.
However, I will not be responsible for the actions of a bigot. Take up the name calling and what-not with Newt.
Ignorant: (in this case) showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.
Incarnate: (in this case) invested with bodily and especially human nature and form.
Does this describe David B?
First, David is obviously not lacking knowledge or intelligence. He has considerable knowledge about skeptical studies and creation/evolution.
But for the moment, just for fun, lets consider just this thread since Newton first posted.
History of events:
Newton posts an attack on Mormonism. Come on, admit it you coward.
Newton makes claims about Noah’s ark.
Newton posts that he didn’t phrase his comment about Smith being kicked out of Utah properly.
Newton posts a link to a site that doesn’t proof a thing about the Noah’s ark. In fact, all it is a bunch of researcher who are trying to raise money to do a search. Newton invents part of the quote (the most critical part). Says this is sponsored by the US gov’t, I couldn’t find any such reference on the site at all.
David posts
Hardly a personal attack, but an attack on your claims.
Newton posts a personal attack on Manhattan, andros and David, calling them vultures. Newton claims that the real information is in the book (why didn’t you say that in the first place?). Newton now says that the evidence is a piece of wood. Claims that everybody is trying to divert the attack (note he uses the term DEFENSE) on Mormonism, which would be odd because Manhattan, Andros and David are not mormons and could probably care less about mormonism itself, but find the attack reprehensible and in very poor taste.
Newton laughably claims he wasn’t attacking mormonism.
David attacks Newton’s claims. Some quasi-personal attacks in the nature of “So then, you lied.”, which is really drawing a conclusion, but perhaps could be phrased less personally.
Newton personally attacks David.
Newton says he will return.
David attacks Newton’s lack of desire to back up his claims.
Newton personally attacks David.
David attacks Newton’s apparent desire to hurl insults.
Newton personally attacks David.
So, where exactly do you get “ignorance incarnate”?
By somebody who was clearly deranged. If a lunatic attacks you on the steet tonight is it because you’re an asshole?
Who hasn’t? If I start a thread hating you does that mean I have proved you’re an asshole.
Hardly true as the multitude of informative posts on a variety of subjects clearly indicates.
Shall we examine your track record now, Newton? Or would that break a couple of thos delusions?
As I said above, have the guts to apologize for your attack and if you are really interested in debating mormonism you might try a different approach.
Newt: your quoting above of SJ’s remark doesn’t help much as it’s already been established that the remark, which has been made before, is an incorrect exaggeration; i.e., a lie. Also, it’s been aptly pointed out to you that your referenceing & citing skills are, well, not up to snuff.
Just for more entertainment, yet another cite from Merriam-Webster (bolding brought to you by Monty):
Self defense. Nice try. Is that the best you can muster?
3:06 PM. Your ark post was made.
5:30 PM. RTFirefly posted mainly commenting on your attack on mormonism. No personal attacks.
5:34 PM. Your claim it was worded poorly.
6:17 PM. Monty posts outraged about your attack on his faith.
6:22 PM. You attack Monty back.
6:27 PM. Monty attacks back.
6:37 PM. You attack mormonism and Monty again.
6:39 PM. You add extra conditions to 6:37 post.
6:43 PM. Monty counter-proposal for you to prove two Christian things.
Care to check again to see
You are so lost, but Im sure you figured that out once you noticed your head was in you arse right? Glitch are you mormon, or just looking for a person to chew on? If you are mormon, answer my questions, if not, just sit there and watch.
6:46 PM. Gaudere adds conditions to Monty’s counter.
6:54 PM. You post your “proof”.
7:09 PM. Manhattan posts that you misquoted your own source. Not a personal attack.
7:19 PM. Nebuli questions whether the study is atheistic.
8:00 PM. Navigator posts.
8:00 PM. andros torpedoes your proof.
8:23 PM. David B asks for real proof.
11:40 AM. You ATTACK Manhattan, Andros and David B. Not one of which made a personal attack on you. The closest could be Andros’ harsh torpedoing, but there were no real ad hominem attacks.
