"Break free and go to the neutral corners!"
Posted on 05/07/2010 4:23:40 PM PDT by Colofornian
REXBURG - Several indecent exposure incidents on the afternoon of April 30 have led to felony charges against a Rexburg man.
Travis Lee Martin, 22, a Brigham Young University-Idaho student, was charged Monday with two counts of sexual abuse of a child under 16, both felonies.
He was also charged with three misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure.
Capt. Randy Lewis of the Rexburg Police Department said the incidents occurred at Smith Park, Porter Park, Tuscany Apartments parking lot and on College Avenue.
Lewis said witnesses stated that Martin was masturbating in his car and the door was open.
Martin has been released from the Madison County Jail after posting a $50,000 bond.
Oh...well that's original.
So does that make you an anti-anti-mormon bigot?
I guess it does, eh?
Non sequitur.
Sometimes I answer questions with a question, because, depending on the source & manner of the Q, that's the best way to handle it.
For example: Your claim that this is a mere "local issue". If it is, then did you likewise recognize the thread you posted in Oshkosh re: the 6 yo as a simple "local school principal jurisdiction issue"? (Yes or No? If not, why not?)
And indeed your history is relevant because from a cursory view, I'd like to see how consistent you are.
Whatever....bigot.
It’s clear you have no intention of answering the question. Sorry, not playing your games.
Nice comeback.
"Break free and go to the neutral corners!"
When I was on jury duty we put a bastard just like this in jail for six years and the rest of his life on the sex offenders list.
I wanted to give him the maximum, ten years but his lawyer saw the writing on the wall and plea bargained with the Assistant DA.
That's what I thought. I gave you an opportunity to explain your position; you've refused.
So, it's "OK" for you, nine years ago, to post a podunk story about an Oshkosh elementary school principal office, where you've got the most "local" of local jurisdiction issues imaginable...a principal trying to keep a 6 yo from going out and kissing classmates by keeping an eye on him...and you deem that all relevant to the national eye...
...but if someone posts something you somehow think is "too local," you're off to the inquisitive race (as in inquisition) and quick to toss out "bigot" labels upon people you don't even know.
It's OK for you to jump right in with those inquisitive questions, but if they come back atcha, what you expect from others is suddenly deemed as a "game." (Does that mean your motive was "game-like"?)
So much for consistency.
Why are you posting this?
You are a liar.
If you can show me some consistency -- that you've asked the publisher or managing editor of the Rexburg Standard Journal why they originally published this, I'll consider answering your Q.
But if you have no desire to find out why the Standard-Journal did, then what's your motivation for asking me this Q?
Why not? It is a news story.
Oh...well that's original. So does that make you an anti-anti-mormon bigot? I guess it does, eh? [Osage Orange]
Non sequitor [johniegrad]
Non sequitor? (Not all)
In light of the origin of the word "bigot" I find all this a bit ironic. Originally, the word “bigot” was developed in a Catholic context & wasn't originally aimed at anyone outside of a historic Christian (Catholic) context.
"Bigot" is etymologically tied to "Beguines." It was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit).
So, you’re right, johniegrad, in one way in that “bigot” in its original usage was tied to perceived intolerance. (I don’t know if the Beguines were actually intolerant or not). The Beguines were probably at least perceived as practicing "spiritual one-upsmanship"--and others didn't like it--they felt looked down upon. Perhaps they felt scorned because such sisterhoods tended to isolate themselves more and because of that, the Beguines perhaps were perceived as being spiritually snooty ("we don't like how excessively devoted they are").
But to wind this back to what I said. "Bigot" is originally tied to "excessive devotion." I suppose it's possible that the Beguines were indeed "excessively devoted." (It's also just as possible that the other Catholics' perception was largely wrong...but once a reputation develops...). But let's just say they were excessively devoted. If that's the name-slinging you wish to engage in, johniegrad, I'll just take the high road and claim a historical context.
But if you want to insist on a contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer Osage Orange's Q. Because aren't you showing religious intolerance toward us? On what grounds is your "intolerance" so "allowable" and therefore elitist, whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?
See. With you, Johniegrad, we're back to the consistency issue with you. (I'm still waiting for you to show some)
Their doctrine is toxic and many of their founders were corrupt abusers. However, most of the Mormons I've met have been decent, if misguided, people.
Unlike Colofornian, I don't consider the polygamist splinter sects the same as the mainstream Mormons.
When it gets posted on FR, it's usually just prurient.
When it comes to people who post, there is no accounting for class.
You need to define your terms:
"Same" as in sociologically "same"? (No; the fLDS are more like retro-mainstream Mormons; mainstream Mormons have changed to some degree in the past generations)
"Same" as in theologically "same"? (Of course, distinctions exist)
But "close enough" in all measurements to still be called "Mormons?" (Yup; the mainstreamers don't have a lock on "Mormonhood.")
Even Canadian Mormon Edward Watson, who would disagree with me on much, has agreed with me in a past FReeper discussion that fundamentalist Mormons are indeed a "category" of Mormons.
Their doctrine is toxic and many of their founders were corrupt abusers. However, most of the Mormons I've met have been decent, if misguided, people.
I agree. (I have relatives/family membes who are LDS). I myself am a descendent from Lds blood. But as I usually say when people mention this, if you were auditioning for godhood, you'd be on your best "decent" behavior mode, too.
Whoa....Colofornian, you have to be a female. Only a woman could tear a man to pieces with her tongue like that. I’m feeling the heat.
Would you agree that there is a difference between "anti-mormon" and anti-mormonISM then?
One would be anti-anyone who is of the faith and one would be against the tenets and doctrines of said faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.