LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[Jesef]

Phrased thus, "You think you are the only one to have the Spirit", it is still a form of ad hominem (personal attack) - imo. Plenty of verbal ways to avoid that. But just because Finrock mentioned a personal spiritual confirmation doesn't equate to the accusation, which is an obvious extrapolation and mischaracterization. If people mention their subjective spiritual experiences as evidence in a discussion, I agree, then those (their experience, their interpretation, etc.) are up for debate. I prefer people to point out logical fallacies when they occur in discussion or debate because I think they tend to help (more than hurt) keep discussions both civil and more objective.

[AI2.0]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems futile to even bother with this thread anymore. Both Finrock and Arenera will not budge in their positions and so they go round and round, and pay no attention to what the other says...or anything anyone else offers.

I feel bad for Marc, I think he was genuinely trying to offer a topic which might interest the members, but it's devolved into two posters talking past each other.

[Arenera]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems futile to even bother with this thread anymore. Both Finrock and Arenera will not budge in their positions and so they go round and round, and pay no attention to what the other says...or anything anyone else offers.

I feel bad for Marc, I think he was genuinely trying to offer a topic which might interest the members, but it's devolved into two posters talking past each other.

The thread started because someone said the LoF said God is a Spirit.

marc explained it and I said the LoF requires explaining. It is hard to convince someone of a different mindset for sure.

[Finrock]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

The ad hominems I was referring to were not the one Jesef mentioned, although I appreciate him pointing it out and I agree. Some of the more egregious ones is stating that I'm not emotionally capable to have this discussion. Such comments are pointless and offer no support for Arenera's position. They are just attacking me as a person and my rational arguments have not been refuted by them.

I am providing my rational argument but then I'm also testifying that at the end of the day I believe what I believe because that is whers God lead me. There were no drop mic moments. My testimony doesn't prove me right and it doesn't prove Arenera wrong, I recognize that. What it does say is that I'm not trusting and relying on scholars and rational arguments to sustain my belief. I can only speak to what I've experienced. Me explaining what I've experienced is not the same as me saying that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. So, comments that say otherwise or which implicate such are an attempt to call my character in to question and they are irrelevant to the topic and what I've stated. I recognize too that Arenera mixing in a personal jab here and there doesn't invalidate her whole position. Its just those personal jabs don't prove the point and indicate that one is out of rational arguments to sustain their position.

I wasn't talking past Arenera I was countering her claims with my arguments. I believe I addressed all of Arenera's claims against the LoF with rational arguments. I read Arenera's post, considered the content, and understood Arenera's position but for the most part I disagreed and explained why I disagreed. At no point did I feel devolved.

My point is to provide reasons for people to consider that the LoF contain truth and to not dismiss them out of hand because they aren't a part of the official canon. I gave my best rational explanations and reasons to consider them and then I gave my spiritual witness. And that's it.

I have no hard feelings and am happy for the chance to support the LoF. Hopefully this discussion is helpful for others.

Thanks Arenera for taking part. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I respect you position and I respect you.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

The ad hominems I was referring to were not the one Jesef mentioned, although I appreciate him pointing it out and I agree. Some of the more egregious ones is stating that I'm not emotionally capable to have this discussion. Such comments are pointless and offer no support for Arenera's position. They are just attacking me as a person and my rational arguments have not been refuted by them.

I am providing my rational argument but then I'm also testifying that at the end of the day I believe what I believe because that is whers God lead me. There were no drop mic moments. My testimony doesn't prove me right and it doesn't prove Arenera wrong, I recognize that. What it does say is that I'm not trusting and relying on scholars and rational arguments to sustain my belief. I can only speak to what I've experienced. Me explaining what I've experienced is not the same as me saying that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. So, comments that say otherwise or which implicate such are an attempt to call my character in to question and they are irrelevant to the topic and what I've stated. I recognize too that Arenera mixing in a personal jab here and there doesn't invalidate her whole position. Its just those personal jabs don't prove the point and indicate that one is out of rational arguments to sustain their position.

I wasn't talking past Arenera I was countering her claims with my arguments. I believe I addressed all of Arenera's claims against the LoF with rational arguments. I read Arenera's post, considered the content, and understood Arenera's position but for the most part I disagreed and explained why I disagreed. At no point did I feel devolved.

My point is to provide reasons for people to consider that the LoF contain truth and to not dismiss them out of hand because they aren't a part of the official canon. I gave my best rational explanations and reasons to consider them and then I gave my spiritual witness. And that's it.

