When we last left our hero, he was being harrassed by Lawrence Andrus, a moron who had mailed a $20,000 watch to our hero’s home. The FedEx guy said that someone had answered the door and signed for it.
Well, Lawrence has now called LTB a few times, trying to track down more dirt on me, and yesterday we went to see about filing a restraining order against him. DID YOU KNOW: The cost to file a restraining order in Ventura County in cases where the restrainee is not a family member, or where no threats of physical violence have actually been made, is $300? Yeah, and you need to give the restrainee 24 hour notice, blah blah blah.
We didn’t file the order.
THANKFULLY, however, the detective on the case interviewed the FedEx guy, who is now saying that the guy was waiting outside our apartment to pick up the package, and that he’s even done it a couple times. Well, we got our locks changed for nothing, but hopefully Lawrence will leave us alone.
Does it end there? No, faithful reader! For even just this morning, FED EX TRIED TO DELIVER ANOTHER PACKAGE TO DAVID MAYER AT OUR ADDRESS!
"Uh, don’t sign for it," I told my wife when she called, unsure what to do. She had them send whatever expensive thing it was BACK to the idiotic sender.
Not 15 minutes later, the POST OFFICE tried to deliver a priority package to David Mayer at our address. What could be inside? Another $20,000 watch? A $100,000 ring? A million in unlaundered Canadian currency?
We don’t know. We sent that package back, too. Can’t wait for the phone calls to start, though.
I’m at the point now where I’d skewer Santa with a poker if he tried to give me something on Christmas Eve. "I don’t THINK so, NICK!" [skewer sound effect]
Dating thoughts, and, well, lots of other thoughts, from the head honcho of Singlesaints.com.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
This is a long story, and it's not over yet, but I gotta write it down now (since I can't sleep ANYway).
Geez. I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I'll just stick with everything from my point of view.
Rebecca called me at work at about 3:30 or so, asking if I was playing another joke on her. [This was because I set her up for a hidden camera show last year, as you may recall. The situation she was in seemed bizarre enough that this was a reasonable guess.]
"No," I said. "What's up?"
She then tried to explain that there was an angry man at the door, saying a watch had been signed for at our apartment -- a watch he had sold on Ebay -- and he wanted the watch back. [She got as far as "angry man at the door" before adrenaline confused all further thought.]
Then I heard as our next-door neighbor came out, and started to face-off with the guy, saying he was harrassing us, etc. Probably not the best move on his part, but I was grateful to hear another voice, because for all I knew some psychopath was getting ready to kill my wife and daughter.
I went home.
That is, I clocked out, saw some friends leaving work for the day, and asked for a ride to our complex a few blocks away.
When I got close to our apartment, the man (Lawrence) was outside with two lady associates, and Rebecca was sitting with Madison on some steps. Matt, the neighbor, headed back inside his apartment, his job done.
SO, the story: Lawrence and his associates had a watch they were selling to raise some money for their business. They found a buyer on Ebay who said he'd purchase it for $20,000, but recommended they use this escrow service for the transaction.
Lawrence set up an account at the website for this service, and when he was notified that the $20k was waiting there, he overnighted the watch. That's mistake number one for Lawrence.
Now, Lawrence lives in Riverside, not too far away, and yet the buyer wanted it overnighted, rather than just have Lawrence DRIVE the $20k piece of jewelry to the apartment. Mistake number two. (As a corrollary to mistake number two, he agreed to sell a $20k watch to someone living in an APARTMENT. The address had an APARTMENT NUMBER, Larry. Think for a second.)
A little too late to do any good, Lawrence had a computer-savvy friend check the domain name registration for the escrow service. It was created all of 12 days ago.
That's what got him suspicious -- but he had already overnighted the watch. So he came down himself today, FedEx tracking info in hand, claiming D. Mayor had signed for the package at our apartment at 10:19 AM.
Well, both our neighbor AND Lawrence had called the police before I arrived, so an officer showed up to take a report. By this time, Lawrence was fairly convinced we had nothing to do with it. He handed over his paperwork to the officer, saying he could print it all out again if he needed to. He was waiting on a return call from FedEx, to see if the delivery guy had delivered it TO THE DOOR, or just to someone waiting outside.
I gave him my card and asked him to call me when he got word, because if somehow, somebody HAD been inside, we needed to change our locks ASAP.
He saw my title on my card -- "Web Manager".
"What do you do?" he asked.
I explained I was a web programmer. That, and the fact that Rebecca had mentioned earlier that her uncle Brad sold watches on Ebay, and now we were back on their hit list.
BUT IT'S NOT OVER! No no!
I get a call from Lawrence later in the evening, and he says the FedEx guy not only said someone answered the door, but that the description pretty much matched ME.
Isn't this a funny story?
So now he wants to get the cops and the FedEx guy to come over to my work tomorrow and "rule me out" -- THIS is where I start getting nervous. What if the crook DID look like me? What if the FedEx guy is the crook, using an address on his route to run his scam? What if he has motivation to lie lest he lose his job? (Thanks to Howard for pointing out that lovely thought as I explained everything to him over the phone.)
Some other problems:
1) Where was Rebecca at the time of delivery? Why, she was bringing me my lunch, because I had forgotten it. CONVENIENTLY making us each others alibis. GREAT.
2) I was away from my computer for a bit while she came in, and so I don't have any chat logs or emails to show me at my desk at that time.
3) Anybody who DOES say I was at the office isn't much help, because I live 3 minutes away, and nobody will be able to say I was with them for a solid block of time.
4) I have the skillset to pull the crime off.
5) I have an uncle who could fence it for me.
I called the officer who had come by, and left a message saying the FedEx guy claimed the signer answered the door, and should he come dust for prints before we change our locks in the morning. At 9:30 tonight, when neither Rebecca, Madison nor I could sleep, and we were part way into a new DVD ("Secondhand Lions" -- pretty good so far, but it was getting too violent for Madison when we stopped), the officer knocked on the door and came in, dusted for prints, and put us at ease. HE at least knows we didn't do it.
