Tea and Coffee??

[madhatter85]

oh says the madhatter. not me

not me, Scriptures.

 

[sniper762]

madhatter, you say "when in doubt do without" pretty sums it up. if you have to wonder "is this "REALLY" OK?? it's best to leave it alone.

i thought the lds mission is "perfect the saints". not to turn away those that are imperfect.

 

[sniper762]

please post, mh

 

[madhatter85]

madhatter, you say "when in doubt do without" pretty sums it up. if you have to wonder "is this "REALLY" OK?? it's best to leave it alone.

i thought the lds mission is "perfect the saints". not to turn away those that are imperfect.

Exactly. if you have to think to yourself "Is it REALLY OK" to do something; best practice, do without it.

 

[sniper762]

advice, but not spiritually worthy.

btw, post 82 scripture?

 

[madhatter85]

advice, but not spiritually worthy.

btw, post 82 scripture?

see post 81

 

[sniper762]

good scripture, but not pertinent to the subject.

try again

 

[Katzpur]

NEVERTHELESS, my point is made

its easy to use someone elses views and adopt them as your own (puppeteering), especially when they are the mainstream to ones affilliation AND UNCONTESTED.

there's nothing wrong nor unfaithful about forming your OWN views, be they may not be mainstream to the lds church.

It's impossible to know who your remarks are addressed to when you fail to use the quote function. Your first statement appears to me directed to me, but your second one appears to be addressed to Madhatter. It makes responding kind of difficult.

 

[sniper762]

duh, it directly followed his post. no reply in between. one on one. if another interjected, i addressed them by name beginning my reply.

 

[Katzpur]

duh, it directly followed his post. no reply in between. one on one. if another interjected, i addressed them by name beginning my reply.

Actually, the post I just quoted (in my post #89) was from your post #78. It didn't directly follow MadHatter's post; it followed my post #77.

 

[sniper762]

those are YOUR posts out of order. MY responses directly follow their previous threads. if not, the particular person is addressed forehand.

why you so vendictive toward me?

 

[Katzpur]

those are YOUR posts out of order.

Sniper, you and I see all posts in the same order. Post #77 is mine. Post #78 is yours. It is pointless for you to try to tell me that post #78 directly followed any other post than the one it actually followed.

why you so vendictive toward me?

I'm not. I've asked you repeatedly not to debate on the LDS DIR forum. You continue to do so anyway. I've asked you repeatedly to use the quote function. You refuse to do so. I don't see this as being vindictive on my part at all, but something tells me we're about to get into an argument as to what "vindictive" means.

 

[sniper762]

as i said, my post 78 directly follows and adresses your post 77.

btw, it takes two to debate, im one, whoe's the other?

 

[Katzpur]

as i said, my post 78 directly follows and adresses your post 77.

You said it directly followed "his" post. I'm not a "him" and MadHatter is, so I thought you were referring to "him."

btw, it takes two to debate, im one, whoe's the other?

Well, you sort of seem to be debating MadHatter, who evidently doesn't know that it's against forum rules to debate in a DIR forum any more than you do. All I'm trying to do is figure out which of your remarks are addressed to me and which are addressed to Madhatter. So far, I haven't been able to do so, since you are either incapable of using the quote function or just too stubborn to do so when asked.

 

[sniper762]

the last six posts have been exclusively btwx you and i. before that, mh and i. when you made your debate comment, it was referencing "our" previous debate.

 

[Katzpur]

the last six posts have been exclusively btwx you and i. before that, mh and i. when you made your debate comment, it was referencing "our" previous debate.

Well, I'm glad to finally know who you were talking to. What a process! By the way, see the little button at the bottom right-hand side of this post that says "Quote"? Try clicking on it and then posting your remarks at the end of the post that pops up. You will be pleasantly surprised at what happens. It's like magic!!! :yes:

 

[sniper762]

thanks, i'll try drawing pictures in the future. lol

 

[madhatter85]

good scripture, but not pertinent to the subject.

try again

it is absolutely relevant to the highlighted portion of the quote.

You clearly don't understand forum etiquette. it is polite to quote those who you are responding to as it can make following a conversation quite challenging.

especially when most of us have lives that distract from having the time to sit here and reply directly to every post on this forum.

 

[sniper762]

i already explained that to katzpur. it looks like you also may need pictures.

btw, if with that scripture, you are referring to me as evil, being that you dont know me, plus your previous statement for me to exempt myself from pondering god's word, is a poor example of an lds member that you are representing.

 

[Katzpur]

thanks, i'll try drawing pictures in the future. lol

Well, I hope you draw better than you write.