Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

Here's what I don't get about these anti folks. They claim to be “Christian” & witnesses for Christ, & yet for most of them, how much time do they spend here doing witnessing rather than bashing the LDS? They have this global forum here, & how do they spend MOST of their time? Bashing Mormons.

They claim the Bible to be their standard, their example, & yet do we find such practices in the Bible? For example, did the Apostles spend MOST of their time teaching the gospel, exhorting all to come unto Christ, or did they spend MOST of their time bashing the Pharisees, Sadducee's, etc.?

I can fully understand that there are those that have differences w/ us here, we are talking about religion after all. But if one were to go & look at the posting histories of most of the anti’s, one would find a large percentage of their posts bashing Mormons on threads like this & a smaller percentage, if any at all, actually proclaiming the gospel as they know it. In fact I've noticed threads dealing w/ Christianity bashing where these anti’s are nowhere to be found. But they are always found here.

Makes one wonder where their priorities are, what their real agenda is, what their lives are really about. Makes one wonder what their true motives are, Christ's work, or just Mormon bashing. Of course, they will claim that the bashing in abundance IS the Lord's work. I don't find any justification for that in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite.

I feel quite certain a rash of flame posts are soon to follow this post. I haven't posted lately due to an enormous work load. I just flat out don't have the time right now to answer the flames that always follow, especially considering the amount of time it takes to answer the flames. I would stay up late, as I do in other arenas, to have a reasoned discussion w/ these folks, however that has proven to be a fruitless venture here.It's often not about right or wrong, but about winning.

I appreciate the time you do have & spend here. It's a good work you do despite the vitriol returned. My best to you as well as the others here (anti’s included). Have a great weekend.

No flames here - not even bashing mormons (well except ol’ Joey boy - and some days, Brigham Young...)

But attacking the not so fine points of mormon doctrine - you bet!

In a broader sense, it is within the parameters of the topic. So we take issues with the specifics of DNA and how the church and apologists in general pursue and represent thier findings.

We take issue with the specifics of Joseph Smith’s character as it relates to his suitability to be considered a prophet of G_d by anybody, his truthfulness, his behaviour towards mormons, non-mormons, and mormons departing from the “high and Joseph” path.

We take issue with the conflict and contradictions of details among the nine known versions of Smith’s alleged two visions or visitations...because the veracity of those visions - or lack thereof - goes directly to the heart of whether DNA even matters.

In other words if it appears that there are too many discrepancies (as we insist there are), too many unexplainable and/or irresolvable contradictions, or variances in critical details from one known account to another - then we make it our business to call attention to those and when the vastness of them seems insurmountable, and the evidence against ANY of them being true seems to meet the standards of reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence if you prefer - then we look at the stories and cry “Foul”.

If the stories cannot be reconciled - then it is pointless to try to find empirical evidence to prop them up. It would be like my earlier example of trying to build a religion around the Lord of the Rings, and then seek DNA or archaeological artifacts to reconstruct a society that only ever existed in the mide of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

Or in this case, Joseph Smith and the known contemporary and older fictional sources he plagiarized.

See - I did all of that without personal attacks, name calling or other crud.

A.A.C.

Positively NON(E) of the information about the textual inconsistencies between different dated versions of the first bom and varying accounts of Joseph Smith’s second vision have been refuted.

But to WHICH version of the 'vision' are you going to refer? There are a BUNCH of them!!