I don't think there's any chance the FedEx guy will actually be at my work tomorrow, because it seems you'd need a police line up to do that sort of thing fairly.
Oh, and another thing -- when Lawrence called, he pointed out that our neighbor's last name is MAYER -- coincidence, he asked?
Yes, Larry. It's a coincidence. Nobody smart enough to build a fake escrow site would be DUMB enough to use their own last name, not to mention have the package delivered right next door.
We still have some unanswered questions, though. Is the FedEx guy just being stupid? That's our #1 guess -- that he is remembering incorrectly, and that nobody was in our house. If he's NOT being stupid, how did the guy know we wouldn't be home? WE didn't even know we wouldn't be home.
As I was rumenating over the possibility of being falsely identified by a nervous FedEx guy, and serving time in prison for fraud as a result, I thought of multiple things. Among them: SO MANY VARIABLES had to come out just right that, if I ended up in prison, I'd have no doubt the Lord had his hand in it, like Joseph of Egypt, and that there would be some divine reasoning behind it. I also thought it would be quite insulting to go to prison for what would look like a botched fraud attempt, when I clearly have the intelligence to commit fraud successfully, and for a far greater amount than a mere $20k.
Some story, eh?
Geez. I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I'll just stick with everything from my point of view.
Rebecca called me at work at about 3:30 or so, asking if I was playing another joke on her. [This was because I set her up for a hidden camera show last year, as you may recall. The situation she was in seemed bizarre enough that this was a reasonable guess.]
"No," I said. "What's up?"
She then tried to explain that there was an angry man at the door, saying a watch had been signed for at our apartment -- a watch he had sold on Ebay -- and he wanted the watch back. [She got as far as "angry man at the door" before adrenaline confused all further thought.]
Then I heard as our next-door neighbor came out, and started to face-off with the guy, saying he was harrassing us, etc. Probably not the best move on his part, but I was grateful to hear another voice, because for all I knew some psychopath was getting ready to kill my wife and daughter.
I went home.
That is, I clocked out, saw some friends leaving work for the day, and asked for a ride to our complex a few blocks away.
When I got close to our apartment, the man (Lawrence) was outside with two lady associates, and Rebecca was sitting with Madison on some steps. Matt, the neighbor, headed back inside his apartment, his job done.
SO, the story: Lawrence and his associates had a watch they were selling to raise some money for their business. They found a buyer on Ebay who said he'd purchase it for $20,000, but recommended they use this escrow service for the transaction.
Lawrence set up an account at the website for this service, and when he was notified that the $20k was waiting there, he overnighted the watch. That's mistake number one for Lawrence.
Now, Lawrence lives in Riverside, not too far away, and yet the buyer wanted it overnighted, rather than just have Lawrence DRIVE the $20k piece of jewelry to the apartment. Mistake number two. (As a corrollary to mistake number two, he agreed to sell a $20k watch to someone living in an APARTMENT. The address had an APARTMENT NUMBER, Larry. Think for a second.)
A little too late to do any good, Lawrence had a computer-savvy friend check the domain name registration for the escrow service. It was created all of 12 days ago.
That's what got him suspicious -- but he had already overnighted the watch. So he came down himself today, FedEx tracking info in hand, claiming D. Mayor had signed for the package at our apartment at 10:19 AM.
Well, both our neighbor AND Lawrence had called the police before I arrived, so an officer showed up to take a report. By this time, Lawrence was fairly convinced we had nothing to do with it. He handed over his paperwork to the officer, saying he could print it all out again if he needed to. He was waiting on a return call from FedEx, to see if the delivery guy had delivered it TO THE DOOR, or just to someone waiting outside.
I gave him my card and asked him to call me when he got word, because if somehow, somebody HAD been inside, we needed to change our locks ASAP.
He saw my title on my card -- "Web Manager".
"What do you do?" he asked.
I explained I was a web programmer. That, and the fact that Rebecca had mentioned earlier that her uncle Brad sold watches on Ebay, and now we were back on their hit list.
BUT IT'S NOT OVER! No no!
I get a call from Lawrence later in the evening, and he says the FedEx guy not only said someone answered the door, but that the description pretty much matched ME.
Isn't this a funny story?
So now he wants to get the cops and the FedEx guy to come over to my work tomorrow and "rule me out" -- THIS is where I start getting nervous. What if the crook DID look like me? What if the FedEx guy is the crook, using an address on his route to run his scam? What if he has motivation to lie lest he lose his job? (Thanks to Howard for pointing out that lovely thought as I explained everything to him over the phone.)
Some other problems:
1) Where was Rebecca at the time of delivery? Why, she was bringing me my lunch, because I had forgotten it. CONVENIENTLY making us each others alibis. GREAT.
2) I was away from my computer for a bit while she came in, and so I don't have any chat logs or emails to show me at my desk at that time.
3) Anybody who DOES say I was at the office isn't much help, because I live 3 minutes away, and nobody will be able to say I was with them for a solid block of time.
4) I have the skillset to pull the crime off.
5) I have an uncle who could fence it for me.
I called the officer who had come by, and left a message saying the FedEx guy claimed the signer answered the door, and should he come dust for prints before we change our locks in the morning. At 9:30 tonight, when neither Rebecca, Madison nor I could sleep, and we were part way into a new DVD ("Secondhand Lions" -- pretty good so far, but it was getting too violent for Madison when we stopped), the officer knocked on the door and came in, dusted for prints, and put us at ease. HE at least knows we didn't do it.
I don't think there's any chance the FedEx guy will actually be at my work tomorrow, because it seems you'd need a police line up to do that sort of thing fairly.
Oh, and another thing -- when Lawrence called, he pointed out that our neighbor's last name is MAYER -- coincidence, he asked?
Yes, Larry. It's a coincidence. Nobody smart enough to build a fake escrow site would be DUMB enough to use their own last name, not to mention have the package delivered right next door.
We still have some unanswered questions, though. Is the FedEx guy just being stupid? That's our #1 guess -- that he is remembering incorrectly, and that nobody was in our house. If he's NOT being stupid, how did the guy know we wouldn't be home? WE didn't even know we wouldn't be home.
