It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:33 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Another Mental TROLL Thread (2)
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:47 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
Another Mental TROLL thread

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Last edited by grindael on Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:54 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
Another Mental TROLL Thread...

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:25 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 8:59 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6018
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! Well done. Very, very well done!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:02 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
Thanks, Lemmie!

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:11 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
grindael wrote:
mentalTROLL wrote:
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? :rolleyes:


mentalTROLL wrote:
My attempt doesn't seem to be going over to [SIC] well.


Oh, it's going TO WELL all right, it's been deep-sixed!

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:13 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
And this was my contribution before things went south:

grindael wrote:

Quote:
“During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark, that, though, as I have said above, “as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,” I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I alude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.

This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add, that it is not with out a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfill a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation: and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the “Articles and Covenants” of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man “subject to passion,” and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!” (Letter to Oliver Cowdery, published in the Messenger & Advocate, 1834)


Smith himself would write later that,

Quote:
“The court was detained for a time, in order that two young women (daughters to Mr. Stoal) [probably Rhoda and Miriam] with whom I had at times kept company; might be sent for, in order, if possible to elicit something from them which might be made a pretext against me. The young women arrived and were severally examined, touching my character, and conduct in general but particularly as to my behavior towards them both in public and private, when they both bore such testimony in my favor, as left my enemies without a pretext on their account.”


I responded:

Quote:
Hi grindael,

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.

Also, at least in my mind, to say that because Joseph used the word "men" and so in turn left an 'out'/loophole for himself to take advantage of women...and making that assumed connection (as a matter of fact) is a bit lame, IMO. Often you will hear folks use a gender designation which will then apply to both sexes...not just the one mentioned.

I think you're making a real stretch. And then building upon your preconceived assumption(s)/conclusions.

But that's just me. And I know what you think about anything I have to say. :wink:

Regards,
MG


I questioned grindael's use of CAPITALS to emphasize what he thought was important. I merely pointed out that there ought/could be other things to point out in the text that would add greater contextualization/meaning to the conversation/quotes that were cut and pasted. That was apparently a no-no. :cry:

My points of emphasis were colored in blue.

From there on out we moved into the rather predictable 'troll' accusations and such. grindael has deleted some of his posts that would add greater context to what was going on in the previous conversation.

If grindael's writings can't be commented on and/or have additional information (found directly in his postings) pointed to/emphasized then what's this board all about?

High fives and 'all is well'?

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 9:15 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6018
mentalgymnast wrote:
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

If you're going to misquote me then at least summon up the minimal integrity to use brackets. Take responsibility for your own putrescence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:21 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
I will not be making further posts about Joseph's Spiritual Wifeism as long as I'm being trolled by Mental. So, until Shades steps in, please wait to make any.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:23 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6018
grindael wrote:
I will not be making further posts about Joseph's Spiritual Wifeism as long as I'm being trolled by Mental. So, until Shades steps in, please wait to make any.

Agreed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:27 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm a stupid troll. That's all I do is troll. Troll, Troll, Troll. It's what I do. Regards, :smile:


Yes you are Mental, you naughty boy. You are a royal ass hole. Bravo that you recognize yourself as such.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:37 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalDiCKWAD wrote:

If grindael's writings can't be commented on and/or have additional information (found directly in his postings) pointed to/emphasized then what's this board all about?


Mental is not making any substantive comments. He is trolling. So he can have this thread (and the other to do it on). For any that want to have a discussion about Jo's Spiritual Wifeism, I will restore that thread if Mental doesn't comment on it about stupid ____, or bring up this ____ because he now has TWO threads all about it.

So, he can either (since it is MY thread) play by MY rules, or I'll just keep my thoughts to myself. Mental wants to make it all about him, and accuse me of being deceptive. That is his intention, not scholarly discussion. THAT is what this board is all about, not Mental's ____.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Another Mental TROLL Thread (3)
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:41 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
He's still TROLLING me.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:31 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 9:42 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
The DICKWAD is still at it...

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:55 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
grindael wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm a stupid troll. That's all I do is troll. Troll, Troll, Troll. It's what I do. Regards, :smile:


Yes you are Mental, you naughty boy. You are a royal ass hole. Bravo that you recognize yourself as such.


CFR.

Where did I say this?

I will leave it to others that have read the other thread all the way through to make a determination as to whether or not I am being a troll...or simply responding to provocation and/or bullying. Although,truth be told, you've deleted some of your 'gems', so that will be difficult/impossible to do...see above for an example of potty talk...to determine who is being the bully and/or provocateur...and wetting his pants, so to speak.

It amazes me...ad infinitum...the sensitivity that you have when someone rains on your parade just a bit and points out something that possibly ought to be looked at.

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 9:57 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
grindael wrote:
mentalDiCKWAD wrote:


Who is the one that's acting like a sixth grade bully/potty mouth?

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 10:00 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
grindael wrote:
...Mental wants to make it all about him, and accuse me of being deceptive. That is his intention, not scholarly discussion. THAT is what this board is all about, not Mental's ****.


You are a lying sack. Again, I would just ask others to actually go back and see what's left of the thread in question. Gonna be hard to do at this point since posts have been deleted by grindael.

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 10:04 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
grindael wrote:
For any that want to have a discussion about Jo's Spiritual Wifeism...


If you're going to cut and paste quotes and then CAPITALIZE what you want to emphasize...don't be surprised when someone else might come in and emphasize something else within the same quote that they believe ought to be emphasized also.

Amazing that you're responding this way.

Grow up.

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 10:06 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalgymnast wrote:
grindael wrote:
...Mental wants to make it all about him, and accuse me of being deceptive. That is his intention, not scholarly discussion. THAT is what this board is all about, not Mental's ****.


You are a lying sack. Again, I would just ask others to actually go back and see what's left of the thread in question. Gonna be hard to do at this point since posts have been deleted by grindael.

MG


You had your say, now just move along and TROLL someone else. You continuing to follow me from thread to thread shows who the real TROLL is.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:09 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
And for the upteenth time, I didn't CAPITALIZE, (except three words) I BOLDED and increased the FONT size. Dickwad. And you call me a "lying sack"? :lol:

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:10 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
Quote:
Lemmie:
[blah, blah, blah...]

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


MG:
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?

Lemmie:
If you're going to misquote me then...use brackets.

*edited to please Lemmie

Care to actually answer the questions or refer us to where you already have? Afterall, my original post simply pointed out that there are other pieces of text that ought to be highlighted.

Amazing how you've derailed this thread...in a semi-clever sort of way.

Troll.

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: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:13 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5349
Location: The Land of Lorn
And your scholarly :lol: contribution to the thread? You didn't like that I bolded certain words! But what you did, was call what I did some kind of deception and that I was trying to "trick" people. That is NOT scholarly discussion. So ALL THIS, MentalDICKWAD? That's ALL ON YOU. Because you are a TROLL.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


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 - 8 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