FIRST VISION:VARIOUS VERSIONS OF VISIONS


Version Number When Published Brief Description	Age Year	Pillar of light	No. of Person- ages	Father Present	Son Present	Question: Join What Sect?	Remarks-References
1. Offical version, written 1838, first Published 1842 (There are minor differences between the various source references, Ensign Jan 1985, page 14)	14 1820	yes	2	yes Both spoke	yes	Join none	Lucy, Hyrum, Samuel, Sophronia join the Presbyterian Church - JSH, pages 49-50, 1981 edition; Times & Seasons, March, April 1842; Ensign Jan. 1985, page 14; Joseph Smith's First Vision by Milton V. Backamn, Bookcraft, 1971, 1980, Appendix C, page 160f
2. Dictated by Smith to F.G. Williams, Summer to Nov. 1832	14 or 15	yes	1	no	yes Saw Lord, He "spoke"	No question, told "None doeth good", sins forgiven	Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix A, page 155f
3. Written by Smith, his 1832 diary, in his own hand	15	yes	1	no	yes Saw the Lord Jesus Christ	No question, told sins forgiven, all do no good	Ensign, Dec. 1984, pages 24-26; ibid, Jan. 1985, page 11
4. Smith's diary of 1835, recorded by Warren Cowdery, Nov. 9, 1835, conversation of Smith with Joshua	About 14	yes	One, then another like unto first	?	? Second spoke, saw many angels	No questions, told sins forgiven, Jesus is Son	Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appen. B
5. Letter form Smith to John Wentworth, editor of Chicago Democrat	none	no	2	? They spoke	?	No Question	Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix D; Ensign, Jan 1985, page 16; Times & Seasons, Vol 3, pages 706-707, March 1, 1842
6. Early church leaders Brigham Young, G.A.Smith, John Taylor	15	no	1 Saw an angel, and asked the angel	no	no	Join none	See Journal of Discourses, 2:17; 18:239; 13:77, 78; 20:167; 12:333, 334.

web/firvista.html
5-11-95, Rev 8-8-98

John Farkas, Berean Christian Ministries, P.O. Box 1091, Webster, N.Y. 14580

Kinda like nailing jello to the wall - defining when a prophet is a prophet.

They cared SO much that the first cracter was an inverted black ribbon!

The problem is, they have already labled me an enemy. I wish they could see what a good conservative I am. I have great family values and a wonderful work ethic. I am not the ogre they believe me to be.

Say...

This sounds very much like a certain politician I've heard about.

But some folks thinks it's his RELIGION that makes folks not like him.

YOUR religion doesn't upset folks; do it??

Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread, there is no way to disprove the Book of Mormon with DNA...

So true!

But, then again; who needs DNA when the BIBLE has already condemned the Book of MORMON.

Bashing Mormons.

It's more fun!!

Just to see 'em spin and squirm when presented with FACTS about their history and FACTUAL things their old leaders have said...

Beats most any other form of entertainment around!

Where did the pitcher go??

Thank you so much for pinging me to your posts - they’ve been incredibly informative (and entertaining!). Please continue to ping me to any of your other posts.

Warm FRegards,

rscully

("You cannot change a mind with logic that was made up without the use thereof." --DelphiUser's Dad.)

A mindset that thinks experiences and feelings trump data, evidence and logic; is able to be contolled by those who claim to receive revelations that they do not get.

I haven't posted lately due to an enormous work load. I just flat out don't have the time right now to answer the flames that always follow, especially considering the amount of time it takes to answer the flames.

Would the definition of a "reasoned discussion" be for you to be allowed to present any and all mormon tenets without any rebuttal to such claims?

I direct you to my post HERE in which I note that your contribution to the thread consists of nothing but flaming non-mormons, and post #341 is a continuation of complaints, pointing fingers, whining and passing judgement because we have the temerity to challenge the lies of Joseph Smith.

Hey Delphi User,
In case you didn’t see my last post to YOU, thank you again for your REASONED and entertaining posts - keep ‘em coming! (I’m a fan!)

Warm FRegards,

rscully
p.s. I LOVE your tagline, like mine??? ;-)

Ah Reno…

Your post, like many similar ones is what drives me to many of these threads. I just love the combination or “woe is us poor victims” combined with the whole patronizing arrogance bit. Arrogant victimhood I guess I should call it.

Anyways, enough of that and on to the initial point of your post.

Why we do this and shouldn’t we be doing something else with our time.

There are a couple of issues to address.

First you assume we don’t witness for our faith. Just because you don’t see it here does not mean we don’t do it. Also you cannot make such a broad statement for I am sure you do not go and track down every post all of us so called “antis” make.