As I was rumenating over the possibility of being falsely identified by a nervous FedEx guy, and serving time in prison for fraud as a result, I thought of multiple things. Among them: SO MANY VARIABLES had to come out just right that, if I ended up in prison, I'd have no doubt the Lord had his hand in it, like Joseph of Egypt, and that there would be some divine reasoning behind it. I also thought it would be quite insulting to go to prison for what would look like a botched fraud attempt, when I clearly have the intelligence to commit fraud successfully, and for a far greater amount than a mere $20k.
Some story, eh?
Friday, September 10, 2004
Had a dream last night that an LDS page with a PageRank of 9 was going to throw in the towel, since they didn't have enough support. I offered a pretty high sum just to be linked from their pages, and then I woke up.
I went and looked at the page this morning. They only have a PageRank of 4 at Google. I breathed a little easier that I wasn't missing some grand opportunity to linkage.
Not familiar with PageRank? Basically, the more sites that link to you, the higher your value, or PageRank. Also, the higher those pages' PageRank, the higher your PageRank.
So if a bunch of PageRank 9 pages link to me, it gives me some heavily weighted scores. The RESULT, of course, is an improved SEARCH ENGINE RANK, which is seen when you search Google for the term that should bring up your site.
I mostly have pages with scores under 5 linking to Singlesaints -- it can be pretty tricky getting a higher score than that. Singlesaints is a 6, which I'm happy with -- probably about as high as you can go for such a double-niche site.
To see what a page's PageRank is, you can download the Google Toolbar. Includes the best pop-up blocker I've found. Well, barring Windows XP Service Pack 2, which I can only imagine would be able to do a better job. But for ease of use, Google's wins.
More on site-type stuff soon.
I went and looked at the page this morning. They only have a PageRank of 4 at Google. I breathed a little easier that I wasn't missing some grand opportunity to linkage.
Not familiar with PageRank? Basically, the more sites that link to you, the higher your value, or PageRank. Also, the higher those pages' PageRank, the higher your PageRank.
So if a bunch of PageRank 9 pages link to me, it gives me some heavily weighted scores. The RESULT, of course, is an improved SEARCH ENGINE RANK, which is seen when you search Google for the term that should bring up your site.
I mostly have pages with scores under 5 linking to Singlesaints -- it can be pretty tricky getting a higher score than that. Singlesaints is a 6, which I'm happy with -- probably about as high as you can go for such a double-niche site.
To see what a page's PageRank is, you can download the Google Toolbar. Includes the best pop-up blocker I've found. Well, barring Windows XP Service Pack 2, which I can only imagine would be able to do a better job. But for ease of use, Google's wins.
More on site-type stuff soon.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
You ever get somebody's goat by accident, and then they get all riled up, and you apologize, and in so doing you get their goat AGAIN? Pretty soon the goat-transactions take on a story-like quality, and you feel duty-bound as the protagonist (or antagonist) of this story to KEEP getting the goat, for as long as the story will continue, until the goat is either yours to keep, or else dead.
With that, I share the following emails of one (now former) Singlesaints member. After I sent out a message to all members of the site about the Federal Marriage Amendment, I got the following:
I wrote back with the following:
I received the following:
"Oh, wait. Are you OFFERING me your goat? I'm confused."
At this point, I started to get upset. I'd taken the time to write out a kind, thoughtfully worded response, and got more anger as a result.
Fine. I wrote back one last time -- or so I thought -- just to show you can't demand the end of a dialog. You can only stop talking.
Then, curious as to whether she had deleted her account or not, I looked at her profile -- which had no description at all. She had succeeded in deleting everything about herself, but not deleting her account. So, I took the liberty of cancelling her account, as she said she was going to do, and put "your request" as the reason. The automated email was sent saying just that.
Well, she got the first email, and responded thusly:
She then, apparently, read the second email, and responded to it, too:
Whew. Okey dokey. Um, first off -- I deleted ONE other member who had a Terms of Use violation, who could conceivable claim I was just deleting him because he disagreed with me. But I had a few more folks than that who disagreed, and most stayed on the site.
What I actually wrote was this:
It's fun at this point, isn't it?
That's all for now. I'll keep you posted on whether she writes again or not.
With that, I share the following emails of one (now former) Singlesaints member. After I sent out a message to all members of the site about the Federal Marriage Amendment, I got the following:
THIS IS SPAM!!!
DON'T SEND ME YOUR POLITICAL CRAP ANYMORE!!!
WHY SHOULD WE FORCE OUR IDEALS ON A FREE SOCIETY???
I wrote back with the following:
Sorry if I offended you with my email -- I assumed that most of the members of Singlesaints.com would be interested in knowing what the Church had said and what they could do.
If I may ask, how do you feel about the Church's announcement? Do you feel I've misinterpreted it?
Randy Tayler
I received the following:
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRETED IT!!!
IT IS SPAM - UNSOLICITED EMAIL!!!
THIS IS VERY VERY OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION, BUT NOBODY
SHOULD FORCE THEIR IDEALS ON SOMEONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY
IN OUT "FREE SOCIETY"!!!
"Oh, wait. Are you OFFERING me your goat? I'm confused."
Again, I apologize. The email list is simply members of Singlesaints.com, and is in accordance with the Terms of Use. If you do not want to receive emails that I feel relate to the Church, I suggest you cancel your membership to the site, unless you're getting value from the site that outweighs the occasional email from me. Either way, the link to the cancellation page is at the bottom of the email that started all this.
I've received a number of very heated responses, and I'm confident that had I chose my wording more carefully, or more clearly outlined how I felt about same-sex attraction and homosexuality, I'd have gotten fewer angry retorts.
I have friends in the Church who have battled same-sex attraction, and other outside the Church who are just outright "gay". I love them equally, and I feel they have the most arduous challenge God has given to any mortals.
I do not feel, as some do, that they CHOSE that lifestyle, or that they were PERVERTED over to it; I think rather, that they have a trial I do not envy. And since I can't blame THEM for their orientation, I let the blame fall on God, but who has said that homosexual acts are a sin.
