In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

No, Jefe received complaints from people who are waaaay to sensitive. He allowed it initially.

And don't tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. And you're wrong.

So you're saying when you originally came up with that signature you were too dense to realize the way it would be taken? I guess I can accept that. My apologies then.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So you're saying when you originally came up with that signature you were too dense to realize the way it would be taken? I guess I can accept that. My apologies then.

So either I'm dumb or I'm racist.

Whatever makes you happy.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So you're saying when you originally came up with that signature you were too dense to realize the way it would be taken? I guess I can accept that. My apologies then.

After reading the comments from many of you guys on this site lately, I think you're the ones that are too dense to understand someone else's comments.

Certainly, you seem more than content to summarily parse someone's comments to fit whatever characterization suits your purposes.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So either I'm dumb or I'm racist.

Honestly, I'm working on a third option for you, because I feel kind of bad for you right now. I'll get back to you on it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

One: I would be ecstatic about a black apostle. Next time I chat with God, I'll see if I can arrange it.

Two: I never, not once defended the priesthood ban except in the most strained sense of the word. I simply said (over and over and over and over) that one cannot hold God "blameless" of the decision while blaming his prophets.

Tex- even what you just repeated is a defense of the priesthood ban. Do you really not know that?

You say that one can't hold God blameless AND blame his prophets. This assumes that his prophets will only do what God wants them to do. The implication being either:

1. God wanted his prophets to prevent blacks from holding the priesthood for a good reason (a defense of the ban); or
2. God had a bad reason and should be blamed and his prophets just did what God wanted (a defense of the ban).

Either way, you are saying that God's prophets COULDN'T have screwed it up (because to say that means you have to hold God accountable, according to you, leading to the two possibilities listed above).

No matter how you cut it, you DID defend the ban. And, if you believe what you are actually saying, I don't see why you are embarrassed about that defense (because you would believe that it was God's will and was correct no matter what we think about it).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Honestly, I'm working on a third option for you, because I feel kind of bad for you right now. I'll get back to you on it.

Both dumb and racist?






I kid Lingo!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Hmm... still waiting for examples of how I'm racist. Maybe links to some posts would be nice.

This was a classic:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2606713

[jay santos]

List of black Americans that get it:

1. Uncle Tom

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This was a classic:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2606713

WOW- How did I miss that one? Yikes.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

After reading the comments from many of you guys on this site lately, I think you're the ones that are too dense to understand someone else's comments.

Certainly, you seem more than content to summarily parse someone's comments to fit whatever characterization suits your purposes.

Why are you always so quick to defend the indefensible? I can almost forgive Lingo because let's face it, e-hay's a ittle-lay upid-stay. But you, on the other hand, seem to be a fairly smart guy. You must surely see the idiocy of much of what you say.