Secondly, what we do in defending our faith is required of us. I will not bore you with passages and admonitions you have heard dozens of times, but we as Christians are charged to root out false teachings and expose them. It is a sad commentary that, especially in America, we as Christians no longer do this as often as we should. The desire to get along and be “politically correct” has weakened the Christian Soldier, allowed ideas such as homosexuality and abortion to seep in, allowed the once intolerable to be tolerated. I also find your term "bashing" to be used by a host of others when such efforts are made by us today. I can see why one would feel that way, being shown a "truth" or practice that you had followed for many years was wrong would seem to be an "attack" I guess.

Anyways, that is the main issue isn’t it. See unlike the debates between we Christians and our Jewish friends or arguments between our faith and the Muslims, the defense against the teachings of Smith have a special significance, one that would be true of any “faith” that seeks to be a derivative of Christ’s true intent.

You see Muslims don’t come along and say “to see the glory in heaven, seek to fulfill the task Allah sets out for you, kill the infidel and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, then you shall receive your reward and 72 virgins”. Muslims don’t place crosses next to the star and crescent and do other things that would try and blend our faith into theirs. Muslims are Muslims, and have their own unique identity.

No so the LDS. While being a wholly separate movement from that of the true body of Christ, they “borrow” (polite term for steal) many elements from his teachings and the word of God to make something new. Indeed it has been somewhat humorous as I studied the faith how much effort was initially made to be “separate” from Historic Christianity and how an almost equally sizeable effort is now being made to “look Christian” in today’s world (I will grant the LDS understand marketing).

But you see under all the rhetoric and PR campaigns, the LDS is a totally different creature than the true church their “namesake” actually created. And this is why it is imperative to confront the LDS.

Let me give you an analog as a demonstration.

Let us say that Scientology actually referred to itself as “The Church of Scientology of Jesus Christ of Last Week”. Let us assume that their Bio Feedback centers carried the cross and the path of salvation consisted of “First one should achieve self realization and purging of toxins, come to believe in Christ as your savior, and upon death, with the approval of Xenu, your essence shall be whisked to the heavens in a DC8 Starship”. Furthermore they openly discuss an odd mix of new age ideas and Christian dogma and call them self both Christian and Scientologist who feel Dianetics is modern scripture for the new millennium and equal to the Bible.

A casual lurker, a pilgrim on his path to the truth may stop by a CSJCLW Treatment center, hear the ideas and dogma of the “Scitochristians”, see the cross and think “wow what a bunch of nut jobs the “Christ followers” are, and leaves. The next Church he comes across is Methodist, with a similar cross and bearing the words of “Jesus”. Well I bet he moves on. Nuts of another name, that is all that he thinks.

So yes we will fight for what is ours, and the true nature of Christ belongs to all those who have carried the tradition lo these past 2000 years in his name. And you will seek to divide us and talk down to us for those are the tools the evil one uses, and we will fight back in the true name of Christ. In the end the brotherhood of Christians, no matter our denominations, no matter our various methods and procedures, all emanate for a core simple truth, there is but one God, one Savior and one path, that belief in Christ and acceptance of his love and grace shall save us for eternity.

GZ: Your arguments would not be persuasive to these people at the National Geographic Society nor the many, many scientists pursuing these studies.

They are not intended to. That said, your arguments would not be persuasive to geneticists, especially the one about being a pure descendant of the father means you are only a descendant of one of his sons. (no you never are going to live that down, it's on FR, it'll be archived by Google by now...)

GZ: As I said in a previous post, your understanding of the types and variety of dna related research makes your example incredibly obtuse as each blood cell carries individual dna and mixing blood from different people is not what is occurring in these studies. Simple enough that I get it, but your example indicates you don’t.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I understand blood typing, but I learned long ago that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of an anti Mormon.

DU: All these studies assume a pure genetic sample to start with so their results are bogus, based on a faulty assumption which anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon would never make on accident.

