New demands for more GA security

"Peter Duniho" writes:

Ultimately, no word is worth getting upset about.

If a 230lb hoodlum with a gun confronts you at night on a deserted
street, and says "give me your money or I'll kill you" most of us
would get upset. OK, it's more than a single word. The point is that
words are a form of communication; communication, an expression of
current or future intent and action that may have direct consequences
to us.

Of course words can upset. They can also cause joy, and everything
else. The wonder is that we pretend they cannot cause a change in
emotion.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

Ultimately, no word is worth getting upset about. After all, they are
just words. They are only effective as an insult when you let them offend
you. And yet, we do accept that there are insulting words in this world.

Odd, why that should be, don't you think?

Pete


Well said Pete. I've usually found that those who get upset over insulting
words want to get upset. The use of the word just gives them an excuse.

Gig

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
If a 230lb hoodlum with a gun confronts you at night on a deserted
street, and says "give me your money or I'll kill you" most of us
would get upset.

Try to stay on topic. We are obviously talking about insults here, not
concrete threats to one's life.

I realize this is Usenet, but I will continue my foolish behavior of
assuming that people reading what I write will consider the context and
comprehend how that context limits or otherwise defines what I write.

Pete

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm

Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

Where did I say he was present?

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm

Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

I never said he was present. That book, by the way, is fairly typical of the
insane drivel printed by conspiracy theorists. It has about as much
credibility as the moon landing hoax theorists. It claims to know the exact
conversation of numerous participants of a supposedly secret conspiracy.
Yeah, right. Where are the author's sources? He offers nothing credible. The
author admits that the history of the massacre is distorted by embittered
apostates, but then he uses those apostates for his primary sources and
admits that he is one such himself. Note also that it completely omits the
numerous atrocities committed by the so-called emigrants. It contradicts
itself constantly. The page you point to, for example, says the emigrants
were unprepared for an attack, but then notes how Lee passed through the
fortifications. I have no idea where the book gets the idea that the Indians
were promised anything by the settlers -- it is made up of whole cloth. The
book also claims that the settlers had three years' food on hand --
completely untrue. The settlers were in fact starving and many died. It
talks about a non-existent 'Mormon Reformation,' offering no evidence
whatsoever that there ever was such a thing and without addressing just what
doctrines or practices might have been 'reformed.' The author asks us to
imagine the 'death march' up the valley. We have to imagine it, because the
massacre actually took place only a short distance from camp. This author
also likes to use bold face when he interjects his own wording to make it
seem that people are saying something other than what they did.

I would agree with the author that John D. Lee did not receive a fair trial
and that the some of the actual perpetrators of the massacre got away with
it. In fact, I think some of the descendents of those people, who
generations ago left the Church but who are still living in the area, are
equally dangerous. I would also agree with the author that the Indians who
launched the attack probably encountered considerably more resistance than
they expected. Nevertheless, I am considerably less sympathetic toward Lee
than the author is. Maybe Lee was not as culpable as prosecutors claimed,
but he did not do all he could to prevent the massacre, either.

The author claims a climate of lawlessness in the territory, despite the
basic articles of faith, Church scriptures, and endless speeches by Church
leaders on the importance of "honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." He
claims that Church members were taught to murder enemies of the Church,
calling it the doctrine of blood atonement. In fact, the doctrine of blood
atonement is nothing more nor less than the Church's stated support of
capital punishment for murderers. The truth is, any Church member who
engages in any act of civil disobedience to the law of the land is subject
to Church discipline, and this has been the case from the very beginning.
This is not the sort of religious atmosphere that would encourage wholesale
murder. I cannot imagine what desperate straits the settlers must have been
in that they would finally perpetrate such an act. Many other wagon trains
of emigrants passed through the territory during that same period, one even
including the former Governor Boggs of Missouri who had ordered the
extermination of all Church members in his state. All of these groups went
through without harassment and even considerable assistance from the Church.

The author claims that during this time the Church was preparing for war
with Johnston's army. He neglects to mention that these 'preparations' were
for an exodus to Mexico, not to fight a battle. He also neglects to mention
that this army met absolutely no resistance other than to find that the
'Mormons' were prepared to leave immediately and leave no trace of their
presence behind them, as well as no way for the army to re-supply itself. He
probably knows, but does not mention, that Church agents within the army
knew that the army commanders planned to loose their men on the helpless
inhabitants of Utah to plunder, rape, and pillage. He fails to mention that
despite this the meeting between President Brigham Young and the army
commander was cordial and that the army was permitted to camp on the
outskirts of Salt Lake City without any harassment, that the Church helped
the army replenish its supplies and that the new territorial governor was
installed without any resistance. He also fails to mention that the army
commander found that the story of a 'Mormon' rebellion that was concocted by
a group of professional gamblers and con-men, including a Federal judge who
was running the largest brothel in Salt Lake City, was completely unfounded.
(This judge was noted for allowing prostitutes to sit on the bench with him
while he lectured defendants about the evils of polygamy. This idiot's
memoirs are a favorite source material for people writing anti-Mormon
literature.)

