"Lude" school teachers?

This one takes 1st prize

This mornings news reported several school teachers in Florida were suspended for engaging in "lude" sexual activities at an adult bar. This happened during their free time, after working hours, away from the school. The reason for suspension was given as teachers are not protected under the 1st ammendment or any other laws regarding rights to privacy as they are responsible for our children.

Give me a break!!!! What are we becoming?

Bill Clinton engaged in sexual conduct (in somes eyes lude) while on duty in the oval office and he did not get suspended. If I am not mistaken he is responsible for the entire nation.

Kan you dont understand -- The teachers operate under the same rules many of us have to adhere to. "Presents the appearance of conflict of interest," "Moral turptitude". Teachers are expected to set a moral standard. It goes with the territory.

Now in Bill's case the reason he is not responsible is that his mother/grandmother made him do it and he therefore has no control over his actions. Wowser Wowser folks just the kind of moral fiber and fortitude we want in someone who has the authority and proven will to start a war - er police action. Just so long as he was able to run when he was of age.


[This message has been edited by Hiflier (edited 08-17-99).]

Hiflier,
Oh dear boy, I understand perfectly, let me explain it to you. Our constitution gives us rights to privacy. This does not mean that our private lifestyle choices need to meet the approval of every moral do-gooder that thinks a sexual act in a position other than "missionary" will lead to the corruption of our children and an inevidable trip to Las Vegas (sorry jode).

Yes, hiflier, we hope our teachers set a good moral standard during school hours, but if a teacher, athlete, car salesman, retiree, or accountant, wants to fondle his/her spouse in an establishment thats purpose is such, is not breaking any city or state laws, and is on his or her own time, that is their right, given to them by our forefathers. The moral consequenses are between them and their god, not between them and the moral majority.

With this narrow minded thinking our children won't have a constitution to worry about in the future, as the do-gooders will have kissed it good by in an effort to make the populas think and act like them.

Amen.

Careful, KAN, or the moral police are going to be after you for daring to have independent thoughts and having the nerve to question what you are told. After all, are we not ruled by the will of the most narrow minded and the morals of the few?

[This message has been edited by PreDos (edited 08-18-99).]

spooky thought isn't it PreDos.

Was it you who said "Welcome to Jode's World"

Kan I understand - really I do about - personal freedom.

My comment was to the effect that when you take on certain jobs there are both written and sometimes unwritten codes of conduct you are expected to live up to. If you dont wish to or cant live up to the standards of the job maybe you should look for another line of work.

As example a police officer is expected to obey the laws. If he doesn't and is caught he looks for other work. School teachers are expected to act in a manner that is an example for students. If they dont and are caught I guess they need to start job hunting also.

I never said I agreed with all the PC folks or the morality police just that you know what the rules are when you enter the job. If you dont know the rules you better learn them before you start work. If you cant live up to the rules dont be suprised if you get canned.

Oh one other thing I forgot to add. If I had my way Bill Clinton would be fired for his actions. He would be given the 10-15 retirement plan. "Dear Bill this is to inform you that you have 10 minutes to clean out your desk and 15 minutes to get off the property. Your termination will mean you do not qualify or a retirement payment of any kind."

[This message has been edited by Hiflier (edited 08-18-99).]

Hiflier,
Here's what bothers me about what you are telling me...

Who decides what professions uphold certain codes of conduct? Do I? Do you? The Politicians?

Who's unwritten codes of conduct are these professionals expected to live up to? Yours? Mine? Shadows? Jodes? do we leave it to our elected officials? We've agreed that doesn't work.

When you start down this dangerous road, where does it lead to? Eventually the errosion of all our freedoms, piece by piece.

Reread PreDos last post. He hit the nail on the head when he asked "are we not ruled by the will of the most narrow minded and the morals of the few"?

Kan, indeed it was I who said "welcome to Jode's world". It was in reference to the way our supposed leaders (rulers?) seem able to decide what is best for us without ever bothering us for our input.