GZ: Once again, the Lemba tribe has proven your statement wrong. They worked with the samples they had and followed the genetics to Israel. Similar group of people separated by the same length of time in conditions where there was more genetic mixing than indicated in the bom.

The Lemba tribe had a very strict rule about allowing males to marry into the group. Guess where they found the allele that tied them back to Israel... The Y Chromosome Which had been preserved, and then only in one of the tribes but it was enough and their oral tradition was accepted. Why is there oral tradition of the Lemba tribe enough for serious investigation, yet the Indians in Los Lunas's stories about the rock are not? (you seem to automatically accept any theory that seems to damage the Book of Mormon and oppose any that support it, it's not a very convincing position for you to take for anyone who watches you for even a short while.)

DU: There is lots of Jewish DNA in Europe. So once researchers have thrown out the very alleles they are looking for, they can't find them

GZ: Another flawed strawman DUh. You are assuming the science is so flawed that they cannot identify these? You need to get past the whole groups DU and realize technology and science is at a point where they have accurately categorized halogroup subtypes and sub sub types.

They can now, when was the data for the studies you are quoting collected? not within the last five years... (your comment is being filed in the appropriate receptacle, along with all the others.

GZ: Laman was the son of Lehi, the others that came later all came from the environs around Israel, therefore they would carry the same distinctive genes that would identify them from the region. Genetic mapping doesn’t trace individuals as you assume, but people groups from the same region

Ah, you finally perceive the point I have been beating you over the head with this whole thread. The Mulekites came over at the time of the tower of Babel, but we don't know their genetic makeup and there are several other groups mentioned and we don't know their genetic makeup either. Since the record was a spiritual one and the Nephites were not shy about marrying in anyone who would agree with them philosophically, there may be even more groups and there is the problem.

The Mulekites and the people of Zarahemla outnumbered the Nephites and the Lamanites. the Later groups could have come from Siberia, or Asia. There is no pure genetic trail back to Lehi that we can be sure of. This is why Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.
You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?

GZ: Apparently you cannot follow the sources of info that Lindsey cited that I followed up on to see if what he was claiming in his argument had basis to be correct. Fact was he was picking selective citations that were generic enough to obfuscate the issue rather than head on.

And you are not selective in your citations? Shame on you!

Sigh, as much as I hate to do this, what was it that confused you? Perhaps if you were more specific (like you are whining about Jeff Lindsay not being now... Pot -- Kettle...)

GZ: My science has evidence from multiple disciplines showing the earth is round. Mormon science says the earth is flat and with enough time evidence will appear to prove them correct.

LOL! The flat earthers were the "establishment, remember, as you still are today. We round earthers were the upstarts as we still are today. The flat earther's had "science" on their side initailly, as you do now. Science is the history of saying"We were wrong" and it still is today.

So when Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing, Did he or did he not as you said earlier mean that he had no ancestors who were Lamanites? I can link back to where you said that, if you are having memory problems...

GZ: Mind reading again, I’ve read the book in all its glorious boredom, repetition and ridiculousness. The bom model for new world settlement is not supported by the observations and data from multiple scientific disciplines.

Really, when? Let's just go with the first time, when?

GZ: Oh it is important to your salvation. . . . what is that funny little book you always want me to read and pray about. . . . . it is the entry level drug for mormonism. If false, then you’ve been following a false prophet (I know you are anyway from other sources besides bom DNA).

Yeah, really tricky of us to ask people to pray to God to find the truth about his word, huh. As if he would actually answer people, you have no idea how much we have to pay him to get him to tell people... (this is the line you are trying to get people to believe and it's fantastic that you even continue to spout it!)

DU: Um, why exactly would anyone care if not for the Book of Mormon? Keith Crandall et al can publish all they want and your side will dismiss them faster than Satan condemns righteousness. Why would anyone who didn't have to step into the cesspool anti Mormons always seem to make of discussions that could support Mormons.