How can He do that? How can he let some people be homosexual, yet command them to refrain from it their whole lives?
I've only been able to justify it in my mind with the belief that homosexuals will be happier if they obey the commandments. That through nothing short of miraculous intervention, they will be able to find greater fulfillment in a traditional marriage and family. And I believe there are people with same-sex attraction within the Church who are doing just that. Sometimes they don't succeed, but sometimes they actually do.
I can't say why the homosexual marriage would damage society, but I trust the Lord knows. I'm beginning to think that the people it would be most damaging to are the homosexuals -- any that might consider striving for a traditional marriage as God commands will, instead, have their resolve weakened -- and possibly end up protesting the Church for not allowing same-sex sealings. Some who might've seen the greatest miracle of their lives will instead be led to apostasy.
I suppose I should've said all this in my email; I assumed mistakenly that most of us love the sinner, but not the sin, and as a result I've been grouped by a few into the category of haters and bigots.
I wish you the best, whatever you decide regarding your membership to the site.
Randy
AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT!!!
THIS IS VERY VERY OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
I DIDN'T JOIN THIS SITE TO DEAL WITH TOPICS LIKE THIS!
FURTHERMORE, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN
OPINION, BUT NOBODY SHOULD FORCE THEIR IDEALS OR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON SOMEONE ELSE!
THIS IS A "FREE SOCIETY", OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW???
At this point, I started to get upset. I'd taken the time to write out a kind, thoughtfully worded response, and got more anger as a result.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but when the Church has made a public statement about something, I feel it falls within the purview of a sited dedicated to the Church's members. And I will continue to email members of Singlesaints.com when I feel the desire to do so. As you say, it's a free society. I'm free to do what I want with the website I built and that I maintain.
I reiterate that if you do not want to receive emails that I feel relate to the Church, I suggest you cancel your membership to the site, unless you're getting value from the site that outweighs the occasional email from me.
Randy Tayler
YOU JUST DON'T GET IT???
WE DIDN'T JOIN THIS SITE TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS OR THE
VIEWS OF THE CHURCH!!! THERE ARE PLENTY OF SITES FOR
THAT!!! AGAIN, THIS IS OFF-TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
MOST SITES GIVE MEMBERS THE COURTESY OF OPTING OUT OF
VARIOUS EMAILS (NOTICES AND/OR PROMOTIONS), BUT IT
SEEMS THAT YOU WANT TO FORCE YOUR VIEWS DOWN OUR
THROATS!!! BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDE, MYSELF AND
SEVERAL OTHERS WILL BE CANCELING OUR MEMBERSHIP!!!
PLEASE DROP THIS DIALOG, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY
MORE, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME AND I
SUGGEST YOU FIND SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO WITH
YOUR TIME!!!
Fine. I wrote back one last time -- or so I thought -- just to show you can't demand the end of a dialog. You can only stop talking.
See ya!
Randy Tayler
Then, curious as to whether she had deleted her account or not, I looked at her profile -- which had no description at all. She had succeeded in deleting everything about herself, but not deleting her account. So, I took the liberty of cancelling her account, as she said she was going to do, and put "your request" as the reason. The automated email was sent saying just that.
Your Singlesaints account has been deleted due to the following:
your request.
Well, she got the first email, and responded thusly:
YOU HAD TO GET THE LAST WORD IN DIDN'T YOU???
I HOPE YOU FEEL PROUD OF YOURSELF!!!
JUST THE FACT THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT
YOUR POSTING SHOULD BE SIGN ENOUGH FOR ANY INTELLIGENT
PERSON THAT IT WAS OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE! GOOD
RIDDENS!!!
She then, apparently, read the second email, and responded to it, too:
DIDN'T REQUEST FOR YOU TO DELETE MY SINGLESAINTS ACCOUNT!!! I SAID THAT I ALONG WITH OTHERS PROBABLY, AND I EMPHASIZE PROBABLY, WOULD DELETE OUR ACCOUNTS WITH SINGLESAINTS. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT UP US WHEN WE WANTED TO DELETE OUR ACCOUNTS. WHAT I DID ASK WAS FOR THIS DIALOG TO CEASE AND YOU WON'T RESPECT THAT REQUEST!!! IT SEEMS YOU DELETED US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOUR OPINIONS AND HAD OPINIONS OF OUR OWN. I AM SURE A LOT OF MEMBERS WILL FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT YOU DELETE MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THEIR OPINIONS!!!
Whew. Okey dokey. Um, first off -- I deleted ONE other member who had a Terms of Use violation, who could conceivable claim I was just deleting him because he disagreed with me. But I had a few more folks than that who disagreed, and most stayed on the site.
What I actually wrote was this:
Do you just leave capslock on all the time?
I didn't delete people that disagreed with me -- I thought you were truthfully wanting to delete your account, but didn't know how. I've had people have trouble in the past. When I saw you had no bio written in your account, I just assumed not hassle you again with yet ANOTHER email asking if you were trying to delete your account.
I don't understand why the fact that we disagree makes you so angry. I think you must be an angry person in general.
Randy
It's fun at this point, isn't it?
YOUR PROBLEM IS JUST THAT, "YOU DON'T THINK"!!! NOWHERE DID I ASK YOU TO HELP ME WITH DELETING MY ACCOUNT NOR DID I EVER SAY I WAS HAVING TROUBLE DELETING MY ACCOUNT!!! SO, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ANOTHER REASON FOR YOU DELETING ME??? YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HASSLE ME TO ASK IF I WANTED YOU TO DELETE MY ACCOUNT, BUT YET YOU HASSLE ME WITH ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR EMAILS ACCUSING ME OF BEING "an angry person in general"!!! GO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT FOR YOURSELF??? I ASKED TO END THIS DIALOG ANY YET YOU CONTINUE??? WHEN WILL YOU GET IT WITH YOUR EMAILING YOUR MEMBERS WITH YOUR UNSOLICITED OPINIONS AND HASSLING THEM WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO STOP EMAILING THEM!!! STOP ALREADY!!! TAKE YOUR SINGLESAINTS AND HAVE ALL THE FUN YOU THINK YOU CAN HAVE??? IF ONLY YOU KNEW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING BEHIND YOUR BACK!!!