As for unwritten codes of conduct, it is extremely rediculous for anyone to be terminated from their job for an infraction of one of these codes. First, if it is unwritten, how is one to know if an infraction occurs? My understanding of these "codes" may not be the same as someone elses...who is more correct? It also leads to employment by intimidation. Even though it is not in the company handbook, do it my way or you're fired! Stoopid!

I don’t know . . . I think “Welcome to Jode’s Neighborhood” has a friendlier sound to it. http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif My neighborhood is open minded and enlightened to boot.

[This message has been edited by Jode Christensen (edited 08-19-99).]

Open minded? How about narrow minded?

PREDOS I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
1 HOW MUCH DOES CANADA WEIGH?
2 WHAT IS THE GIRTH OF A 55 GALLON DRUM?
3 HOW MUCH STRING IS IN A GOLF BALL?

Hi sippi! What a wonder, I have three answers for you:
1. The weight of Canada depends on whether or not it is being visited by Bill Clinton...tons of difference.

2. How tall is the drum?

3. Just enough to fill it up?

Do I win anything?

[This message has been edited by PreDos (edited 08-19-99).]

YOU WIN THE LAST KIASOR!!!

YOUR NEXT QUESTION IS:

IF A CHICKEN AND A HALF, LAYS AN EGG AND A HALF IN A DAY AND A HALF, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE A GRASSHOPPER TO KICK THE SEEDS OUT OF A DILL PICKLE?

Half again faster than it takes for one http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif At least kicking the seeds out of pickles is a worthy occupation that one could devote ones life to.

true but,
how much wood would a woodchuck chuck
if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

what chuck??????????

chuck norris
chuckie cheese
chucko the clown
up chuck
drill chuck
chuck conners
chuck o rama

[This message has been edited by sippi (edited 08-20-99).]

http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif

http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif

Chuck the wood chucking woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could actually chuck wood

But we digress...

Adults need to understand, and our children should be taught, that private choices are not private; they all have public consequences.

There is a popular notion that doing our own thing or doing what feels good is our own business and affects no one but us. The deadly scourges that are epidemic all over the world have flourished in the context of
this popular notion. But this is simply not true.

All immoral behavior directly impacts society. Even innocent people are
affected. Drug and alcohol abuse have public consequences, as do illegitimacy, pornography, and obscenity. The public cost in human life and tax dollars for these so-called private choices is enormous: poverty,
crime, a less-educated work force, and mounting demands for government spending to fix problems that cannot be fixed by money. It simply is not true that our private conduct is our own business. Our society is the sum total of what millions of individuals do in their private lives. That sum total of private behavior has worldwide public consequences of enormous magnitude. There are no completely private choices.

By the way, it is spelled lewd.

Character,

As always, brilliantly said.

Let me see if I get this right C.C.


You think what I do on my own is the entire world's business? Just for an instance, if I choose to have drinks in the nude with several friends in my hot tub on saturday night and it leads to... that is your business as well as the rest of the world? Not on your life. So far Countess, has my hot tubing in the nude with friends affected you? your children? anybody you know? So why in the hell is it yours or anybody elses business! Does it bother you because it is not something you are interested in doing, therefore I shouldn't do it?

If an act is against the law and I am found guilty by a jury of my peers, then Countess it is yours and the worlds business. If it is not against the law, it is my business.

C.C., you are lumping everybody that enjoys a drink, smokes, has sex out of wedlock, reads playboy or playgirl, has sex in positions other than missionary, swears, indulges in spouse swaping, non hetrosexual sex, and does not attend church, as a person that is going to be a burden on society. That is a high and mighty attitude. You must get nose bleeds being so high up there.

Just out of curiosity, CC, do you believe that everyone has the same moral standards? Asian and North American morals are certainly different, so which are right? To many people seem to feel that morals are instinctive...not true! Moral behavior is a learned behavior and constantly changing. For myself, I will live by the moral standards that I feel most comfortable with and, as long it does not break the law, it is nobodys business. This crap about individual behavior affecting everyone in the world can only lead the the prototypical Orwellian world.

