Rhetorical question?

Why do all of your posts contain either vague or not so vague shots at a church that you know will get the reactions that you're looking for?

Oh nevermind...the answer is obvious. You're a bitter apostate troll.

It is that kind of productive debate that keeps me posting here.

Let's start a game: how many posts can Mesa go without trying to be insulting?

You don't like it, then put me on ignore. I have the balls to call him what he really is and what he's really doing.

Maybe you should get a set.

Oh by the way...you gonna tell me what job it was that you got me on the inside? lol....I'm still waiting for that one. Please...refresh my memory.

I wouldn't say SLC "needed" a bail out. I would say downtown would have been revitalized with or without the church, but without the church it clearly would have taken a very long time. Office space in downtown is going quickly right now. There are lots of huge projects going on that don't involve the church at all. That said, the church's involvement is desireable in the sense that it gave SLC the opportunity to have a cohesive plan for an enormous part of downtown rather than a piecemeal approach that would have taken years and, ironically, had less of a chance of success due to the lack of an overarching plan.

To conduct the kind of work the church is planning, you needed someone with billions in capital and the will to help. That pretty much left the church.

1 post. Nice work. Are you sure you want me to post the names of places you have worked, Dave?

If I know you...refresh my memory. I honestly don't remember meeting you.

I have met a friend of yours working at CompHealth or someone who claimed to be one of your good friends. He posts under the name MaxPower and we went out for lunch one day.

Other than that I have NO idea who you are.

Oh...and using my first name like you're trying to be omnious....lol....doesn't bother me.

You may not like him, but I do, even though I don't agree with his take on many things. I invited him here, and maybe even you.

Disagree with the logic please. Just resorting to name calling isn't going to make the debate more interesting.

If he's a bitter apostate, your words, not mine, then expose his arguments that would reflect that truth. Please, Rocky, you can do better than this.

I know you don't think you know me. I won't tell you who I am because I think you would be tremendously embarrassed by things you have said. I am not trying to be "ominous." I am trying to urge you to realize that every time you post something stupid, it is being read by people who know you and it reflects poorly.

It doesn't matter what the damn assumptions are in the financial projections. The church isn't writing a check to anybody for $2B, the max loss on a $2B real estate investment in downtown SLC is nothing close to $2B, and the church could afford to lose $2B anyway.

I have to assume you have gained enough experience to know this, and you're just being the typical ass you always are, taking every possible position to oppose the church and make fun of its members.

Is the church going to sell municipal bonds? hello ACLU. Dude check yourself.

I'm not concerned here with who likes him and who doesn't. I also invite you to get a set if you can't call him for what he really is.

I'd disagree with logic if there actually were any to disagree with. It's just him being a prick. You know it and I know it.

Look...I'd say the same things to your face that I've said on here.

I make NO apologies what I say about you. You are what you are. Your false nobility is a joke.

Why does calling somebody a name show somebody has cajones?

Here's an example: if I were in Cairo, sitting in a cafe discussing Middle East politics, how would disagreeing with the locals, by saying, "Oh yeah, you guys just hate Jews and are bunch of towel heads" prove my courage?

Questions: "how would that prove anything other than my stupidity?"

How would that advance any discussion?

Are you just trying to end discussion, because your name calling isn't advancing a discussion and isn't provoking any interesting reaction?

You don't have to be friends, but repeated name calling doesn't do anything but make the place uncivil.

And people are nuanced. Hoya is a leftist but intelligent capable of dissecting the Right, while blind to the foibles of the Left.

Seattle has active LDS siblings with whom he interacts civilly. If he's nothing but a troll, then your name-calling is giving him what he wants. If not, then you're irritating somebody you need not irritate. Either way, it appears to be a wrong choice.

Are you trying to drive him away? Nobody's trying to drive you awaw; in fact, you're welcome here, but why not a civil discussion. We all have asked for that after some heated discussions which led nowhere.

I could care less if he interacts civilly with his LDS siblings. I could care less if he stays or goes.

And please...you trying to lecture someone on civillity is a joke. You've done much of your own trolling and aggressive name calling and fighting in the past, so save it.

I've done my share and probably will continue at times no doubt.

Then answer me this question: how does name-calling prove courage? In my life, it has required more strength not call somebody "you dirty SOB", than to. I find it easy to resort to that and an act of internal strength to refrain.

So if you have the moral courage, answer that question.

Exactly you've done your share and will continue no doubt...so save the hypocrisy for another day, unless of course that's your thing.

Peace to you.

From whom, pray tell, would you need a lecture on civility in order for you to listen? Is it only valid if it comes from a certain person?

I will frankly tell you that I don't think SeattleUte is right in a lot of what he has claimed. I also think that his assertians have been more than a little influenced by his general opposition to the church. When we can't evaluate his argument by its content, however, it inadvertedly credits the argument as being valid.

Let's stick to the topic at hand. There's little purpose in resorting to name calling.

There's also little purpose served in not being truthful about what he is. If I have to stand alone on saying what he is, that's fine and doesn't bother me one single bit.

If someone doesn't like the way I do it, then tough.

