Replies

I didnt say you were deflecting the thread’s topic.

I didn't say you were -- unless you were making this thread's topic, me (which you started to do -- and continue to hijack this thread as a topic disruptor).

You were deflecting a statement about you.

But I'm not the thread's topic, now am I? (So why do you keep trying? Is it because it's the only bait you have that tends to work? What? Not successful this Summer at the lakes fish-wise?)

He said you had an obsession, and your reply was the Mormons have an obsession.

You know at times past, when you enter CA, they've checked fruit in vehicles for the California fruit fly. Those border guys are "fruit inspectors."

Likewise, if a poster is going to self-identify as the "Fellow Poster Obsession Fruit Inspector," I prefer noting what consistency -- or inconsistency -- they demonstrate toward all posters who have overt earmarks of zealousness or overzealousness.

If they give some posters,
some institutions,
some entities...
...a free pass on such Qs, they somehow just don't appear to be really interested in measuring the overall level of fervency and zeal out there, now do they? IOW, all they are usually trying to do, is to turn the discussion from what's posted to the who is doing the posting.

You still havent shown how Twilight is based off Mormonism.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I didn't write the article; I merely posted it. If you don't think the journalist fully proved her point, fine. My world doesn't revolve around somehow constructing proof to overcome your high hurdles.

Facts are facts. Mormon worldviews are Mormon worldviews. Some of those worldviews made it into the book. Some of them made it into the movie. (I don't think you'll keel over & die over such a "Captain Obvious" conclusion; I mean, you didn't even flinch when MNehring said that in post #16...strange non-reaction from a knee-jerker like yourself)

In fact, that's actually what is really amazing: Yes, I went into more detail than poster mnehring; but my basic premise in a few of my posts matched what mnehring said in post #16: "That’s a big Captain Obvious article. Of course an author is going to write from the perspective of their experience. In the same way, you can find Catholic imagery all through Ann Rice’s Vampire novels."

Do you object to poster MNehring's conclusion in post #16?
If so, why no comment to him/her?
Why direct at least three or so posts to go after my similar position -- yet you've ignored the same basic premise conveyed by MNehring?
Instead of challenging MNehring's post #16, what do we see coming from you? Why lookie at post #73, where you manage to both "high-five" MNehring in agreement for another post (#19) -- showing that, yes, you were, after all, paying attention to what MNehring was writing...
...all the while gossiping about me/perhaps others -- without bothering to ping whatever other posters you're referencing there.
Rhetorical Q: Do you always go around mentioning people behind their backs on these threads without pinging them?
Who were you referencing in posts #73 & #87...phantom FReeper bogeymen?
Is this how your Christian parents taught you to behave?
And if my positional premise is essentially "Amening" MNehring's chorus of saying, "Of course an author is going to write from the perspective of their experience"...when are you going to get around to pinging MNehring with a concern about that position?
Or, could it be, Sam, that his/her position isn't what's really bothering you on this thread?(foremost, anyway)?

You see, Sam, you've made it all too easy to pinpoint what your true primary motivations are. You're not really interested in discussing the "on the face of it" merits of whether Meyer's Mormonism was injected into 'Twilight,' are you?

We don't even have to engage in guesswork. You laid your motivations as to what really bothers you -- why, it's right there in posts #87 and #73. It seems you said something about how "you go nuts" and you "don't like it" not even relating to Meyer's Mormonism or her 'Twilight' products.

Well, I think I've addressed your "nuttiness" long enough to last for the remainder of the calendar year. And until you show you are provoked by the prima facia issues here -- and challenge MNehring the way you challenged me -- all it shows is that your accusations have been designed to...
...hijack the thread...
..make it about me...
...all because you're provoked by broader issues...

And since you and Mr. Mormon apologist, Paragon Defender, have elected to self-identify as "Fellow Poster Obsession Fruit Inspectors" -- but for some reason you allow vehicles with "Lds bumper stickers" through the border minus any true obsession fruit inspection -- if you were refereeing a football game, it'd be obvious to all that your red flags for one team are tossed in the air...all the while your flags for the other team are glued in your pocket.

(BTW, we have Flying Inman badge insignia producers. We could produce your personal Honorary "obsession inspector" badges for you and Paragon Defender...that way, even though we carry no FR authority, 'twill at least be better than your self-designated roles you've both assumed :) )