Care to take another swing and a miss, or will you continue with your gutless and cowardly ways? (Yes, that is a personal attack).
Do you understand what a debate is? Do you understand the presentation of evidence and proof?
Nope not a mormon. And not just looking for a person to chew on. I don’t like holier-than-thou twips like you. I enjoy kicking the pedestal out from under your types. You will note I am using your own record against you. You cannot escape yourself.
How made you king of the board? Since when can’t anybody participate in any debate?
There’s a rule of thumb when posting on a bulletin board. It goes something like “Only say that which you would be willing to actually say in person.” You think that the anoyminity of a bulletin board gives you some right to be an ass?
One other time that you have said what? That you will disprove Mormonism? Maybe I should have worded that a little more carefully. Do you honestly think that you are the first to come along on this thread and think that you will provide irrefutable evidence that Mormonism is a sham? If so, then you are deluded. I mean, if you wanna think that you can pull off a Chick type conversion, have at. You’ll have your ass handed to you, though.
Or one other time that you have ignored others who have points to make that do not agree with your own? Once more, I should have clarified my statement. You may recall the “Abortion. . .” thread and your “giving up”. That would be the time I noticed you ignoring the posts of others who disagreed with you. All apologies for sounding as if I have read every word to come from you.
You may now consider my mouth shot.
You should also learn that if you make ridiculous claims, then you will be called on them. I recall Adam saying that Mormonism was a cult, being broadsided for doing so, and as I recall, he subsequently left for a time. I imagine that this particular little melodrama will play out somewhat similarly.
And I still think you should get the hell over yourself.
Just so you all know, Id never be so nice in person.
I am one of those people who thinks violence solves more than argument with the heard-headed.
YES, I said I like to just have it out and brawl sometimes. Now go ahead and use it against me. But realize anything I’d say here, Id just as soon “implant” in person.
because you would never all have the guts to say to me in person what you say here, unless I were what restrained??
Yawn, you bore me. You dont argue anything with conviuction, passion, or even belief.
Its scientific banter that, citation of someone else this. Has it ever occurred that nobody needs to be validated by some damn citation or other persons writing. Stand up for yourselves and use your own writing and thoughts and beliefs.
Stop quoting others, it makes you all seem like you are good at finding what OTHERS HAVE SAID AND THOUGHT, not what you say and think and can prove.
laugh Ahh, the sign of the true coward (read the Bushido, The Art of War and/or The Book of Five Rings). Violence over words. You apparently don’t understand reasoning and you apparently don’t understand violence.
I wouldn’t. I guarentee you I wouldn’t be worried at all about what you could do to me.
You know I ran in a real brave sucker on another message board once. He even had the guts to post his name and address of where I could find him (a real stupid thing to do). All I said, was “It’s a real small world”. He had the misfortune later that year of ending up in my fighting seminar. I will always remember the look of terror on his face when we were introduced as he realized that the person he had challenged and insulted on the 'net was the guy who just spent the past two hours teaching fighting technique and tactics. Of course, I didn’t do anything to him, thats not like me. I don’t hit people for things they say. All I said was “Pretty small world. You’re lucky I am not a violent person.”
Newton, you aren’t even trying to defend yourself anymore. All you have are personal attacks. No proof, no evidence, no refutation. Nothing but wind. You cannot even defend your own record of conduct. I mean, your just kind of hanging there like a punching bag now. You can’t even mount a decent personal attack based on any level of reasoning.
You don’t even seem to understand what debate it. Debate is the presentation of a position and then bringing forth evidence to support it, and defending it from attack with evidence and reasoning. You may find that “science” talk, but that just demonstrates that you don’t understand debate.
Like I said, I used your own conduct and words against you. That is how weak your pedestal is. It is made of nothing more than your own illusions, which apparently includes that the net gives you some right to also threaten people. It’s a small world.