1. If you truly want the dialog to stop, YOU have to stop writing. See how that works? You don't give the other person more to respond to, unless you can handle getting a response. Even if you say "DON'T EMAIL ME ANYMORE OR I'LL SUE", I'll have to send a confirmation.
2. "IF ONLY YOU KNEW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING BEHIND YOUR BACK!!!"
Oh no!
-Randy
That's all for now. I'll keep you posted on whether she writes again or not.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
So, I took the liberty--
(that phrase! How ironic it now seems to me! After my feelings have been construed as actually taking liberty, or freedom, from others!)
--of emailing 4800+ US members of Singlesaints.com to inform them of the Church's stance on a federal marriage amendment, and of the action they could take.
Got some heated responses, I did.
First, what I wrote:
Now, some of the replies:
I also received two more cordial thanks, and two or three more respectful disagreements.
What have we learned, class? We learned to more loudly voice our love for the sinner when we denounce the sin.
It's ironic to find myself in this position, being called a bigot, hate-filled, etc., because not more than a year ago, our Stake President was addressing a fireside about the topic of homosexuality, and I walked out of it, because I felt contentious and angry, and because I wanted to voice my dissent in the most non-contentious way I could think of. I wrote a letter to the Stake President.
Now, I didn't call him hate-filled, or bigot -- I merely... oh, here, I saved the letter.
What did my Stake President and I have in common? We both neglected to express love for the sinner adequately for those listening.
That said, I realize many will claim my love is feigned, if I don't think gays should have the right to marry. I don't know what to say to that. If I compare it to forbidding a child to play in the street, they'll say the comparison is unfair.
I should reiterate that not all those who disagreed with me resorted to name-calling, and that most folks didnt respond, period. 1300 some people have seen the message now, if my tracker is right, and only about a dozen responses thus far. I hope that those numbers are not representative of the level of participation we're taking in our own government.
(that phrase! How ironic it now seems to me! After my feelings have been construed as actually taking liberty, or freedom, from others!)
--of emailing 4800+ US members of Singlesaints.com to inform them of the Church's stance on a federal marriage amendment, and of the action they could take.
Got some heated responses, I did.
First, what I wrote:
If you haven't already heard, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on a federal marriage amendment this week.
You also may not have heard that the Church announced last Wednesday that it favors an amendment that preserves "marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
Without massive action, however, it probably won't pass.
But it might. Here's what you can do if you haven't already done so.
Call your senators' offices. This page will show you how the voting stands right now -- you should be able to see if your senators are for or against. It also has their phone numbers. We've called. You can, too. Let them know how you feel. (If you can't afford the long distance charges, use this page to find their email address.)
Tell your friends. If you're not up to writing your own email, you're welcome to forward this one on, though this one is basically presuming you're LDS and you trust the leaders of the Church. See where the opposition is coming from, and contact your close friends in those states.
Pray. I shouldn't have to give you instructions on that one.
Thanks for letting me take this opportunity to get all politically active. You may now resume your normal web-surfing. (After you make the calls.)
Randy Tayler
Head Honcho
Now, some of the replies:
im glad u sent this , i hate those dang queers
Why should I be a bigot and vote against civil rights for gay people? If your prophet told you to drink poisoned kool-aid, would you do that too? Mind your own ****ing business, you hypocrites.
[edited. For the record, turns out he was an Ex-Mormon, but still on the records. He later said, when I delved further: "He's not my prophet. I merely said that I am a member of the church."]
you really think it's constitutional to deny anyone their rights as a US Citizen on the basis of religion?
it's a rhetorical question. I'll call my senator, opposing.
You are a bigot and I hope your company fails. Please take me off your
list. I do not support hatrid nor denying anyone rights. If this is a
political organization you should say that when people sign up for it. I
will however pray for you and our church to remember what it feels like to
be persecuted, hated, and denied rights. Try reading the 11th article of
faith. You and your company are hypocrits and unchrist-like. I rebuke you
sir. Good Day.
I am sorry, but I have resigned from the church, and also I wholeheartedly
support GAY MARRIAGE.
I cancelled my account with you in April 2003.
Please remove me from your list.
Well, I don't agree and i think that anyone that does agree with it... HAS NO RIGHT TO JUDGE !!!!!
I also received two more cordial thanks, and two or three more respectful disagreements.
What have we learned, class? We learned to more loudly voice our love for the sinner when we denounce the sin.
It's ironic to find myself in this position, being called a bigot, hate-filled, etc., because not more than a year ago, our Stake President was addressing a fireside about the topic of homosexuality, and I walked out of it, because I felt contentious and angry, and because I wanted to voice my dissent in the most non-contentious way I could think of. I wrote a letter to the Stake President.
Now, I didn't call him hate-filled, or bigot -- I merely... oh, here, I saved the letter.
Dear President,
I don't know if a letter of this sort is appropriate or not, or if keeping my thoughts to myself is more apropos. I feel no ill will towards you, and, being relatively new in the stake (4 months), I have never been introduced to you.
At the stake priesthood meeting, your remarks about gay people and homosexuality saddened me for two reasons. First, I felt that any young man there who has been struggling with the temptation of same-sex attraction would have felt estranged and alienated and unwelcome in the fold. Second, I felt that your words fanned the flame of hatred in heterosexuals towards homosexuals.
I know this was surely not your intent, neither to push sinners away from their source of healing, nor to add to the already strong prejudice against and hatred for homosexuals. Intended or not, however, I feel like your approach to the matter was destructive and saddening. I left before you finished; I felt that the only peacable way I could express disagreement was to simply go. (Neither do I know if that, too, was inappropriate. I knew it would never do to voice disagreement from the congregation, despite your admonition to stand up for what we believe in. Instead I simply stood up and walked out.)