I have no hard feelings and am happy for the chance to support the LoF. Hopefully this discussion is helpful for others.

Thanks Arenera for taking part. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I respect you position and I respect you.

-Finrock

Take this statement you made:

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, btw. Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. By his measure the teachings regarding the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is not complete. Luckily his statements are not canonized scripture.

You don’t consider what you said is projecting on my character?

JFS as an ordained apostle was on the committee that recommended the removal. He gave the reasons for the removal.

[Finrock]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

The ad hominems I was referring to were not the one Jesef mentioned, although I appreciate him pointing it out and I agree. Some of the more egregious ones is stating that I'm not emotionally capable to have this discussion. Such comments are pointless and offer no support for Arenera's position. They are just attacking me as a person and my rational arguments have not been refuted by them.

I am providing my rational argument but then I'm also testifying that at the end of the day I believe what I believe because that is whers God lead me. There were no drop mic moments. My testimony doesn't prove me right and it doesn't prove Arenera wrong, I recognize that. What it does say is that I'm not trusting and relying on scholars and rational arguments to sustain my belief. I can only speak to what I've experienced. Me explaining what I've experienced is not the same as me saying that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. So, comments that say otherwise or which implicate such are an attempt to call my character in to question and they are irrelevant to the topic and what I've stated. I recognize too that Arenera mixing in a personal jab here and there doesn't invalidate her whole position. Its just those personal jabs don't prove the point and indicate that one is out of rational arguments to sustain their position.

I wasn't talking past Arenera I was countering her claims with my arguments. I believe I addressed all of Arenera's claims against the LoF with rational arguments. I read Arenera's post, considered the content, and understood Arenera's position but for the most part I disagreed and explained why I disagreed. At no point did I feel devolved.

My point is to provide reasons for people to consider that the LoF contain truth and to not dismiss them out of hand because they aren't a part of the official canon. I gave my best rational explanations and reasons to consider them and then I gave my spiritual witness. And that's it.

I have no hard feelings and am happy for the chance to support the LoF. Hopefully this discussion is helpful for others.

Thanks Arenera for taking part. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I respect you position and I respect you.

-Finrock

Take this statement you made:

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, btw. Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. By his measure the teachings regarding the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is not complete. Luckily his statements are not canonized scripture.

You don’t consider what you said is projecting on my character?

JFS as an ordained apostle was on the committee that recommended the removal. He gave the reasons for the removal.

Your argument is an appeal to authority and it is your argument that I can ethically attack, not you the person.

Because Joseph Fielding Smith believes that doesn't make it so. Its fallacious to say that your position must be right because an authority agrees with you or you are agreeing with the authority. We are talking about logical fallacies here. You might be right, but appealing to authority doesn't prove your case because its fallacious.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

The ad hominems I was referring to were not the one Jesef mentioned, although I appreciate him pointing it out and I agree. Some of the more egregious ones is stating that I'm not emotionally capable to have this discussion. Such comments are pointless and offer no support for Arenera's position. They are just attacking me as a person and my rational arguments have not been refuted by them.

I am providing my rational argument but then I'm also testifying that at the end of the day I believe what I believe because that is whers God lead me. There were no drop mic moments. My testimony doesn't prove me right and it doesn't prove Arenera wrong, I recognize that. What it does say is that I'm not trusting and relying on scholars and rational arguments to sustain my belief. I can only speak to what I've experienced. Me explaining what I've experienced is not the same as me saying that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. So, comments that say otherwise or which implicate such are an attempt to call my character in to question and they are irrelevant to the topic and what I've stated. I recognize too that Arenera mixing in a personal jab here and there doesn't invalidate her whole position. Its just those personal jabs don't prove the point and indicate that one is out of rational arguments to sustain their position.

I wasn't talking past Arenera I was countering her claims with my arguments. I believe I addressed all of Arenera's claims against the LoF with rational arguments. I read Arenera's post, considered the content, and understood Arenera's position but for the most part I disagreed and explained why I disagreed. At no point did I feel devolved.

My point is to provide reasons for people to consider that the LoF contain truth and to not dismiss them out of hand because they aren't a part of the official canon. I gave my best rational explanations and reasons to consider them and then I gave my spiritual witness. And that's it.

I have no hard feelings and am happy for the chance to support the LoF. Hopefully this discussion is helpful for others.

Thanks Arenera for taking part. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I respect you position and I respect you.

-Finrock

Take this statement you made:

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, btw. Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. By his measure the teachings regarding the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is not complete. Luckily his statements are not canonized scripture.