GZ: So Asian migrationists are now the new anti-mormons LOL. He would have to defend his scientific reasoning with peers in the open world. If he is the sharp noodle you say he is, his paper should revolutionize the DNA studies of the world. His peers would judge the data and interpretation on the scientific merits. Crandall is smart enough to realize that his Mormon testimony is in adequate to meet the task of making up for the loss of scientific merit in such a work.

LOL! Can you prove any of that? No. I didn't say that everyone who was doing genetic reasearch on Indians was an anti Mormon, I said anti Mormons always make such discussions into a cesspool (reading comprehension, it's essential to a good argument.)

DU: and you know that how? (you don't) you want it to be so. The Book of Mormon (which you have not read) is clear about our lack of knowledge of the history the many of the people the Nephites met in the Americas.

GZ: 2 Nephi 1:8 strongly indicates the lands were empty. The bom makes no mention of any of the pre-colombian tribes that were present in the region – especially those that dominated central America (just for you limited geography fans). These pre-Colombian peoples were present in the millions and already had a developed culture, as well as being quite war like. Mormon history just ran aground on the reality of pre-colombian America.

OK, in your little argument here, you first argue that 2 Nephi says the land was empty, then argue that Pre columbian America was not empty (which is what I have been saying). So, lets start with your quote, 2 Nephi 1:8 is actually (suprise) being taken out of context by you, here lt me broaden the scope a bit:
2 Nephi 1:6-10

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him hom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for i>their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is cjust shall rest upon them.

So instead of saying they are the only ones, Nephi is saying only men that God leads can come to the Americas, and that they will be safe as long as they are righteous. (A side political note this is why Mormons are so afraid of what will happen with a man so steeped in abortion in the white house!) Now, note all the Italicized words, every scripture except the one you quoted is talking about "them", others who will come to this land. Then there are the quotations from my page:

And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla
Mulekites who came over to the americas separately married in with the Lamanites
There were Descendants of Ishmael
Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.

Not even a particularly imaginative try, and I suspect you got it from a site, I do believe you would have read the scriptures surrounding it if you had researched it yourself.

DU: Is that what it means? "Laman, Nephi's brother is also a descendent of Lehi, so being a "Pure descendant" of Lamanites would also make you a descendant of Lehi (Laman and Nephi's father). Then again if you actually read the book you might just know what you are talking about instead of making embarrassing statements like that.

GZ: The Lamanites were originally Nephites who broke off early and began their own race. As such, they too were descendants of Lehi, just like Ishmael’s descendants were also descendants of Abraham. Do you want to make more embarrassing statements DU? Use bright colors when you do.

What a delicious Idea, maybe I should colorize your "quote" next time I quote it back to you.

Actually, there were no Nephites until the group split and those that followed Laman called themselves Lamanites, those that followed Nephi, Nephites. As for beginning their own race... It was an ideological difference, ending up in a people who looked different I don't think you can prove they intended to start their own race.

GZ: God is not limited to heart burn when revealing His truth.

Straw man? please show anywhere on any post of mine that I said he was...

DU: The Mormon rebuttal to our "Position" as stated by someone who is not a Mormon, and has not even read the book he is critiquing:

GZ: Deliberate misrepresentation, but par for your course.

Speaking of misrepresentation, how about if I present your "position" do you have any hope that you would be happy with want I said? It is completely and totally inappropriate for you to present "our side" of anything. Lurkers take note of this Godzilla seems to think he should presnt both sides of a debate and that would be "fair" LOL!

GZ: : Terms such as "multitude," "numerous," "exceedingly great," "innumerable," and "as the sands of the sea" are present in abundance in the bom. 300,000 Lamanites were involved in just one battle IIRC. You would need a population base in the millions to support an army of that size. Alma 2:17-19 reports a total of 19,094 fatalities. On the basis of these figures John Sorenson, estimated the total Nephite-Lamanite population to be over 600,000 at that time (about 200,000 Nephites-Amlicites and over 400,000 Lamanites). Helman 3:8 covers the quote about the seas quite nicely, covering the face of the whole earth.