Druid,

I’ve got a question for you. You believe that moral behavior is learned and constantly changing.

But what about the sermons Jesus taught during his ministry? Would you qualify the Sermon on the Mount as merely a learned behavior? Is it something that is subject to change, and therefore possibly no longer valid? After all, it was given almost 2,000 years ago.

I suggest you reread my post again, thoughtfully and carefully. It is the attitudes that you speak of so casually that elected our current President twice, have kept him in office despite violating his oath of office and breaking numerous laws of the land and laws of basic moral conduct. I didn't say it was my business what you do on your own time. I said it affects society as a whole because of the breakdown of a moral society. If you think we are not sliding downhill fast in this respect and will not suffer for it, you need a reality check.

C.C.

Drop the condescending attitude and reread both the Druids and my post. We both
stressed “within the law” and “On our own time”. I am not disagreeing with you on the
Presidents conduct. He accepted sexual favors on “our” or company time, which is
stealing time from the American people and he committed perjury. You are saying that it was only those with what you feel is not the correct moral values voted for the President? Now that’s Stepford logic

C.C. Do you seriously think with the population explosion in progress, the rapid rate of technological advances, information available on the internet and through the media, morals have changed drastically over the years or are we just more aware that there are more people with lifestyles that are different than yours. It is you that needs the reality check, your living in Jode’s world!



[This message has been edited by KAN (edited 08-24-99).]

I'm beginning to think Jode and C.C. are one and the same.
Kudos to both Kan and The Druid. Obviously my thinking is directly in line with theirs. It is extremely difficult for me to seriously believe what Jode and C.C. states because it is so naive and otherwise close-minded. Tunnel vision, narrow minded, naive, condescending, ridiculous, comical, absurd, preposturous, etc. etc. Get the idea Jode and C.C. That is what I consider your rhetoric. I'll be damned if anyone is going to dictate to me what is decent and moral.

Those were not actually my words. Those were the words of a very learned man whose credentials are impeccable. Out of respect for him, because I expected this reaction, I didn't give his name. Believe and act as you wish. It doesn't change my thinking in the slightest. Party on.

Character Counts.

That is called plagiarism. It is against the law. It is not morally acceptable, especially when you want others to believe you have impeccable morals.

Excellent point Kan. Your answer is a cop-out C.C.

Plagiarism? I think not. I did not say they were my words. I readily admitted they were not my words. I could have very easily taken credit, but I did not.
Now, what fault can you find?

Readily admitted the next day.

And your point is...? I assume you have a life outside this forum, as I do.

I believe that the anger some seem to have towards Character is due to the fact that she has spoken words of truth. Sometimes it may be difficult to expand our horizons to the truth if we are, say, perhaps not living as we know we should be. It is easy, perhaps, to put on blinders to the truth.

robbi,

Character and I, one and the same? Now, now, stop trying to flatter me. http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif

I believe that all of us, myself included, can learn a lot from Character’s insights.

Jode, "learn alot from Character's insights"?
I'm afraid not. It's the same as someone saying to me: trust me, mine is the only true God. CC has spoken the word of truth? Who says - you? "Right I say sheepishly while not so gingerly slapping my forehead. How could I have been so blind to the truth".

Hey Jode, why don't you just come right out and tell us were all going to hell?

I guess I'll see you there.

Dalmer

She already has!!

Jode, why do you think that the sermons of Jesus are described as teachings? Was the sermon on the mount meant to change the moral behavior preceding it? Answer honestly and you will answer your own question. As for changes still occuring or the possibility of them changing, I would certainly hope so. To remain static is to die slowly.

"Our society is the sum total of what millions of individuals do in their private lives. That sum total of private behavior has worldwide public consequences of enormous magnitude. There are no completely private choices." I understand the truthfulness of that statement and I agree with that statement. It is your right to disagree. Have a lovely day.

CC, I'm sure the last sentence of your post was in no way meant to be condescending.

