Current GA Being Accused of Child Abuse; the 12 Ignore It

[_sock puppet]

And this is why card-carrying fringe lunatic leftists like you are nothing more than a bunch of brutal fascists. When you can no longer compete on the battlefield of ideas, you instead try to silence your opponents.

I happily agree with you.

She is a troll.

Regards,
MG

And now the sideways attack in another thread. You have really fallen! wow, you really cannot stand to have your lies called out. That's ok, I forgive you.

You lunatic leftist brutal fascist you. You're so vicious, MG has had to call Tobin for backup. The MG-Tobin alliance should provide plenty of entertainment.

I once held out hope that mg would embrace evidence and rationality. That hope has faded. He seems no more than an LDS hack now. Truly pathetic.

[_mentalgymnast]

I happily agree with you.

She is a troll.

Regards,
MG

I'm calling BS on this, MG. You don't like the fact that she's strident. You don't like the fact that she backs you into a corner.

That doesn't mean that you need to resort to ad hom in order to deal with her, which is exactly what you are doing.

Hi Jersey,

You can call it anything you want. I'm calling it like it is. I haven't felt "backed into a corner" as much as I have questioned what she is all about. She hasn't had anything of substance to say...and yes, I agree, she is rather "strident".

As far as ad hominem, I don't think so. I'm not going to call her names and start using profanity at her (can you imagine me doing that? ), but I will call a spade a spade and name that which I see. I see a troll. I've never made that accusation against anyone else in the time I've been online.

If you see it as being otherwise, that's fine. If you feel it your duty to protect her, that's fine too.

As I said on another thread, I'm done with her. I'm not going to feed the troll. She can say/do whatever she wants. If she has something substantive to say along the way which merits response, then I may interact with her. But I will not continue to feed her.

It's a waste of my time.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

I'm calling BS on this, MG. You don't like the fact that she's strident. You don't like the fact that she backs you into a corner.

That doesn't mean that you need to resort to ad hom in order to deal with her, which is exactly what you are doing.

Hi Jersey,

You can call it anything you want. I'm calling it like it is. I haven't felt "backed into a corner" as much as I have questioned what she is all about. She hasn't had anything of substance to say...and yes, I agree, she is rather "strident".

As far as ad hominem, I don't think so. I'm not going to call her names and start using profanity at her (can you imagine me doing that? ), but I will call a spade a spade and name that which I see. I see a troll. I've never made that accusation against anyone else in the time I've been online.

If you see it as being otherwise, that's fine. If you feel it your duty to protect her, that's fine too.

As I said on another thread, I'm done with her. I'm not going to feed the troll. She can say/do whatever she wants. If she has something substantive to say along the way which merits response, then I may interact with her. But I will not continue to feed her.

It's a waste of my time.

Regards,
MG

And what do you have of substance to say, MG? About as much as Tobin. Duck, dodge, dissemble. Do you think that Lemmie is the only one who sees the crap that you do? Did you really think that everyone trying to call you on it over many threads is a liar? Do you think you have more credibility now than you did, say, six months ago? Maybe you can get Tobin to back you up. Maybe the two of you can lob your inanities at each other while decrying the evil board denizens who "call a spade a spade". Whine on, dude.

[_mentalgymnast]

I once held out hope that mg would embrace evidence and rationality.

In other words's, to become more like you...and reject religious belief, and Mormonism in particular.

That hope has faded. He seems no more than an LDS hack now. Truly pathetic.

I am who I am, sock puppet. You are who you are. by the way, I'm not here to cater to or try and please you. Think what you want. I am who I am and am OK with that.

Oh, I'm not an "LDS hack". If you've read enough of my stuff over a period of time, you would know that.

But I am just a regular guy who does show up to church on Sunday.

There's been an inordinate amount of 'muddying the waters' around here lately...?

Interesting.

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

I once held out hope that mg would embrace evidence and rationality.

In other words's, to become more like you...and reject religious belief, and Mormonism in particular.

That hope has faded. He seems no more than an LDS hack now. Truly pathetic.

I am who I am, sock puppet. You are who you are. by the way, I'm not here to cater to or try and please you. Think what you want. I am who I am and am OK with that.