See how hard it is when people speak in imprecise terms? Multitude (exactly how many is that?) "Exceedingly great" again an imprecise term. As for 300,000 warriors, I did a search on the BOM, and as I remembered it, the largest number of "thousands" was "even to exceed the number of thirty thousand" so you are off by a couple of orders of magnitude. (which is par for the course) That said some of the "uncounted" numbers include to records og Genocide where a people were basically wiped out, men women and children so there really is no need to have a "population" to "support" them.

GZ: Well, you tweaked my interest, please document these earthquakes that destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas, as this geological history should be most enlightening.

I do not propose to "educate" you, nor do I expect to convince you since most of these anomalies are just that to archeologists who want everything to fit, so I'll mention the road to nowhere (A road that runs across the land, down the beach and into the ocean near Bimini Island. There is also a road in South America that runs up to one side of a chasm and continues on the other side with no signs of a bridge ever having been built. There are also many roads of ancient manufacture that just run off into the jungls and no-one knows where they go. Here is a site (yep just one) that lists a lot of these, if you really are interested, it should give you plenty to Google for. as for your ready argument of peer review, or this is not accepted by ... Well Duh, if it was accepted, they would have to have an explanation, they don't. Some day when they learn more, they will catch up, just like the flat earthers finally having to admit the world is round. (BTW just how long did it take for the "scientists" to admit that the Incas and the Mayans were not peaceful, but warlike?)
Your link

GZ: AFA your strawman supposition string goes Lehi, Nephi, Muelkites, Ishmael and Zoram were all from the immediate region around Israel...

You know because slaves are always from the population they serve, consider early America and the south... Wait no, thats a bad example, well then there's ... Egypt Joseph was a slave there, wait that's bad too...

You assume facts not in evidence to make your case... You lose. Zoram, Mulek, Ishmael; we don't know their genetic makeup. Plus hter are other groups we run into in the BOM, maybe even the descendants of your mummy friend. I for one do not say that I know, you haowever have to say that or your house of cards comes tumbling down around your ears as it should.

DU: Speaking of Selective memory, did you forget that Keith Crandall is one of the Leading Scientists in the team that proved the link for the Lemba tribe? (that was why he was asked to review Simon Southerton's work...) You can't even discuss a precedent without quoting Keith Crandall's work, how can you then say he's wrong on this? I suppose he's a "fallen Scientist" now that he joined the Church... LOL!

GZ: Too bad he couldn’t properly apply what he learned to the Lamanites.

And you know he didn't because... He didn't get the results you want him to.

Amazing, you have an eminently qualified scientist, one who's work you have to cite in order to make the case against us, who then joins the church after saying the findings against us are wrong and you want to cite his early work, dismiss the work that disagrees with you and besmirchg his reputation by saying that he is now compromised becasue of his (new) faith.

It's the old Occam's razor thing again, which is more likely, that you are a flat earther when it comes to Mormons, or that Keith Crandall suddenly lost his mind and joined a church that he could prove wrong scientifically? Occam's razor slices you pretty deep on that one.

Looks like a little of the “smoothness” has begun to fade there DU...

Sorry, I'm fighting a cold, I'll try to be "smoother"...

Do you honestly think that posting your opinion is valid in a debate that is supposed to be about DNA evidence?

I submit that you never knew Joseph Smith and you have no valid basis for commenting on his motives for anything.

your "quote" leaves much to be desired...

What I said "OK, so since you think you can't, you can't learn from me... (a self fulfilling prophecy!)"

What you quoted "you can’t learn from me"

Someone needs to learn about context, words mean things and if you are so willing to quote me out of context, what must you be willing to do with the words of people who are not here? (Inquiring minds, like those possessed by lurkers want to know...)

IMHO, you are only fooling yourself.

Some of those plastic dishes you were washing melted...

Did nobody every tell you...

To take the plastic out of the dishwasher before the dry cycle...

And you were suppose to wash them all by hand...

cant you do a simple calling right ???