This web site is word for word the same material found on other web sites
claiming to help 'Mormons' free themselves from a cult. They constantly use
offensive and provocative terminology to describe the Church, including
'cult,' 'the Mormon god,' 'non-Christian,' etc. In fact, these sites are
generally run by the real neo-cons -- conservative religious fundamentalists
who have little tolerance for anything that disagrees with their distorted
world view. They follow the Jerry Falwells and Pat Buchanans. They don't
like 'Mormons,' who tend to be better educated and more liberal politically
than they are, particularly on such issues as abortion and gay rights, nor
were they particularly happy that some 'Mormon' Senators voted against their
own political leadership in order to acquit President Clinton when he was
impeached (but then, a lot of 'Mormons' weren't particularly happy about
that, either). The people who write these tracts are the same sort of people
who support Al Qaeda or the Ku Klux Klan. They print the same material over
and over, using each other as sources, but never anything that can actually
be authenticated. These are the same people who write tracts like "The
Godmakers." That people could actually write stuff like this and expect it
to be credible makes my hair stand on end. I have had real neo-cons tell me
to my face that I have horns and a tail. I have seen them vandalize our
chapels, including smashing windows, stealing audio-visual equipment, and
smearing excrement on the walls. I have had them threaten me with firearms,
vandalize my car, and threaten to kill me. Yet you have the unmitigated gall
to ask me to accept their version of the Mountain Meadows massacre. Pardon
me, but I think I will pass on this wonderful opportunity.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:47 -0600, Montblack wrote:

BTW, I've got myself a skinny little kid inside me. He's all the time
yelling I'm hungry, eat something, now!! Talk about demonic possession.

Mmm, ice cream, newsgroups, and up past bedtime (...see what I mean)

Hey, don't drag me into this!

Demonick

I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.

The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
newsoSdncCLI8F7n6rfRVn-
Now that I think on it, I want reparations for the nine homes my ancestors
were burned out of or were seized by mobs protected by the governments of
New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I want reparations for those
tarred
and feathered in those places, for those who were whipped and beaten, and
for those who were killed at Hahn's Mill in Missouri. I want reparations
for
those who died while fleeing, virtually naked, across the plains of
Nebraska
and Iowa in the dead of winter while pursued by forces of the Federal
government and militia from Illinois and Missouri -- even while others
were
being forced to fight for those same governments in their illegal war with
Mexico.

I want compensation for Fort Bridger and other supply centers burned to
the
ground by the Federal government or which were destroyed when President
Johnston sent an army against my ancestors to quell a rebellion that did
not
exist. I want reparations for homes and property seized by the Federal
government in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, including thousands of head of
cattle. I want reparations for those ancestors who were disenfranchised on
account of their religious beliefs, forbidden to vote because of what they
believed, not what they practiced. I want reparations for the gold stolen
by
illegal squatters after my ancestors discovered it at Sutter's Mill and
other places in California, and reparations for the property that was
stolen
by prospectors who just helped themselves to whatever they wanted on their
way to those gold fields, for the women they raped, and for the homes,
wagons, horses, and other property they destroyed.

I want reparations for the modern buildings that are still being
vandalized
and destroyed by thugs, for the cost of defending our rights to build
churches and temples being obstructed by corrupt government officials, and
for the physical threats, violence, and harassment we put up with today. I
want reparations for the hate and lies published in vicious tracts and
pamphlets sold in so-called Christian bookstores to this very day.

On the other hand, I really don't want reparations for any of this stuff.
It
is tainted money and I would not soil my hands with it. Maybe I get a
little
sarcastic and sensitive when people start criticizing religious belief or
even, as some here have suggested, that maybe a little genocide will solve
all the world's problems. Maybe I have my reasons.

"mike regish" wrote in message
...
I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.

The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.

Don't blame the books. Blame the people abusing the books.

Actually, the books are not being abused at all.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"mike regish" wrote in message
...
I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.

The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.

Don't blame the books. Blame the people abusing the books.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news
Actually, the books are not being abused at all.

Actually, yes they are.