The Cuntess condesending?

Never

I apologize, once again. I keep forgetting some of you just don't recognize (or practice) good manners. Have a day!

Druid,

You are correct, the Sermon on the Mount was not intended to affect the behavior of those whose lives preceded it, but rather those whose lives proceeded it.

The truths taught in the Sermon on the Mount are eternal, and will never change.
Whether some find its teachings to be quaint or outdated does not change the fact that we are responsible for living by them.

Dalmer,

I never made a judgment as to where you might someday end up. This decision simply isn’t up to me, obviously.

As to seeing you there, I’m sorry, but this weekend I’m participating in some constructive activities, and have no time to meet with you in Mmmmmm, NV. http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Jode Christensen (edited 08-25-99).]

So, Jode, you are admitting that morals can and do change when some ideal that is preceived as better comes along. Now, do you think that there can be no further improvement in the best of morals or beliefs?

Mind if I jump in here? The moral code "we" speak of was set in motion by the teachings of the Savior. He NEVER changes. Gods laws are eternal in nature. Men change the moral code to suit their convenience and get nasty with those who try to do their best to keep the commandments of God. You CANNOT improve the morals and beliefs of God and you change them at your own peril.

It seems that many of this forum's members are under the impression that morals are highly relative in nature; that is, what is morally right to one may be wrong for another.

This is not so much inspired thinking as it is a recipe for mass confusion.

There is a reason that the scriptures have been around for thousands of years and continue to be popular. They represent possibly the only constant in our ever-changing society. If we try to define morality on an individual basis, we are destined to fail. This is why the scriptures are so important. They define what morality is. They give us a sense of direction. They are an instruction manual for our lives.

Good thoughts, Jode. This life is a test, but it's "open book".

so now you force your book on me as well?

thank god for religious freedom

Jode,
Once slavery was morally acceptable.

Was slavery God's idea or man's? Men think imperfectly, judge imperfectly, act imperfectly.

Whatcha, if you have religious freedom how can I force anything on you? How can making an observation be construed as "force?"

Once, not too long ago, bigotry was not only accepted morally, it was taught in the mormon sunday schools

This southern girl would like to hear a comment to wha cha's post y'all.

you mean when pres. kimball had a vision and blacks were 'allowed' to hold the priesthood?
but not the part about how they would lose their tax exempt status?

From the time I was 10 years old I remember being taught that someday in Lord's time blacks would be given the priesthood. I always expected it. I know that the Prophets of the church are men of the highest integrity, having great love and concern for the members of the church and unsurpassed knowledge of the Savior and God. I deeply resent, Casper, that you would imply the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles would do anything dishonorable. They are honorable to their core.
The First Presidency and the 12 make a matter of fasting and prayer any question that concerns them. They must be unanimous
on the answer they receive. The revelation was that the time had come for this great blessing to come to pass. The black members of the church didn't have a problem with it as they had great faith and an understanding of modern day revelation. Bigotry was never taught in any church class, seminary or college class I ever attended.

Now what simple minded, uninformed, sarcastic comments would you like to throw out now? You see things not as they are, but as YOU are. I have reached the stage where I have nothing more to say here. As far as I'm concerned, the scriptures say it all and my time is better spent elsewhere.

Oh god...I think I hear violins. Somebody pass me the tissue.

I quote "you see things not as they are, but as YOU are". Gee, that was profound. I ask you, is there any other way to see things?

Dalmer, robbi, sippi, Druid, et al:

Your personal attacks against Character are unconscionable. Ironically, for all your talk of “open mindedness,” you of all people seem to have the most difficulty in confronting ideas that challenge your conventional wisdom.

Why might that be? When members of the caliber of Character respond to posts they find objectionable, they calmly explain the merits of their own position. They don’t attempt to personally assault those who may disagree with them.

You three, and some others, need to take a good look in the mirror and reevaluate why you are so hostile to ideas espoused by Character.