Thanks Mohammed

We could say lots of things about each other that would be as truthful as they would be pointless.

"Throw a cloak of charity over my sins, and I will throw a cloak of charity over yours."

Lol! I'm bitter? You sound like you need a hug, or to get laid.

I gave Rocky a thumbs down on Utefans today. It felt good.

Yep.

You're a bitter prick who likes to troll for negative reaction from LDS faithful. If you deny it, then you can also add liar to the list.

Okay Socrates

Joseph Smith, actually.

How many threads that you are involved in wind up going down this path? Doesn't it get old for you? I assure you it is getting old for me. The rest of us were actually having an interesting discussion on the church project downtown before you hijacked things here.

Let's get back to that. If you have something to say of substance related to THAT topic, I would enjoy hearing it.

Nearly all of SU's posts on this board and CB have anti-Mormonism as the motive. His agenda is to belittle anything LDS, BYU, church leaders past and present. He has no belief or moral system himself--or he is constantly switching them when it is convenient to his point. He uses whatever angle he can to oppose every issue, no matter how illogical or inconsistent with prior posts. Just because he can do so skillfully doesn't make the content any different than Rocky's more obtuse approach. I'm not backing Rocky's approach, but your buttkissing of SU is out of place in this instance.

Ah...better not quote him here like that or the un-believing bitter ilk of this board just might take you to task for daring to do so...

And when are you ever going to be honest instead of deliberately deceptive in a lot of what you post? You're almost no better than people of SU's ilk.

The only one taking him to task for the quote so far is you. Let it go and talk about the topic.

Hmmm. Which of us got the CB death penalty? You must have really been spewing some imoral stuff to get whacked by Jefe.

His whole point of bringing up the topic is to belittle the church in any way, shape or form he can, regardless of topic.

I suggest you get your bullshit meter checked.

You're probably the only one who will suggest that it might have been inappropriate.

Again, I don't entirely disagree with you. I think SU lets his vitrol against the church influence his thinking to a greater extent than is reasonable. You may notice, however, that instead of taking him to task for it, you've ceded to him the moral high ground and made yourself the bigger target.

Don't practice psychiatry...it'll give you a headache.

In fact, you actually just gave me a great idea...thanks.

To the extent my question as to the reasons for the project is viewed as belittling the Church, I apologize. It seemed with all the attaboys a few questions would not have been inappropriate.

I guess trying to understand the reasons for the project is a bad thing nowadays.

I don't see how sometimes acting civilly is buttkissing. Buttkissing seems to be something where one is being obsequious to obtain something. But, strange, as it might seem, I like many of the personalities here, even those with whom I've had heated discussions. I don't sense anybody here is "evil", other having the wrong political point of view ;), but please explain how sometimes desiring a civil discussion is buttkissing. Your perspectives are equally interesting at times.

I have been involved in development projects so examining, at least superficially, was and is interesting. I had not followed the downtown development issue, as I don't reside in SLC. I hope and pray it works, and that any reason which might cause it to fail, doesn't materialize.

I'm not calling you immoral. I'm saying you don't have a defined personal belief or moral system. You change them constantly to make your case. One minute you're a scientist cracking on the ignorant masses who need a God, the next you're talking about your faith in a higher power. The common characteristic is you used both angles to make fun on Mormons.

You'd be happy to know what I said so awful. I implied Samuelson was either inept (bungling things) or immoral (possible secret agenda for BYU football that isn't shared by his employer) over the KW offer/no-hire. My post was censored and I was given a two week ban, and I was insulted by Jefe's moderator. I then told the moderator to kiss my ass.

It isn't belittling the church. This is a public issue. In fact, it might be the most important issue to SLC in decades. We had all better get used to having some open discussion on the topic. It can only make the end result better. If members approach this as a topic that we can't question (because it is tantamount to questioning the brethren), then the church is in a sad, sad state.

This thread quickly became pointless chest pounding. Last time I checked contention is of... well, i'm sure you all know. All I read is contention from both sides of the discussion.... or lack of the discussion that used to exist on this thread.

so..... let me try this again....

I wish RSL would have built the stadium in SLC instead of Sandy.

Easy there, Jay. I think you are over-reacting. If you want a perfectly sanitized board from an LDS perspective, go back to CB. (Wait a minute..... you can't do that).

If SU's posts are so illogical and inconsistent, it should be pretty trivial for you to expose them. And I am surprised that you are presumptious enough to so confidently describe his belief system (or lack thereof).

I think you are mischaracterizing SU. Sure, he likes to poke and prod and have fun with us from time to time, but I enjoy having him here. He is educated, articulate, and has a great sense of humor. I am far more offended by some of the insults and personal attacks (see above) tossed around here (ironically, in the name of righteous indignation) than by anything SU has said.

I agree with you on all counts. I would have loved to have a stadium in downtown SLC. That said, I think an arts district on Main Street would be far better for downtown than a soccer stadium at the fairgrounds. To have both would have been terrific, but sadly unrealistic.

Even so, Sandy isn't too far for soccer! Much better than Rochester...