As far as my first concern goes, I don't know what goes on inside the mind of young man with issues of same-sex attraction. I have had friends -- members of the church -- that struggled against this temptation, and one took almost 20 years to tell his parents about his struggle. If such a man was in the congregation Sunday night, I think he's much less likely to confront a bishop or parent about his feelings -- which is surely a necessary step in overcoming them -- when they have been so villified.
Surely homosexual behavior is a choice, as you stated. But nothing was said to console those with such urges. I wish you had said something like "The individual struggling against such temptations may not have brought them on himself, and should find strength in talking with his priesthood leaders on how to overcome them." That would have helped draw the line more clearly between hating the sin and loving the sinner.
I once believed that same-sex attraction was a perversion that resulted from lust. I felt like homosexuals had brought upon themselves their own misery. I felt, like you stated, that on Judgment Day, homosexuals would be weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth.
I now believe that while choosing to commit homosexual acts is certainly the result of free will, that same-sex attraction is not necessarily, or even in most cases, a choice. I have the utmost pity and sorrow for my friends that have struggled with same-sex attraction, and I consider it the greatest of all mortal challenges. Greater than economic hardship, greater than disabilities or health problems, greater than abusive relationships.
As for my second concern, the natural man, I believe, already finds homosexuality gross. It's disgusting to all heterosexual men -- it's built-in to us to find it wrong and disturbing. Thus there is no value in preaching that it's disgusting -- to do so is, as they say, preaching to the choir. I did value your comments on standing up for what's right, in fighting legislation that degrades the family and allows homosexual practictioners to be called a family unit. But I never felt that your message was "love the sinner, hate the sin"; on the contrary, it seemed like you were saying we should shun anyone with such tendencies -- they will be found guilty at Judgment Day. There was no message about reclaiming them, in helping them to repent, or if there was, I missed it completely.
I don't believe such belligerence was your point -- I believe you were trying to dissuade tempted individuals from entering into sin, and trying to fight the tide of thought that considers homosexuality normal and not sinful. Both are crucial goals in the fight against this form of immorality. Yet your word choice, the points you made -- these, in my mind, were mistakes, and were more harmful than helping.
I hope I've been able to write this in the spirit of love that I feel for you. I'm grateful for righteous men like you that shoulder the burdens of priesthood leadership.
Sincerely,
Randy Tayler
What did my Stake President and I have in common? We both neglected to express love for the sinner adequately for those listening.
That said, I realize many will claim my love is feigned, if I don't think gays should have the right to marry. I don't know what to say to that. If I compare it to forbidding a child to play in the street, they'll say the comparison is unfair.
I should reiterate that not all those who disagreed with me resorted to name-calling, and that most folks didnt respond, period. 1300 some people have seen the message now, if my tracker is right, and only about a dozen responses thus far. I hope that those numbers are not representative of the level of participation we're taking in our own government.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
You know how Anytown, USA, is the generic US town? I thought of a decent name for the generic US state: Minnissichigan! (min i SISH i gun)
Missisichigan was a close second.
Went to my good friend Lincoln Hoppe's today to celebrate his birthday. Only, you know, we didn't know it was his birthday. Yeah. THAT was a little awkward. We managed to delete the important part of the message before hearing it, but tried to blame Page (Linc's wife) -- I don't think we succeeded.
That wasn't the end of the awkward-ness: Madison decided to try to take a nap using their giant Pooh doll, and she has this... this THING she does when she's going to sleep. Rebecca and I call it "rubbing", but I think the new name we'll go with after today is "awkwarding". I won't go into more details here, as this site is -- however distantly -- tied to the Church, and while we've been careful to not make Madison think it's anything to be ashamed of, I certainly don't want to use any of the language necessary to give a more coherent description. (Remind me to burn this webpage before she's a teenager.)
The capstone was when Lincoln's 3 year old went out on the patio, took off his underpants, and peed on the cement. It was particularly funny because he chose to face TOWARDS the windows so we all got a great view.
Aaron and Lauren Johnston were there, too -- we played a round of the newest Balderash, which includes movie titles. Aaron came up with one that seemed great to me: two ex-cons decide to open a bank just so they can rob it. ZING! Of course, as I figure it, they decide they can make a decent living WITHOUT robbing the bank, so all of their carefully-laid plans are for naught -- until REAL robbers hit the joint. ZING! Starring Damon Wayans and Matt Damon.
Missisichigan was a close second.
Went to my good friend Lincoln Hoppe's today to celebrate his birthday. Only, you know, we didn't know it was his birthday. Yeah. THAT was a little awkward. We managed to delete the important part of the message before hearing it, but tried to blame Page (Linc's wife) -- I don't think we succeeded.
That wasn't the end of the awkward-ness: Madison decided to try to take a nap using their giant Pooh doll, and she has this... this THING she does when she's going to sleep. Rebecca and I call it "rubbing", but I think the new name we'll go with after today is "awkwarding". I won't go into more details here, as this site is -- however distantly -- tied to the Church, and while we've been careful to not make Madison think it's anything to be ashamed of, I certainly don't want to use any of the language necessary to give a more coherent description. (Remind me to burn this webpage before she's a teenager.)
The capstone was when Lincoln's 3 year old went out on the patio, took off his underpants, and peed on the cement. It was particularly funny because he chose to face TOWARDS the windows so we all got a great view.
Aaron and Lauren Johnston were there, too -- we played a round of the newest Balderash, which includes movie titles. Aaron came up with one that seemed great to me: two ex-cons decide to open a bank just so they can rob it. ZING! Of course, as I figure it, they decide they can make a decent living WITHOUT robbing the bank, so all of their carefully-laid plans are for naught -- until REAL robbers hit the joint. ZING! Starring Damon Wayans and Matt Damon.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Monday, May 10, 2004
I have 3 hours of commute to my job each day. I wrote this ditty to the tune of "Rawhide":
Rollin', rollin', rollin',
Traffic's barely strollin',
And my blood is boilin', no lie.
They call this a freeway
Listen to the dee-jay
"Give yourself some leeway on the FIVE."