Waste: I did call Mormonism a cult. I did get involved in lengthy discussions, and debates with Snark and Monty about their religion. But, you imply that I left because of my scraps with the Mormons. You are wrong. I’d gladly do it again, and again, if I thought any good would come of it.
I went and compared your conduct on this thread to what deBecker has to say about people who threaten. Your behaviour suggests somebody who isn’t making serious threats, but rather is looking for attention. Unfortunately, deBecker adds that if such a person forms too much attachment to the attention then when you finally cut it off it can make them truly violent.
Therefore, I am notifying you that I want no more interaction with you. Your conduct speaks for itself, as I have pointed out above. Any attempts you make to get me to reply to you will be ignored, and taken as prove positive that what I am saying is entirely accurate.
For those who have not read deBecker’s “Gift of Fear” and other books on the psychology of possibily violent people the following is what I am basing this on:
The Pros for taking this action:
Admits to a desire to use violence over words. This indicates problems with esteem.
Veiled threats.
Filled with rage and contempt. This makes for a perceived motive.
Running out of options. Clearly cannot stand in the debate.
Perceives his own unprovoked aggressive actions as self-defense.
Is still talking/insulting. And the experts say thats where you want to break it.
Seems attached to continuing a provocative exchange.
The Cons against this action:
This is on the Internet. This does minimize the condition somewhat since people do behave differently on the Net than in person.
There is no indication that he has the means to make any threat come true.
Experts agree that one or two signs is nothing (we all exhibit warning signs at sometime or another), but when you start seeing alot of signs, it is better to be safe than sorry. When he made the veiled threat I knew it was time to go and check some sources. As a self defense expert myself, I know better than to put my wife, daughter or myself at any measurable risk without good cause. I certainly don’t want this to become a case of “Who would have thought he would have done that?” or “That attack just came out of nowhere, completely at random”, nor do I want it to become a case of me having to kill or maim an assailant.
I’m going to ignore Newton, on the grounds that nothing he says can possibly be of interest, and address this to those on the board who actually know something about the LDS church. Please enlighten me.
As I understand it, a man and a woman can be’sealed’- a ceremony done in the Temple in conjunction with, but above and beyond, marriage. ‘Sealing’ exists beyond death and into heaven: if a couple are married on earth, the marriage is dissolved in heaven, but if they are sealed, then they are still sealed in heaven. (This is, I suppose, assuming that both parties go to heaven.)
Please correct me if my understanding of sealing is incorrect.
To continue: if a man and woman who have been sealed then get divorced, he may later be sealed again, to another woman. Presumably, since sealing is permanent, this would mean that in heaven he would then be sealed to both women, the first wife and the second. So there is polygamy in heaven. However, a woman who has divorced the man to whom she was sealed may remarry, but may NOT be sealed again. So there is no polyandry in heaven.
Is this correct? If so, this seems very unfair and provides some justification to claims I have heard that the LDS church is fundamentally misogynistic.
You are attempting to feign fear in hopes that you can transform an innocent comment into a threat, thus having me banned.
This tactic is cheap, but Im nearly sure that DAVIDB is blind enough to fall for it.
So with my more than likely last post I say, when you lose the fight, Glitch elects to cheat.
Furthermore, your little anecdote strangely resembles one of the MONTHLY lies advertised in MAXIM magazine. May I say you memorized it well big guy.
My comment was meant more as an aside, based on your implied “abilities” as a martial artist.
Glitch, how can a guy recognize you in real life, from your typing here. See how thats impossible? How can he fear you? DId he type while he was seeing you and then you typed back? Does he have ESP and say “OMG” thats Glitch I just know it?
YOUR ANECDOTE IS BS. I just said “I hope your theory is right”, because I want to know what kind of CS posts this fecal matter on the net and expects me to believe it?!?!
Now cry that I threatened you… but know you took the cowards way out and that no one touched your fragile ego or suggested they would.
So go ahead and see what DeBecker says about that answer?