Oh, I'm not an "LDS hack". If you've read enough of my stuff over a period of time, you would know that.

But I am just a regular guy who does show up to church on Sunday.

There's been an inordinate amount of 'muddying the waters' around here lately...?

Interesting.

Regards,
MG

Your earlier postings would not have lent your being described as an LDS hack, but the trend and your recent ones put you squarely there. Like I said, once there was hope for you, but you have drawn a line in the sand against evidence and reason to hold onto your "beliefs" in the LDS dogma. Truly sad.

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

I see that you've replied to my post but first, let's get down to it, okay?

Do any of the following seem to fit your experiences with Lemmie?

1. She's like a dog with a bone.
2. She's crazy.
3. She's like a Pit Bull who won't let go.
4. She's not like anyone else on the board.

[Guest]

And what do you have of substance to say, MG?

At least as much, if not more, than you do.

And my dad can beat up your dad.

Whine on, dude.

Just stating the facts ma'am.

Regards,
Joe Friday

P.S.,
Mak, there is ALWAYS going to be this 'impasse' that I've referred to in the thread with Kerry, in regards to those of faith and those that decry faith. This is becoming more and more apparent on this board. And it seems to be getting even more strident lately. It's probably the main reason folks of faith don't subject themselves to the abuse that comes from folks such as yourself. I

I'm not whining as much as I am pointing out what seems, at least to me, to be the reality. I wasn't born yesterday. I can take some name calling. But so much of it seems to be rather one sided and just plain mean/hurtful.

I mean, the fact that you would say that over a long period of time and MANY posts I really haven't had ANYTHING of substance to say?

Ouch.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm calling BS on this, MG. You don't like the fact that she's strident. You don't like the fact that she backs you into a corner.

That doesn't mean that you need to resort to ad hom in order to deal with her, which is exactly what you are doing.

Hi Jersey,

Hi yourself! :-)

You can call it anything you want. I'm calling it like it is. I haven't felt "backed into a corner" as much as I have questioned what she is all about. She hasn't had anything of substance to say...and yes, I agree, she is rather "strident".

It would appear that you think she has an agenda. Am I reading you right?

As far as ad hominem, I don't think so. I'm not going to call her names and start using profanity at her (can you imagine me doing that? ), but I will call a spade a spade and name that which I see. I see a troll.

Assessing her as a troll is the use of ad hom, MG.

I've never made that accusation against anyone else in the time I've been online.

I believe you.

If you see it as being otherwise, that's fine. If you feel it your duty to protect her, that's fine too.

So calling BS on your statements is me protecting a strident poster?

As I said on another thread, I'm done with her. I'm not going to feed the troll. She can say/do whatever she wants. If she has something substantive to say along the way which merits response, then I may interact with her. But I will not continue to feed her.

It's a waste of my time.

Regards,
MG

Is that the third or fourth time you've said that? I've lost count.

;-)

[_Starbuck]

Ronald Kerran just finish an interview with the Middle Grounders. https://www.Facebook.com/middlegroundersmedia/?fref=ts and http://www.860utahsbigtalker.com/

Kerran referenced some of the questions asked back to the "releases" he is going to be doing. One thing I found of interest was that the way he gained custody of his kids was the McKonkie attorney was trying to play some custody tricks and got caught in a lie. He says he has this recorded and will be releasing it.

The biggest question I have that was not asked is, what witnesses are there to the statement that Mickelson made, that children were being promiscuous with him. Then what is the definition of promiscuous. Is this Mickelson's way of saying that children were trying to grab his junk and that he was like wtf? Or is this Mickelson's way of blaming the victim.

I can see this going a couple of different ways. It could be a case of Mickelson actually trying to get people to understand that a child was acting inappropriately toward him and Kerran not understanding, or Mickelson is a a pedophile, or something else.

Kerran says more releases are to come and one is an interview of his daughter. It will be interesting to see what she has to say.

The guy should just shotgun approach this and let everyone dig through his "evidence". But what do I know.

[_mentalgymnast]

Is that the third or fourth time you've said that? I've lost count.

;-)

Third or fourth.

I guess I've said it enough times now...

Regards,
MG