I hate Cougarboard

[cowboy]

Apparently I am a King of some sorts! As my first executive order, I invoke the doctrine of droit de seigneur. Nobody is safe from my reach.

I have always suspected that, deep down, you were envious of snipe. Suspicion confirmed.

[byu71]

I left the Church shortly after that and couldn't give two shits about Bronco or BYU.

The church might miss you, but I think that is way to personal for me to comment on.

On your not giving two shits about Bronco. I don't even give one shit whether you give two shits or not.

Also, I care so much about your $10,000 against Prop. 8 that I initially thought you were giving it to the "yes" prop. 8 folks. I thought we were commrades in the fight. I gave $100,000 to the yes folks.

[wuapinmon]

The church might miss you, but I think that is way to personal for me to comment on.

On your not giving two shits about Bronco. I don't even give one shit whether you give two shits or not.

Also, I care so much about your $10,000 against Prop. 8 that I initially thought you were giving it to the "yes" prop. 8 folks. I thought we were commrades in the fight. I gave $100,000 to the yes folks.

I gave $500,000, but who among the really faithful didn't?

[RobinFinderson]

We gave $10k to "No on 8"

Sweet! BTW, I have some really good investment opportunities to tell you about, that all go along with your 'No on 8' can-do spirit.

[byu71]

I gave $500,000, but who among the really faithful didn't?

I am not part of the "really faithful" and that is why I only gave $100,000. I gave it through the church because they seemed more effective than the Catholics or Evangelicals.

[Indy Coug]

I'm actually less of a dickhead, more of an asshole.

I'll agree with that.

[TripletDaddy]

I am not part of the "really faithful" and that is why I only gave $100,000. I gave it through the church because they seemed more effective than the Catholics or Evangelicals.

Did you really donate $100K...or did you and Alpine combine your 50K donations so that you could tell everyone you donated $100K?

[byu71]

Did you really donate $100K...or did you and Alpine combine your 50K donations so that you could tell everyone you donated $100K?

LOL, you are on to me.

[TripletDaddy]

I might want to throw half a shit at your front door for giving so much.

I have a friend who blew his brains out on the doorstep of a chapel in California over his sexuality and the resulting exclusion from the Church. I will be back once the Church softens its stance.

You speak very respectfully of your deceased friend.

[wuapinmon]

40% of your posts have vulgarity in them, and your first one talks about Bernard's gay lover but then you swing into defending homosexuals, sort of; I mean I can't really get a read on you; come on, lad, open up a little and let us know why you're as awesome as you think you are. Your brother's decent folk, you can't be a total jerk like you want us to believe........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .....if you say shit in your next post, you lose a testicle.

[byu71]

I might want to throw half a shit at your front door for giving so much.

I have a friend who blew his brains out on the doorstep of a chapel in California over his sexuality and the resulting exclusion from the Church. I will be back once the Church softens its stance.

I seriously feel bad for that. I wish he could have gotten some help. I have a relative who committed suicide. I wish he had gotten help for his problem.

I hope you don't take this wrong, but for me I would think the church is to absolute about being the only true church for me to decide to stay or go based on stands they take. I would feel more comfortable in say a unitarian church where a lot of beliefs are acceptable.

Again, I feel for your loss.

[doctorcoug]

you lose a testicle.

He's already a one nut, sorry.

[RobinFinderson]

I might want to throw half a shit at your front door for giving so much.

I have a friend who blew his brains out on the doorstep of a chapel in California over his sexuality and the resulting exclusion from the Church. I will be back once the Church softens its stance.

This person is the brother of a friend. Did you leave the church because of his experience? The biggest factor in my deciding to walk out the door was the church's treatment of gay people, both in and out of the church. Have you resigned your membership? If not, when/if you do, please let SLC know that its treatment of gay people is costing it the membership of people who might otherwise be willing to remain associated with the faith of their ancestors (assuming your pioneer stock).

[cougjunkie]

This person is the brother of a friend. Did you leave the church because of his experience? The biggest factor in my deciding to walk out the door was the church's treatment of gay people, both in and out of the church. Have you resigned your membership? If not, when/if you do, please let SLC know that its treatment of gay people is costing it the membership of people who might otherwise be willing to remain associated with the faith of their ancestors (assuming your pioneer stock).

Interesting that the churchs stance on Gays makes the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the church less true. Good call on those that left for that reason and that reason only, makes sense to me.

[Colly Wolly]

Ironically you flee here from Cougarboard, yet this sentence is a perfect example of what so many of us hoped to escape when we fled Cougarboard.

You see, in order to properly effectuate a "not even . . . let alone" statement in an attempt to emphasize the extreme character of a situation, you must associate the lesser achievement with the "even" portion of the expression and the greater achievement with the "let alone" portion.

By associating the greater achievement (in this case, Seminary President) with the "even" portion, you leave open the possibility that the lesser achievement (in this case, Seminary Council) is actually achievable, thus forcing you to explain the non-achievement thereof with a subsequent "let alone" idiom.

However, when you associate the lesser achievement with the "even" portion, then you succeed in pointing out that the lesser achievement was not achievable, and you allow reason to explain the rest. For if the lesser achievement was not attainable, it follows logically, then, that the greater achievement was that much less so. Not that you wouldn't complete the expression (though you certainly aren't forced to, as you are with the incorrect version), but that your "let alone" follow-up is merely a reinforcement of your initial statement and not a furtherance of the explanation.

I tip my hat to you, sir.