You don’t consider what you said is projecting on my character?

JFS as an ordained apostle was on the committee that recommended the removal. He gave the reasons for the removal.

Your argument is an appeal to authority and it is your argument that I can ethically attack, not you the person.

Because Joseph Fielding Smith believes that doesn't make it so. Its fallacious to say that your position must be right because an authority agrees with you or you are agreeing with the authority. We are talking about logical fallacies here. You might be right, but appealing to authority doesn't prove your case because its fallacious.

-Finrock

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith was chosen by Christ to be one of His Apostles.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith was on the committee that reviewed the D&C and what would be included in them.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith and the other apostles on the committee recommended the removal of the LoF.

Fact: The presiding councils of the church agreed with the recommendation. The First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith gave 4 reasons why the LoF were removed.

Maybe you would like to explain to everyone why you say this is false?

[Finrock]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

The ad hominems I was referring to were not the one Jesef mentioned, although I appreciate him pointing it out and I agree. Some of the more egregious ones is stating that I'm not emotionally capable to have this discussion. Such comments are pointless and offer no support for Arenera's position. They are just attacking me as a person and my rational arguments have not been refuted by them.

I am providing my rational argument but then I'm also testifying that at the end of the day I believe what I believe because that is whers God lead me. There were no drop mic moments. My testimony doesn't prove me right and it doesn't prove Arenera wrong, I recognize that. What it does say is that I'm not trusting and relying on scholars and rational arguments to sustain my belief. I can only speak to what I've experienced. Me explaining what I've experienced is not the same as me saying that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. So, comments that say otherwise or which implicate such are an attempt to call my character in to question and they are irrelevant to the topic and what I've stated. I recognize too that Arenera mixing in a personal jab here and there doesn't invalidate her whole position. Its just those personal jabs don't prove the point and indicate that one is out of rational arguments to sustain their position.

I wasn't talking past Arenera I was countering her claims with my arguments. I believe I addressed all of Arenera's claims against the LoF with rational arguments. I read Arenera's post, considered the content, and understood Arenera's position but for the most part I disagreed and explained why I disagreed. At no point did I feel devolved.

My point is to provide reasons for people to consider that the LoF contain truth and to not dismiss them out of hand because they aren't a part of the official canon. I gave my best rational explanations and reasons to consider them and then I gave my spiritual witness. And that's it.

I have no hard feelings and am happy for the chance to support the LoF. Hopefully this discussion is helpful for others.

Thanks Arenera for taking part. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I respect you position and I respect you.

-Finrock

Take this statement you made:

Your appeal to authority is fallacious, btw. Joseph Fielding Smith is wrong and special pleading. By his measure the teachings regarding the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is not complete. Luckily his statements are not canonized scripture.

You don’t consider what you said is projecting on my character?

JFS as an ordained apostle was on the committee that recommended the removal. He gave the reasons for the removal.

Your argument is an appeal to authority and it is your argument that I can ethically attack, not you the person.

Because Joseph Fielding Smith believes that doesn't make it so. Its fallacious to say that your position must be right because an authority agrees with you or you are agreeing with the authority. We are talking about logical fallacies here. You might be right, but appealing to authority doesn't prove your case because its fallacious.

-Finrock

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith was chosen by Christ to be one of His Apostles.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith was on the committee that reviewed the D&C and what would be included in them.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith and the other apostles on the committee recommended the removal of the LoF.

Fact: The presiding councils of the church agreed with the recommendation. The First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

Fact: Joseph Fielding Smith gave 4 reasons why the LoF were removed.

Maybe you would like to explain to everyone why you say this is false?

I'm sorry I'm not going to take time to refute your straw man and mischaracterization of my position. My position is clearly stated in this thread and I've already provided my reasons to you. If you have a guestion about something I've said or are unclear on the meaning of anything I've said, please ask me and I will attempt to clarify.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

My point was that you did not need to play the ad hominem card. You actually had a good run and seemed well informed and presented coherent, cogent points for discussion. The merits of your presentation stood on their own as valid suports.

However, almost every single time someone resists your points as energetically as Arenera did you will end the discussion by tossing out the accusation of ad hominem. It is almost, in fact, as if the accusation of ad hominem becomes the ad hominem itself. In the end the conversation terminates and from most perspectives except for Jesef, it comes off as making it look like you are trying to find a way out of the pressure of the discussion and deflecting it back onto the other participants as if the cause of the failure of the discussion is because they fall short in some way.