As for me, I would certainly not blame Character if she never participated in this forum again after the way she has been treated. She has so much to offer this forum, if only you would listen. Like swine, you have trampled the thoughts she has shared with us under your hoofs. Shame on you! http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/frown.gif

Jode, thanks for defending me, but believe me, I don't get rattled by the caliber of comments that have been leveled at me. I am just too busy to continue casting "pearls before swine".

Keep up the good fight! I'll check in from time to time.

Jode, let me assure you that I am neither swine or a contemptible person. If Character wants to pick up her/his toys, go home and not play anymore, that is CC's choice and decision. It is commendable that you are running some defensive backup, but as I have said before; if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. We are all here for an exchange of ideas, which in this genre consists of words. I don't see myself in any way being disrespectful to anyone's interpretation of what is right or wrong. That belongs to them, to each of us, and we all own that. There were no personal assaults on CC by me - nor do I feel that I have been personally assaulted by others. Some don't agree with me. Well fine. I accept that and don't try to cram down anyone's throat preaching that what I say is gospel. I am merely responding to questions or statements made by members of this forum and giving them my views of how I see things. I feel like a broken record because I have constantly stated that whatever I say is done with dignity and respect. I give it and I expect it in return.

"casting pearls before swine". You're a class act CC.

For those of you not familiar with "The Language of Jode", I'm going to give you a quick translation of what Jode and Character are trying to say.

"You don't believe what I do. You are swine. You don't belong to my religion. You are swine. You are arguing with me. You are swine."

Here's the deal Jode. If you want to argue logic, give it your best shot. If you want to preach your personal beliefs in every post, you're gonna get hammered. If you can't argue a point without dragging your theological psychobabble into it, then you might as well shut up.

Gee Jode and CC, I am sure glad that you both are too high class, morally and intelectially superior to resort to name calling....swine? If disagreeing with you two and asking questions, refuting your answers makes anyone swine then oink oink.

You both claim to live by the bible and its higher truth; why then are there so many version of the bible? Does this mean that any non-christian cannot possibly live by Gods guidance? If there is only one God and this God created everything, then how dare YOU condemn this creation.

Jode, which three of the four names you mention need to look in the mirror? You are so rattled you can't count. Dalmer has given you some good advice in his last post.

Example of robbi's "dignity and respect"...
I'm beginning to think Jode and C.C. are one and the same.
Kudos to both Kan and The Druid. Obviously my thinking is directly in line with theirs. It is extremely difficult for me to seriously believe what Jode and C.C. states because it is so naive and otherwise close-minded. Tunnel vision, narrow minded, naive, condescending, ridiculous, comical, absurd, preposturous, etc. etc. Get the idea Jode and C.C. That is what I consider your rhetoric. I'll be damned if anyone is going to dictate to me what is decent and moral.

"my time is better spent elsewhere." That sure didn't last long!

CC: I don't think I've ever attacked you because I think you have good intentions and a lot of knowlege, it's just that you probably don't have a lot of experience sharing the gospel with others. The key word is sharing(and sharing when it's invited). The important part of sharing ones beliefs is finding out what others believe also and building upon common beliefs. It's very hard to get someone to agree with you when you say this is the truth and there is no other. The majority here have beliefs that are very similiar to our own. Jesus is the Christ and through following his teachings and example we can better our lives here and in the hereafter. Of course everyone believes a little differently what that example is but the basics are the same. What are the two greatest commandments? If we follow those and continue to increase knowledge and good works and we will all end up in the same spot.
If it bothers you when people make digs at your personal beliefs maybe you need to learn to not feel that you have to defend your beliefs. Why should one have to defend the truth? If Casper says something negative and implies that the church changed policy becuase of tax status then you need to have clear in your mind what the truth is and be happy for that truth. If Casper was interested in knowing you could point out that it wasn't even close to an issue at the time. History rewrites itself to ones own convenience. Another question could be if black people were allowed to hold the preisthood in the Old Testament. No. Only the Children of Isreal held the preisthood. Each tribe had different duties and held different levels of the priesthood in accordance with their responsabilities. No descendant of Ham was allowed to hold the priesthood until recently.
Jode: Yes I am rude and practice bad manners when it comes to you but you make it so easy. You have to admit that I do give you credit when credit is due(remember that one time?)