CHORUS:
Hit the gas, hit the brake
Hit the brake, hit the gas
Hit the gas, hit the brake, I-5!
Change your lane! What a pain!
Try to merge! But in vain!
It's insane! Driving the I-5.
Bladder's slowly fillin'
Sphincter's quite unwillin'
Thinking about spillin', outside
Traffic can't be deader
If things don't get better
I will sure get wetter, this ride
Chorus
Rollin', rollin', rollin',
Traffic's barely strollin',
And my blood is boilin', no lie.
They call this a freeway
Listen to the dee-jay
"Give yourself some leeway on the FIVE."
CHORUS:
Hit the gas, hit the brake
Hit the brake, hit the gas
Hit the gas, hit the brake, I-5!
Change your lane! What a pain!
Try to merge! But in vain!
It's insane! Driving the I-5.
Bladder's slowly fillin'
Sphincter's quite unwillin'
Thinking about spillin', outside
Traffic can't be deader
If things don't get better
I will sure get wetter, this ride
Chorus
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
I had a genealogy thought on Sunday. Here's as good a place as any to share it.
The thing that has bugged me about family history is the urgency folks keep putting on it. But how could it be urgent, I ask, when it WILL all get done eventually, and dead folks ain't getting any deader?
Plus, we know that Spirit Prison is not a place separate from Spirit Paradise -- it's just a mindset, so to speak. So if somebody has repented and is just waiting for their work to be done, do we really think they're tortured and anxious every second they go without their baptism? Is that the urgency?
MAYBE. But here's my NEW theory, and I like it way more.
In order to help folks in spirit prison, they need to be preached to. But you can't preach without priesthood authority. Therefore, until we get work done, some folks are kept from helping others out of their spirit misery, because they themselves aren't members of the Church yet.
Eh? Eh? So there are these throngs of people, desperately needing the Gospel, but unless we help redeem the dead, the dead can't spread the Gospel to the other dead.
Eh?
The thing that has bugged me about family history is the urgency folks keep putting on it. But how could it be urgent, I ask, when it WILL all get done eventually, and dead folks ain't getting any deader?
Plus, we know that Spirit Prison is not a place separate from Spirit Paradise -- it's just a mindset, so to speak. So if somebody has repented and is just waiting for their work to be done, do we really think they're tortured and anxious every second they go without their baptism? Is that the urgency?
MAYBE. But here's my NEW theory, and I like it way more.
In order to help folks in spirit prison, they need to be preached to. But you can't preach without priesthood authority. Therefore, until we get work done, some folks are kept from helping others out of their spirit misery, because they themselves aren't members of the Church yet.
Eh? Eh? So there are these throngs of people, desperately needing the Gospel, but unless we help redeem the dead, the dead can't spread the Gospel to the other dead.
Eh?
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
Some thoughts on love that probably seem obvious to you wise folks:
The love we feel in the beginning of a relationship -- the excitement, the crush, the anticipation -- and which, I must add, we hope never goes away, is pretty selfish. The other person's presence gives us energy -- and doing things for them comes naturally, because you get way more energy out of the relationship than you're putting into it.
Later, though, the more selfless love comes into play. Giving to and doing things for someone you love even when you're not getting the MER, or Minimum Energy Requirement, out of their mere presence. Like you used to.
The marriage vows and covenants make us promise TO LOVE even when it's not easy. It's easy, for the most part, when you're dating. But after the honeymoon's over, and the dishes are dirty, and the baby woke up again, it's time To Love. To give energy, even if you're not receiving it.
I guess your energy supply gets replenished in a new way at that point -- maybe solar power.
The love we feel in the beginning of a relationship -- the excitement, the crush, the anticipation -- and which, I must add, we hope never goes away, is pretty selfish. The other person's presence gives us energy -- and doing things for them comes naturally, because you get way more energy out of the relationship than you're putting into it.
Later, though, the more selfless love comes into play. Giving to and doing things for someone you love even when you're not getting the MER, or Minimum Energy Requirement, out of their mere presence. Like you used to.
The marriage vows and covenants make us promise TO LOVE even when it's not easy. It's easy, for the most part, when you're dating. But after the honeymoon's over, and the dishes are dirty, and the baby woke up again, it's time To Love. To give energy, even if you're not receiving it.
I guess your energy supply gets replenished in a new way at that point -- maybe solar power.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
I made a Flash toy for those who've always WANTED to spray graffiti, but lacked the immorals. Enjoy, world.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
About "The Passion of the Christ"...
Ebert said it was the most violent movie he had ever seen.
Eric Snider, who is LDS, gave it an A -- here's his movie review. I like what he said:
The idea of Jesus taking the sins of the world upon himself is abstract to me, because I don't know what that would feel like, or what natural force would cause one to feel it. It is spiritual, not tangible. But pain, I can relate to. The physical aspects of Christ's atonement are something I can understand -- and I understand them better, and am more grateful for them, after seeing their depiction in this film.
Now then -- I think this whole issue relates back to Jacob: "And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God... Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained [to] tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God..."
I take that as meaning, quite simply, that some folks don't need to hear the "awful truth" -- I believe that the Spirit can testify more powerfully about Christ's sacrifice than a movie can convey.
But I think a movie is certainly easier. You don't need to be righteous to see a movie.
I think a lot of Christians don't need to see the horrendous violence re-enacted to be humbled. And yet it can help so many Christians (and non-) to understand better what physical agony Christ went through.
In short, I think the movie is a good thing, and, frankly, I think God approves of it. "for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." But I don't think He necessarily expects his saints to see it -- the counsel is not to see it, and if you've been following all His other counsel, you probably don't need to. You might be better off spending those same hours praying.
I'm still not decided -- personally, I think I need the message it has to share, and seeing the movie is easier than praying for two hours. Maybe after seeing it, I WILL pray for two hours.
Ebert said it was the most violent movie he had ever seen.