This conversation with Arenera was classic. There should be tolerances of exchange that allow for poorly worded, inadequately thought out responses. This is for most a spontaneously driven medium and not a polished debate forum. If the foundational feel of the conversation retains a sense of the points of discussion it would seem charitable to me to overlook the slights that some here are characterizing as ad hominem especially since there is, as Jesef characterizes it, excessive "IMO", in the derivative process of defining such. Opinions are not adequate to measure conditions that fail by definition to measure up to a predetermined standard.

Neither can I sustain that the declarations of "no ill feelings" are the equal of the behaviors that clearly indicate there is such...

[Finrock]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

My point was that you did not need to play the ad hominem card. You actually had a good run and seemed well informed and presented coherent, cogent points for discussion. The merits of your presentation stood on their own as valid suports.

However, almost every single time someone resists your points as energetically as Arenera did you will end the discussion by tossing out the accusation of ad hominem. It is almost, in fact, as if the accusation of ad hominem becomes the ad hominem itself. In the end the conversation terminates and from most perspectives except for Jesef, it comes off as making it look like you are trying to find a way out of the pressure of the discussion and deflecting it back onto the other participants as if the cause of the failure of the discussion is because they fall short in some way.

This conversation with Arenera was classic. There should be tolerances of exchange that allow for poorly worded, inadequately thought out responses. This is for most a spontaneously driven medium and not a polished debate forum. If the foundational feel of the conversation retains a sense of the points of discussion it would seem charitable to me to overlook the slights that some here are characterizing as ad hominem especially since there is, as Jesef characterizes it, excessive "IMO", in the derivative process of defining such. Opinions are not adequate to measure conditions that fail by definition to measure up to a predetermined standard.

Neither can I sustain that the declarations of "no ill feelings" are the equal of the behaviors that clearly indicate there is such...

I understood your point. It just doesn't apply to me or my position in this thread in any way. I have no ill feelings towards anyone. My position and my reasons are clearly stated in this thread.

You've expressed your feelings multiple times and I understand where you stand and how you feel about me. I'm happy to allow you to believe as you wish. This thread is not about me, its about the LoF and I'll be happy to address posts that are on point and relevant. You should be aware that I'm going to largely ignore ad hominems, mischaracterizations, and other arguments of irrelevance.

-Finrock

[marc]

I feel bad for Marc, I think he was genuinely trying to offer a topic which might interest the members, but it's devolved into two posters talking past each other.

Thank you for your kind words. My intention was not and is not to be an apologist, but rather to persuade some few who desire to come unto Christ, but feel like something is missing, to give the LoF a chance to work in their lives. We are to exercise faith as the brother of Jared to rend the veil of unbelief (Ether 4) and the LoF teaches precisely the kind of faith he exercised because those who wrote the LoF exercised the same kind of faith and reproduced the same results. The school of the prophets was discontinued by Brigham Young, which doesn't surprise me as there is no record of these results being reproduced after Joseph and Hyrum were taken.

My hope and my desire is to reach those who are looking for the same result. This is the result we are commanded to produce in Ether 4 when Jesus Christ explicitly commanded us to rend the veil of unbelief. There are scholars and there are prophets. Prophets experience God. Scholars only write about prophets who experience God and the words of the prophets who experience God. The academic points debated in this thread have not produced any noteworthy results, but they illustrate why Jesus Christ explicitly commanded us to avoid disputations, which is why I stopped participating except to reply to your post.

[Arenera]

I feel bad for Marc, I think he was genuinely trying to offer a topic which might interest the members, but it's devolved into two posters talking past each other.

Thank you for your kind words. My intention was not and is not to be an apologist, but rather to persuade some few who desire to come unto Christ, but feel like something is missing, to give the LoF a chance to work in their lives. We are to exercise faith as the brother of Jared to rend the veil of unbelief (Ether 4) and the LoF teaches precisely the kind of faith he exercised because those who wrote the LoF exercised the same kind of faith and reproduced the same results. The school of the prophets was discontinued by Brigham Young, which doesn't surprise me as there is no record of these results being reproduced after Joseph and Hyrum were taken.

My hope and my desire is to reach those who are looking for the same result. This is the result we are commanded to produce in Ether 4 when Jesus Christ explicitly commanded us to rend the veil of unbelief. There are scholars and there are prophets. Prophets experience God. Scholars only write about prophets who experience God and the words of the prophets who experience God. The academic points debated in this thread have not produced any noteworthy results, but they illustrate why Jesus Christ explicitly commanded us to avoid disputations, which is why I stopped participating except to reply to your post.