[This message has been edited by Ace (edited 08-26-99).]

To the rest of you: I defy any of you to show me where I have tried to "preach" my religion, tell you how to behave, etc. In general terms I spoke of morality or lack of it and you took offense. If any of you had opened the scriptures and had a working knowledge of the words there, you might have recognized the words of the Savior in concluding the Sermon on the Mount. He said, and I quote from Matt. 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you." Who do you think he had in mind? Dalmer:"Who does he think he is? You don't believe what I do. You are swine. You don't belong to my religion. You are swine. You are arguing with me. You are swine."

The defense rests.

C.C. If you are compelled to bare your testimony and share with us the Lords word, open a thread in the Religion forum.

You openly talk of your religion which gives you free agency to choose for yourself. So in believing this, why do you try and take the free agency away from everybody that does not think and act like you?

Next time you start to spout off about anothers morals, remember that as far as we know, you're the only one in this forum that has broken the law. (plagiarism: 8-24-99, 4:44 p.m.)

Prosecution rests.

Ace: I think you're overreacting to what I have said in this forum. I didn't even mention the tax exempt status, but I did take offense at the notion the Prophet would act dishonorably. He acts under the direction of the Savior and not for some politically correct reason.

I would like you to point out where I am "sharing the gospel uninvited" here. Maybe I missed it. What you did was preach the gospel to me. I think Casper is an inactive member or exmember who has lost his faith so I have sense enough to not go into biblical detail. I don't have the time or the inclination. My three sons served missions and two were assistants to the mission president and the other a zone leader. I think I know a little about when and where to discuss the gospel. I appreciate your concern and input, however.

KAN, where did I bare my testimony? Did you score low in reading comprehension?

CC,
I guess you're right. My dad knows how to fly, and thanks to the fact that all knowledge aquired by one family member is automatically passed on to the rest of the family, I think I may go flying this afternoon. I guess this also makes you a whiz in sharing the gospel.
Since your sons seem to have been so important (thanks for including the fact that they were AP's & ZL's, that totally changed my point of view. Can I come worship them sometime?) in their missions they could probably tell you that one of the greatest hinderances in sharing our message is members who share offensively and with bad examples.
I'm not saying that you have done this but if someone wants your opinion from a religious standpoint they will probably ask for it in the religion forum.

Ace, Kan, Druid, Dalmer, Casper and anyone I might have inadvertently missed: Thanks. It is truly a pleasure to be a part of discussion forums. I am in good company. I feel that I learn something new every day and today is no exception. For that I thank you all. I don't think any of us would consciously or overtly be offensive to anyone or their way of thinking or reasoning. I think you guys have probably said it all today (in my mind you have). Yeah, it is time to leave the rest of this to the religious forum for those who wish to continue.

What makes these threads so tiresome are the conclusions each of you JUMP to because you've misunderstand the ideas that are trying to be conveyed. The constant sarcasm directed at sincere posts makes posting here decidedly unworthwhile.
ACE:
I was trying to convey that the gospel and it's principles were taught in my home. You couldn't possibly know I was a single parent for most of my boys growing up years, married to a nonmember who had values similar to the masses. He is now married to wife #3 thinking, I guess, his problems lie with the mates, not with him. I was trying to convey that I wasn't a beginner and I was rather proud of the fact that I at least did something right along with all the mistakes I made in my life.

It's funny that you feel someone has to ask for my religious point of view before I am authorized to give it, but you have carte blanc when it comes to giving yours. Your ridiculous comparision to flying &teaching the gospel reinforces to me that a
civil, sensible conversation isn't possible when left to the interpretation of individuals who insist on extreme responses that serve no purpose and do nothing to encourage public discourse. Ideas cannot be discussed because the personal attacks seem to be the sport of choice.

