Civility versus Antagonism, which is better?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Joseph Smith, actually.

Ah...better not quote him here like that or the un-believing bitter ilk of this board just might take you to task for daring to do so...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Ah...better not quote him here like that or the un-believing bitter ilk of this board just might take you to task for daring to do so...

The only one taking him to task for the quote so far is you. Let it go and talk about the topic.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

The only one taking him to task for the quote so far is you. Let it go and talk about the topic.

His whole point of bringing up the topic is to belittle the church in any way, shape or form he can, regardless of topic.

I suggest you get your bullshit meter checked.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Ah...better not quote him here like that or the un-believing bitter ilk of this board just might take you to task for daring to do so...

You're probably the only one who will suggest that it might have been inappropriate.

Again, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think SU lets his vitrol against the church influence his thinking to a greater extent than is reasonable. You may notice, however, that instead of taking him to task for it, you've ceded to him the moral high ground and made yourself the bigger target.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

You're probably the only one who will suggest that it might have been inappropriate.

Again, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think SU lets his vitrol against the church influence his thinking to a greater extent than is reasonable. You may notice, however, that instead of taking him to task for it, you've ceded to him the moral high ground and made yourself the bigger target.

Don't practice psychiatry...it'll give you a headache.

In fact, you actually just gave me a great idea...thanks.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

There's also little purpose served in not being truthful about what he is. If I have to stand alone on saying what he is, that's fine and doesn't bother me one single bit.

If someone doesn't like the way I do it, then tough.

How many threads that you are involved in wind up going down this path? Doesn't it get old for you? I assure you it is getting old for me. The rest of us were actually having an interesting discussion on the church project downtown before you hijacked things here.

Let's get back to that. If you have something to say of substance related to THAT topic, I would enjoy hearing it.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

How many threads that you are involved in wind up going down this path? Doesn't it get old for you? I assure you it is getting old for me. The rest of us were actually having an interesting discussion on the church project downtown before you hijacked things here.

Let's get back to that. If you have something to say of substance related to THAT topic, I would enjoy hearing it.

And when are you ever going to be honest instead of deliberately deceptive in a lot of what you post? You're almost no better than people of SU's ilk.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why does calling somebody a name show somebody has cajones?

Here's an example: if I were in Cairo, sitting in a cafe discussing Middle East politics, how would disagreeing with the locals, by saying, "Oh yeah, you guys just hate Jews and are bunch of towel heads" prove my courage?

Questions: "how would that prove anything other than my stupidity?"

How would that advance any discussion?

Are you just trying to end discussion, because your name calling isn't advancing a discussion and isn't provoking any interesting reaction?

You don't have to be friends, but repeated name calling doesn't do anything but make the place uncivil.

And people are nuanced. Hoya is a leftist but intelligent capable of dissecting the Right, while blind to the foibles of the Left.

Seattle has active LDS siblings with whom he interacts civilly. If he's nothing but a troll, then your name-calling is giving him what he wants. If not, then you're irritating somebody you need not irritate. Either way, it appears to be a wrong choice.

Are you trying to drive him away? Nobody's trying to drive you awaw; in fact, you're welcome here, but why not a civil discussion. We all have asked for that after some heated discussions which led nowhere.

Nearly all of SU's posts on this board and CB have anti-Mormonism as the motive. His agenda is to belittle anything LDS, BYU, church leaders past and present. He has no belief or moral system himself--or he is constantly switching them when it is convenient to his point. He uses whatever angle he can to oppose every issue, no matter how illogical or inconsistent with prior posts. Just because he can do so skillfully doesn't make the content any different than Rocky's more obtuse approach. I'm not backing Rocky's approach, but your buttkissing of SU is out of place in this instance.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Nearly all of SU's posts on this board and CB have anti-Mormonism as the motive. His agenda is to belittle anything LDS, BYU, church leaders past and present. He has no belief or moral system himself--or he is constantly switching them when it is convenient to his point. He uses whatever angle he can to oppose every issue, no matter how illogical or inconsistent with prior posts. Just because he can do so skillfully doesn't make the content any different than Rocky's more obtuse approach. I'm not backing Rocky's approach, but your buttkissing of SU is out of place in this instance.

Hmmm. Which of us got the CB death penalty? You must have really been spewing some imoral stuff to get whacked by Jefe.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Hmmm. Which of us got the CB death penalty? You must have really been spewing some imoral stuff to get whacked by Jefe.

I'm not calling you immoral. I'm saying you don't have a defined personal belief or moral system. You change them constantly to make your case. One minute you're a scientist cracking on the ignorant masses who need a God, the next you're talking about your faith in a higher power. The common characteristic is you used both angles to make fun on Mormons.

You'd be happy to know what I said so awful. I implied Samuelson was either inept (bungling things) or immoral (possible secret agenda for BYU football that isn't shared by his employer) over the KW offer/no-hire. My post was censored and I was given a two week ban, and I was insulted by Jefe's moderator. I then told the moderator to kiss my ass.