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

31 (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Brigham Young said: “Pray for the Lord to inspire your hearts. Ask for wisdom and for knowledge. It is our duty to seek after it. Let us seek, and we shall find; but as for His coming down here to pour His Spirit upon you, while you are aiming after the vain and frivolous things of the world; indulging in all the vanity, nonsense, and foolery which surrounds you; drinking in all the filthy abominations which should be spurned from every community on the earth—so long as you continue this course, rest assured—he will not come near you.” (Journal of Discourses, 1:20.)

[brlenox]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

My point was that you did not need to play the ad hominem card. You actually had a good run and seemed well informed and presented coherent, cogent points for discussion. The merits of your presentation stood on their own as valid suports.

However, almost every single time someone resists your points as energetically as Arenera did you will end the discussion by tossing out the accusation of ad hominem. It is almost, in fact, as if the accusation of ad hominem becomes the ad hominem itself. In the end the conversation terminates and from most perspectives except for Jesef, it comes off as making it look like you are trying to find a way out of the pressure of the discussion and deflecting it back onto the other participants as if the cause of the failure of the discussion is because they fall short in some way.

This conversation with Arenera was classic. There should be tolerances of exchange that allow for poorly worded, inadequately thought out responses. This is for most a spontaneously driven medium and not a polished debate forum. If the foundational feel of the conversation retains a sense of the points of discussion it would seem charitable to me to overlook the slights that some here are characterizing as ad hominem especially since there is, as Jesef characterizes it, excessive "IMO", in the derivative process of defining such. Opinions are not adequate to measure conditions that fail by definition to measure up to a predetermined standard.

Neither can I sustain that the declarations of "no ill feelings" are the equal of the behaviors that clearly indicate there is such...

I understood your point. It just doesn't apply to me or my position in this thread in any way. I have no ill feelings towards anyone. My position and my reasons are clearly stated in this thread.

You've expressed your feelings multiple times and I understand where you stand and how you feel about me. I'm happy to allow you to believe as you wish. This thread is not about me, its about the LoF and I'll be happy to address posts that are on point and relevant. You should be aware that I'm going to largely ignore ad hominems, mischaracterizations, and other arguments of irrelevance.

-Finrock

And behind the veil of such words as these hide the ill feelings you would deny. As for the Lectures on Faith, I genuinely felt you did a fine job of addressing the salient issues ... until you lost confidence as I have stated.

[brlenox]

I'm glad I participated. I have no I'll feelings towards anyone. I point out ad hominems because they are fallacious arguments and irrelevant to the topic at hand. This can be useful to others who are reading so they understand that me as a person is not the topic and that arguments should stand on the merits of the argument itself.

My point was that you did not need to play the ad hominem card. You actually had a good run and seemed well informed and presented coherent, cogent points for discussion. The merits of your presentation stood on their own as valid suports.

However, almost every single time someone resists your points as energetically as Arenera did you will end the discussion by tossing out the accusation of ad hominem. It is almost, in fact, as if the accusation of ad hominem becomes the ad hominem itself. In the end the conversation terminates and from most perspectives except for Jesef, it comes off as making it look like you are trying to find a way out of the pressure of the discussion and deflecting it back onto the other participants as if the cause of the failure of the discussion is because they fall short in some way.

This conversation with Arenera was classic. There should be tolerances of exchange that allow for poorly worded, inadequately thought out responses. This is for most a spontaneously driven medium and not a polished debate forum. If the foundational feel of the conversation retains a sense of the points of discussion it would seem charitable to me to overlook the slights that some here are characterizing as ad hominem especially since there is, as Jesef characterizes it, excessive "IMO", in the derivative process of defining such. Opinions are not adequate to measure conditions that fail by definition to measure up to a predetermined standard.

Neither can I sustain that the declarations of "no ill feelings" are the equal of the behaviors that clearly indicate there is such...

I understood your point. It just doesn't apply to me or my position in this thread in any way. I have no ill feelings towards anyone. My position and my reasons are clearly stated in this thread.

You've expressed your feelings multiple times and I understand where you stand and how you feel about me. I'm happy to allow you to believe as you wish. This thread is not about me, its about the LoF and I'll be happy to address posts that are on point and relevant. You should be aware that I'm going to largely ignore ad hominems, mischaracterizations, and other arguments of irrelevance.

-Finrock

As for addressing points that are relevant and on point concerning your posts - I have at least two that remain unanswered by you. Perhaps more evidence of those ill feelings...perhaps.