[This message has been edited by Character Counts (edited 08-26-99).]

The point is, your religious view point is welcome in the religious forum. Even I can read and comprehend that this is the Latest News thread and as you pointed out I flunked reading comprehension

You had better hop right over to the Photography thread and straighten them out. They are talking about (gasp) poor drivers.

This thread started out as "Lude" school teachers (and that was the worst spell of lewdness we've had here in quite awhile.) I don't think I was the one who started bringing religion into it.

Character,

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. People hate being preached at. If you would use logic and common sense to argue your points rather than religion, you would get a lot farther. There's nothing more annoying than making a statement and having somebody tell you "that's wrong because god says it's wrong". I know that's not what you said, but it was implied in your tone. Religion is an extremely personal thing to most people. That is the reason you and Jode get such a backlash of comments whenever you post a response citing religion. It's an automatic response. Nobody likes being told what to believe.

As far as your "personal attacks" are concerned, how can a person attack you personally if they know nothing about you? I don't know your age, sex, location, or race. How can anything I say be taken as a personal attack?

You know what else people find really annoying? It's when a member of the forum claims you made a statement that people find offensive and then follow it up with "I know that's not what you said, but it was implied in your tone." Do you know how many of you have accused me of making statements I didn't make. It was your take on what you "think" I was saying. I guess you all have crystal balls since you don't know me personally. Words mean things and I try to choose mine carefully, but with this crowd it's a wasted effort.

Fred is about the only one who responds with any well thought out, intelligent posts. Jode is a good person who tries to do good things, but sets herself up for ridicule too often.

I worked in a high school in California and we had two unmarried teachers who became pregnant. Congratulations and baby showers abound throughout the campus. Now, what they did in their private lives had no public consequences...except maybe for the example they set for hundreds of teens. What kind of message is that? I guess it's the kind of message you want your children and grandchildren to experience so they too can risk AIDS, STD, abortion, etc.

Your views are very scary to me and I don't mind telling you. Mine are not adding to the destruction of this great country.

My first post in this forum was about personal choices having public consequences and affecting society as a whole. KAN was the first to totally distort what was actually said. He went off on some toot claiming it was not "my business" what he did. Then he makes the giant leap into do-gooders destroying the Constitution. The liberals are destroying the Constitution and the do-gooders are trying to preserve it by preserving the MORALS and INTEGRITY originally set forth in the Constitution.

As the icing on his brilliant dissertation he claims that homosexual sex, sex out of wedlock, spouse swaping has no consequences. I guess the AIDS epidemic, STD's, abortion, broken homes and shattered lives are inconsequential. Drinking also ruins lives in case none of you have heard of alcholism, drunk drivers, loss of families,jobs, dignity, lives. Need I go on. Funny, all these consequences are obvious to the narrow minded do gooders and we resent having our tax dollars (millions) going to clean up the messess of people who can't control their urges and think (talk about tunnel vision) that what they do in private is their own business and doesn't hurt anyone.

Talk about twisting words, Character. Is what you did to Kan's words any different to what you claim has been done to your own. You continually claim that this forum is a waste of time and that your words fall on deaf ears. Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[This message has been edited by moderator (edited 08-27-99).]

I leave it to the other forum members. Did I twist any of KAN's words? I took them from his post with great care. Sorry Dalmer if you can't handle it. Grow up.

Another distortion of the truth by Dalmer:
"You continually claim that this forum is a waste of time and that your words fall on deaf ears." ONE TIME I said my time would be better spent elsewhere and I NEVER said my words fall on "deaf ears."

Do you know the meaning of the word paraphrase?

C.C.
Just to clarify how you twisted my words. My first post was about our 1st ammendment rights to privacy, and how our personal choices are "private" according to our constitution. That means private, your own business.

You responded with a plagiarism calling those who value freedom of choice "deadly scourges that are an epidemic all over the world"

Your plagiarism then goes on to state "All immoral behavior directly impacts society"

Your Plagiarism then totally obliterates the 1st ammendment by saying "Our society is the sum total of what millions of individuals do in their private lives". "There are
no completely private choices".

