It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:48 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:50 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mental wrote:

Nope. Simply to point out some text...in blue...that I think should have been capitalized...if that's what grindael is going to continue doing. He emphasized what he thought was important...I did the same. ... He ought not to be the only one to point out words/sentences that have special meaning.


That's called TROLLING. It's what you do. If that was your purpose, it was only to TROLL me. You are so messed up. And if you wanted it CAPITALIZED, why didn't you capitalize it? You really do say stupid ____. You did everything BUT capitalize it. :lol: And again, I was bolding and increased the font, I did not capitalize any but three words. :redface:

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:53 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
mentalgymnast wrote:
I think spotlight might be on to something.

Regards,
MG

I think you missed the POINT that Spotlight was mocking YOU.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:54 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
There were about 60 paragraphs in the OP, some large and small and only about 9 of them had bolding. One had CAPS employed with no bolding or large letters. I suppose that mental just doesn't like emphasis, and that no one should use it.

Is he suggesting that people who come here are largely like him, they are easily distracted by the nine paragraphs and ignore the 51 other ones and only read the nine because... ???? And that I do this because I really only want them to read the information in the nine paragraphs and ignore the other 51? Yeah, that makes total sense. :lol: Take all that time and effort to "Jedi mind trick" people into reading only a smidgen of what you write.

Only in mental's screwed up world.


It is interesting to note...and I would suppose you would say it's just coincidence...that the parts I shaded blue were near the words or blocks of text that you had capitalized.

Anyway, there may not be anything behind your "Jedi tricks"...but I find your use of capitalization somewhat distracting in the sense that most of us can probably read small print and accentuate those portions that have meaning without you having to baby us along...while at the same time you then fail to highlight other portions that should/could have been CAPITALIZED in order to get a fuller context/meaning.

So I was just trying to help you out...and that's the thanks I get. Go figure. :smile:

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:56 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
He ought not to be the only one to point out words/sentences that have special meaning.


So now my plan is to be the ONLY one to point out things that have special meaning? Go write your own posts and do so, no one is stopping you. Jesus Christ, you are such a freaking TROLL.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:57 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Lemmie wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
I think spotlight might be on to something.

Regards,
MG

I think you missed the POINT that Spotlight was mocking YOU.


You underestimate me grindael.

I can't twist things around to make a comeback that flies in your face? C'mon. Have some fun with it. :razz:

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:00 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
Quote:
He ought not to be the only one to point out words/sentences that have special meaning.


So now my plan is to be the ONLY one to point out things that have special meaning?


I hope not.

My attempt doesn't seem to be going over to well. :smile:

You seem to be a bit freaked out dude. Chill.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:00 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalcase wrote:

It is interesting to note...and I would suppose you would say it's just coincidence...that the parts I shaded blue were near the words or blocks of text that you had capitalized.

Anyway, there may not be anything behind your "Jedi tricks"...but I find your use of capitalization somewhat distracting in the sense that most of us can probably read small print and accentuate those portions that have meaning without you having to baby us along...while at the same time you then fail to highlight other portions that should/could have been CAPITALIZED in order to get a fuller context/meaning.

So I was just trying to help you out...and that's the thanks I get. Go figure. :smile:


So now if words are bolded NEAR words that have been capitalized, that has some significance? Are you kidding me. And "just trying to help you out"? In a pig's eye. Get this straight mental, I don't give a rat's ass what distracts you. If it does, don't read my posts. Stop TROLLING me, for god's sake.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:00 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Lemmie wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
I think spotlight might be on to something.

Regards,
MG

I think you missed the POINT that Spotlight was mocking YOU.


Really?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:03 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
It's people like you who absolutely ruin this place. But that's your intention. Nicely done.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:06 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalcase wrote:

My attempt doesn't seem to be going over to well.

You seem to be a bit freaked out dude. Chill.


I'm not the one whining about some bolding and font size, you are. So it's you who is freaked out. Take your own advice. " You are an asshole. You don't want to TROLL grindael. Move along, move along".

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:11 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
Quote:
Nope. Simply to point out some text...in blue...that I think should have been capitalized...

So you thought other things should be capitalized? Sorry, that's another after-the-fact lie from you, because here's what you said about capitalizing:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Except that someone might catch him on that. Tanner's used eclipses and left stuff out. grindael likes to use CAPITAL words to bring one's focus to those words rather than the surrounding text.

Regards,
MG
So which is it, mg? Do you think capitalizing is wrong? Or do you think it's OK and you want to capitalize different things? Or are you just caught in another lie?

Troll.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:14 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
I've asked Shades to move all of this distraction with Mental to outer darkness. If you want to continue with your "advice", go to it there mental. And feel free to capitalize and bold anything you like.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:23 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
Quote:
but I find your use of capitalization somewhat distracting in the sense that most of us can probably read small print and accentuate those portions that have meaning without you having to baby us along...while at the same time you then fail to highlight other portions that should/could have been CAPITALIZED in order to get a fuller context/meaning.

So I was just trying to help you out...


"Most of us?" CFR.

OK, so now the accents are wrong not because they are distracting but because you don't want to be babied. Or is it because you want to capitalize? Three different reasons now trying to justify your trolling.

