Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Wren wrote:
[b]Dubbs wrote: ". . . just did a google search for things you've said here, nothing wrong nor illegal about that."

Yes, there is something wrong with that if you collect information with intent to harm.

That is one of the reasons I gaslighted you, to let you demonstrate a pattern of intention to harm others if given the chance.

You keep it up, you will be reported to the law enforcement authorities.

They'd laugh at you, intent to harm? If I had intent to harm it would have happened by now don't you think?

Trust me, I have no need to contact any of the nut jobs here, course I still could call Jean if you like?
We've been begging you to call. What's stopping you? Idle threats, huh? Either call or shut up about it.

A teacher up here in my county was just sentenced to a year in jail for stalking a student. His stalking consisted of texting her. Nothing sexual or anything else involved, just texting. So, if you think what you're doing isn't stalking, you've got another think coming. Stalking does not necessarily involve "intent to harm".

A blog's a little different than a personal contact via a personal text message. And besides that, I have done no stalking here, they'd laugh at you.

The cops would laugh at you, percy, as they snapped the cuffs on.

KitKat wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
I like watching Wren squirm, I'll continue to play that card thanks. LOL
LOL..I know a copout when I see one. You won't call, and we all know why.

He won't call because it would cause him tremendous problems, which we all, including Dubbs himself, understand.

And, percy, we enjoy watching you squirm on this one. Go ahead, call.

Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But you have, by your OWN boasts and claims, taken steps to contact the FHC and report the actions of a participant of this forum in order that he might stand to lose his job.

I've also said I didn't actually make the call, but did so to scare the person who was stalking me. Wren.

You took active steps to perpetrate harm upon another member of this forum.

Nope, selective memory on your part, I never made the call


You HAVE stated that you wished to know who my Bishop and Stake President were so that you could take steps to see to it that my temple recommend is revoked.

As have you and Wren made similar comments about contacting church headquarters or my preisthood leaders.


You HAVE stated that you were pretty sure you knew my true identity, and the name of my business.

Yea, so, that is not stalking, just did a google search for things you've said here, nothing wrong nor illegal about that.

1. You stated that you had made the call. And when your honesty regarding that claim was questioned...you were adamant that you made the call.

Now you are stating that you never made the call, but said you did to scare 'Andrewjacksong'.

This proves your extreme dishonesty. You are a liar Percy. Through and through. Your claims cannot be trusted.

2. You claimed to have spoken with Jean at the FHC, and to have informed her that one of her employees was posting negative comments about the LDS Church on the Center's time.

Now you are stating, once again, that you never made the call.

This proves your extreme dishonesty. You are a liar Percy. Through and through. Your claims cannot be trusted.

3. I have never stated that I would like to contact your priesthood leaders. I have, however, opined that I wonder what they would think about your behavior on this forum.

But I'm no informant Percy. Your behavior is between you, yourself, and you. I see no reason to contact your priesthood leaders. I am content to leave ultimate judgment and punishment for your despicable behavior on this forum to the Most High.

4. Nothing wrong in doing a Google Search for whatever you wish to find out.

But since you are a stalker, it's a good bet that you weren't just doing it to satisfy your curiosity.

You were trying to discover my true identity so that you could make contact with my Bishop, or my Stake President and try to have my temple recommend revoked, as you believe it should be, and have so often wished via your comments that it would be.

Anyone with eyes could plainly see this.

Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Wren wrote:
[b]Dubbs wrote: ". . . just did a google search for things you've said here, nothing wrong nor illegal about that."

Yes, there is something wrong with that if you collect information with intent to harm.

That is one of the reasons I gaslighted you, to let you demonstrate a pattern of intention to harm others if given the chance.

You keep it up, you will be reported to the law enforcement authorities.

They'd laugh at you, intent to harm? If I had intent to harm it would have happened by now don't you think?

Trust me, I have no need to contact any of the nut jobs here, course I still could call Jean if you like?

No they would not laugh at him Percy. They would listen and they would investigate.

It would be very easy for them to contact the FHC and speak with Jean. She would be able to tell them whether anyone had contacted her or not in regard to an alleged employee named Andrew Jacksong who had been posting on the Herald forum from a work computer.

And it would be very easy for them to locate you, Percy, regardless of how anonymous you might think you are on this forum.

They would investigate your remarks, they would see the sexual harassment you have perpetrated against the ladies of the forum, and your personal admissions that you have taken steps to perpetrate harm upon another member of the forum.

I have no doubt that you are interested in perpetrating harm against people Percy. It seems to be an indelible part of your nature.

And stalkers don't always take action quickly. Some stalkers are very patient, and take years before they actually make their moves.

As for whether Wren would like you to call Jean...he has invited you numerous times to call her.

And a number of us have literally BEGGED you to call Jean.

So...call her. What's stopping you?

Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Wren wrote:
, Spencer W. Kimball did,


You have proof he was a bigot, then changed? Your a lieing prick Wren.

Dubbs is doing selective editing again. This puts it back into context: "But good-meaning bigots can change. Abraham Lincoln did, Spencer W. Kimball did, Reagan never did -- bigotry is hard to shake." Please note that Dubbs left out that SWK changed for the better in this area.

Read SWK's works, percy, and get back to me. He talks about how hard it was for him to overcome his Arizona LDS upbringing and the attitudes towards people of color. My friends and I, too, in St. George and Washington County had to overcome that bigotry, Dubbs. Didn't matter whether you were LDS or not in our area, and I guess it was the same where SWK grew up as well.

Blowing a fuse, huh, percy? Too funny.


Your claiming he was a bigot, then changed, do you have proof he was a bigot before 1978?

Didn't think so, so shut your yapper punk.

It was the growing Civil Rights movement that instigated the LDS stance on blacks and the Priesthood.

Spencer W. Kimball had just been subpoenaed regarding a civil lawsuit file on behalf of a black boy scout who was not allowed to hold a position of leadership within his troop because the requirement for a leadership position was priesthood membership.

Before this came to trial, 'revelation' was received that the Lord had told him it was now time to restore the priesthood to the blacks.

This is not all.

In the 1970s, as the controversy in America over women's rights escalated, the First Presidency took a public stance in favor of full equality before the law for women but, at the same time, publicly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment as anti-family.

Don't overlook the BYU football team, Jaye. They were finding it hard to compete without Black players.