I dare you find where I mentioned The liberals are destroying the Constitution and the do-gooders are trying to preserve it by preserving the MORALS and INTEGRITY originally set forth in the Constitution. There are no morals and integrity involved in the 1st ammendment. This thread is about the right to privacy and that is what I am saying needs to be preserved. You twisted it into a morals issue. Probably due to your low reading comprehension?

p.s. cc. Your right about fred being the only poster with intelligent and well thought out posts. I've been keeping up on the crock pot chili thread. Now there's some real deep down thinking.

Moderator,

The word "***" is contained in both the bible and the dictionary.

*** (às) noun
plural ass·es (às1îz)

1.
a. The buttocks. b. The anus.

See?…Please explain why you chose to edit my last post.

Dalmer,

Your post was edited for the use of vulgarity. The rules for these forums were created so that an 8 year old child could come and read all that is written here.

The rules are simple and everyone that is able to post has agreed to follow them.

The rules state: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the InfoWest Discussion Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law."

"Although InfoWest does not and cannot review the messages posted and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at InfoWest reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless InfoWest and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s)."

I hope this helps answer your question.

The Moderator


[This message has been edited by moderator (edited 08-30-99).]

Dalmer,

I’d guess it was edited because it contained vulgarity. I’ve found that people who use vulgarity often have limited vocabularies.

Apparently, some have trouble expressing themselves without using crummy words. Don’t let the example of certain forum members, who shall remain nameless, rub off on you.

[This message has been edited by Jode Christensen (edited 08-27-99).]

Dalmer, I sure would have liked to see your post in its entirety. I suppose I'll just sit on my arse/butt/buttocks/rump - sipping a cold one while playing with a spotted deck of cards and wait. Never know what's going to happen next in this forum. What you say??

I'll agree with you Robbi. It's funny what the moderator chooses to edit. I've seen worse in these forums many times. Hell, I've written worse. Oh well, I guess I'll join you in that cold one. Bottoms up.

By the way Jode, I've got your limited vocabulary right here.

Moderator, I agreee with dalmer, I read the original post and found nothing wrong with it. If Jode can discuss cockles, dalmer should be able to discuss asses

Careful!!! This talk may excite someone http://forums.southernutahonline.com/ubb-new/smile.gif

I'm going to take a cold shower.

Looks like this forum is getting out of hand. Let's clean it up a little. Afrer all, who is to set the example here??? LOL!!!

A BLAST,
Until you've visited this forum enough to lose the Junior tag and become a member, you don't have the right to complain about the discussions.

Cuntess,
I can't believe you're still waisting your time on us trogladites

Dalmer,
I agree with you on the *** discourse but I'm afraid it'll fall on deaf ears, our lovely moderator takes his job much to seriously at times and sleeps the day away at others. I've been edited for telling someone they were a moron and seen others threaten physical violence and go un punished. In fact, just the other day I tried to set up a cat cooking discussion topic and it was pulled before anyone could post in it.


Oh well, the moderator has his own moral battles to fight

Whatcha or Whoya been with, what ever your name is. I came here not only to read the posts that other people leave, but to post my feelings as well. If that is agaist the law, then where did our rights go? For all the Junior Members (no right people) and Members (people with all rights), I am sorry for hitting a nerve!!!

A Blast
I'd like to think of myself more than a troglodyte. (Notice the spelling) I think you should stop while you're ahead Whatcha!!! Peace Out America!!!

[This message has been edited by A BLAST (edited 08-30-99).]

hey Wigger boy,
Thanks for the lesson on spelling. Why don't you post your Email address and the next time I don't know how to spell TroglaWhoGivesADamnHowISpellItYouKnewWhatItWasAnywaydyke I'll email you and ask you. Now that you've posted and EDITED your post, why don't you edit it again and spell Peace correctly?

[This message has been edited by moderator (edited 08-31-99).]