And what's with telling grindael he "should have" capitalized different parts in order to get a fuller context? That would be your opinion, right? So why don't you do it? What's with telling people what opinion they SHOULD have expressed? (Stick with me, mg, don't let those caps (1) distract you or (2) make you feel babied, or (3) make you want to cap other words, or whatever fake reason you now are expressing to try to justify your trolling.)

(ETA: I just saw grindael's request, feel free to move this along with mental's trolling, Dr. Shades. Or I will move it once mental's troll-thread is in place.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:33 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Lemmie wrote:
"Most of us?" CFR...blah, blah, blah.


For those that are getting sucked into the "MG is a Troll" maelstrom, simply go back to page one and read my original post. Read the blue text. Does it or does it not impact or have any influence over what is capitalized/accentuated by grindael?

I would have been happy to leave it there...

You guys really don't like to have your parade rained on, do you?

If it helps, I'll bow out at this point if you want me to. I made my point earlier.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:38 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Lemmie and grindael, it will be interesting to see if your influence/request with Shades has any bearing on whether or not this thread is moved.

I'm anxiously awaiting to see if that happens. I would imagine others are interested in the outcome also.

Drum roll...

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:58 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
As usual, mentalgymnast wants a re-write.
Quote:
simply go back to page one and read my original post. Read the blue text. Does it or does it not impact or have any influence over what is capitalized/accentuated by grindael?

Was that your point, mg? You emphasized something entirely different in your first post:
mental wrote:
I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of emphasizing/capitalizing certain sections of text to the exclusion/ignoring surrounding text. Why do you do that?

This seems to be a pattern.

grindael then asked you for specifics of your objections, and you countered with an implication that capitalizing is akin to leaving things out (note that grindael capitalized a total of about 7 words in a 60 paragraph OP):
Quote:
Tanner's used eclipses [sp-mental doesn't know the difference between an eclipse and an ellipse] and left stuff out. grindael likes to use CAPITAL words to bring one's focus to those words rather than the surrounding text.

Then more innuendo:
Quote:
Well, what grindael does could be described that way I guess. It's a form of trickery.

Here's what some folks have to say about using CAPS....

But then, a change! Mental wants to use caps!
Quote:
Simply to point out some text...in blue...that I think should have been capitalized...

then it changes to not trickery but babying that he objects to:
Quote:
accentuate those portions that have meaning without you having to baby us along...

And then he states what opinion grindael SHOULD have capitalized:
Quote:
while at the same time you then fail to highlight other portions that should/could have been CAPITALIZED


So, did you really have a discussion about the impact of your words in blue? Or did you pick at a nonexistent issue and change your rationale three times about capitalization and why you don't-then do-then don't like it, and then, as usual, want a re-write on your boorish behavior?

Troll.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:08 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Lemmie wrote:

blah, blah, blah...

So, did you really have a discussion about the impact of your words in blue?


Yes. Or at least have them recognized/valued for what they say also.

You see them as having value/importance, don't you? Or not?

Why or why not?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:29 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm not going to go back and research and bring forth everything I've read over the last twenty-five years.


Make that 40+ years if you want to go back to the early days of Sunstone Magazine...and Dialogue.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Last edited by mentalgymnast on Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 12453
Mr. Grindael,

Your original post is a fantastic and well-sourced commentary on Joseph Smith's character vis a vis his philandering. Thank you. However, I wasn't sure if the 'to be continued' was continued in your back and forth with the board narcissist, or was there more?

- Doc

_________________
In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:57 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mr. Grindael,

Your original post is a fantastic and well-sourced commentary on Joseph Smith's character vis a vis his philandering. Thank you. However, I wasn't sure if the 'to be continued' was continued in your back and forth with the board narcissist, or was there more?

- Doc


He said it was "to be continued". Just make sure that as you read...read everything. But I don't need to tell you that. :smile:

If I hadn't pointed out the sections colored blue I'm sure you would have. Beat you to the punch!

Not that these blue sections are all that 'earth shattering'...but they are interesting when one tries to look at things in context. Or at least as much as we can, right? I suppose I simply had an issue with certain things being accentuated with CAPITALS to the exclusion of everything else. Is that a problem?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:41 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
grindael wrote:
Now I and Mike Marquardt just submitted an article to the John Whitmer Historical Association on Baptism for the Dead, which they accepted and will be published in their Spring, 2017 Journal. Here is what the editor said:

Quote:
As you can see in the attached summary of reviewers' comments, the paper was favorably regarded and will be accepted for the Spring 2017 issue of the Journal. However, the second reviewer's comment about parallels in the surrounding milieu seem pertinent, and it would be helpful if you would address some of this perspective as the paper currently suggests that the change arose exclusively from inside. At any rate, congratulations on an excellent manuscript, and I look forward to receiving a mild revision in the near future.


There were only five short paragraphs of suggestions and two were mentions of typos. Here is some of what the reviewer said,

Quote:
The writing is lucid, logical, consistent, and clean, and the notes are particularly easy to understand. ... this paper is impressively objective in its treatment of the sources it chooses to address.



Congratulations on your pending publication, grindael!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group