Eric Snider, who is LDS, gave it an A -- here's his movie review. I like what he said:
The idea of Jesus taking the sins of the world upon himself is abstract to me, because I don't know what that would feel like, or what natural force would cause one to feel it. It is spiritual, not tangible. But pain, I can relate to. The physical aspects of Christ's atonement are something I can understand -- and I understand them better, and am more grateful for them, after seeing their depiction in this film.
Now then -- I think this whole issue relates back to Jacob: "And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God... Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained [to] tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God..."
I take that as meaning, quite simply, that some folks don't need to hear the "awful truth" -- I believe that the Spirit can testify more powerfully about Christ's sacrifice than a movie can convey.
But I think a movie is certainly easier. You don't need to be righteous to see a movie.
I think a lot of Christians don't need to see the horrendous violence re-enacted to be humbled. And yet it can help so many Christians (and non-) to understand better what physical agony Christ went through.
In short, I think the movie is a good thing, and, frankly, I think God approves of it. "for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." But I don't think He necessarily expects his saints to see it -- the counsel is not to see it, and if you've been following all His other counsel, you probably don't need to. You might be better off spending those same hours praying.
I'm still not decided -- personally, I think I need the message it has to share, and seeing the movie is easier than praying for two hours. Maybe after seeing it, I WILL pray for two hours.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
So, as none of you are probably aware, I'm an aspiring screenwriter. That's right, Singlesaints.com is just my side gig while I try to make the real living writing uplifting movies.
Well, I recently optioned my first screenplay. Granted, it was only for $1 for one year, but that's perfect for framing, I say. And the guy producing it -- or rather, trying to produce it -- seems to have some great connections already for this particular project.
The nice thing about the 1-year deadline is that I don't need to wait 10 years to see if it'll get produced. One year, then it's mine again to shop around as I see fit. Woo hoo!
How did it happen, you ask? I wish I knew. It's all in who you know, as they say. In any case, I'm not getting too stoked yet, since the odds are still against it ever being made, but I they're certainly better now with a producer on board than when it was just me and my words.
I'm also currently working on my second novelization -- I wrote the novelization of The RM and now am struggling through The Home Teachers -- so I'm already a paid novelist. Go me!
Well, I recently optioned my first screenplay. Granted, it was only for $1 for one year, but that's perfect for framing, I say. And the guy producing it -- or rather, trying to produce it -- seems to have some great connections already for this particular project.
The nice thing about the 1-year deadline is that I don't need to wait 10 years to see if it'll get produced. One year, then it's mine again to shop around as I see fit. Woo hoo!
How did it happen, you ask? I wish I knew. It's all in who you know, as they say. In any case, I'm not getting too stoked yet, since the odds are still against it ever being made, but I they're certainly better now with a producer on board than when it was just me and my words.
I'm also currently working on my second novelization -- I wrote the novelization of The RM and now am struggling through The Home Teachers -- so I'm already a paid novelist. Go me!
Monday, February 23, 2004
I have this belief about the gay-marriage thing. I believe, solely because of my faith in the LDS church, that there is greater happiness in store for the gay man that foregoes his tendencies and loves a woman. (Obviously SHE'D be happier -- a more sensitive, girly man? "Hallelujah!" she shouts, taking her man to the mall.)
I believe that God loves us all, and that the challenge of same-sex attraction carries with it a greater potential for happiness for those who overcome it.
I believe that if we allow same-sex marriages, we are closing our minds and hearts to the possibility of the greater happiness God has in store. I think it would rob people with same-sex tendencies of an incredible level of joy.
I hope that the reactions of homosexuals to such a concept would be open-minded and not condemnatory.
I hope. Some won't, of course, even after testimonies come forward about the happiness a formerly gay man or woman now has achieved. (Tangent: There are deaf people that oppose giving cochlear implants to deaf children (which would allow them to hear) because they feel it's not something that needs to be fixed. http://www.cochlearamericas.com/About/339.asp)
I believe that God loves us all, and that the challenge of same-sex attraction carries with it a greater potential for happiness for those who overcome it.
I believe that if we allow same-sex marriages, we are closing our minds and hearts to the possibility of the greater happiness God has in store. I think it would rob people with same-sex tendencies of an incredible level of joy.
I hope that the reactions of homosexuals to such a concept would be open-minded and not condemnatory.
I hope. Some won't, of course, even after testimonies come forward about the happiness a formerly gay man or woman now has achieved. (Tangent: There are deaf people that oppose giving cochlear implants to deaf children (which would allow them to hear) because they feel it's not something that needs to be fixed. http://www.cochlearamericas.com/About/339.asp)
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
So. Revelation.
If not revelation, then epiphany. Probably epiphany.
The math... the math of life has never added up. One of the results of a bipolar mind, I suppose; as I look around at the world, I've never been able to see how it could be anything but depressing to the souls within it.
Seriously -- any good thing has a thousand negatives tagged on as well. At least, from the point of view of someone that is clinically depressed.
But the Church and the Gospel point out that "men are that they might have joy". Additionally, most folks seem to think life is pretty decent. MOST folks haven't thought about killing themselves to escape the pain of existence. How can that be? The math isn't adding up. So.
So, I take it on faith that my math is wrong, and that the majority are right, and that the Church is right, and that life is pretty good, and I just need medication. It's kept me alive so far, which, depending on your point of view, is probably a good thing. (Ask the depressed octagenarian who wishes they'd killed themselves five decades previously and you might get a different answer.)
So, all that is postulate A.
Postulate A. The world is not a horrible, miserable place.
There is misery, and there is horror, but somehow there's also enough good that most folks want to keep living in it.
Next, we come to the fact that the collective unconscious, the myths and archetypes in all great stories and legends, tell us there is something more that we can have. When the hero saves the day, he saves the world. Superman. Luke Skywalker. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't know, but probably Buddha, and definitely the Savior. I've long believed that the myths in all cultures stem from the fact that Christianity was the original religion of Adam and Eve, and the prophecies of the Christ soaked into the mythos and cultures that devolved from there.
Boston sings "I gotta keep on chasing that dream, or I may never find it." WHAT dream? They don't even know for sure, which is what makes it so elusive.
"Someday we'll find it: the Rainbow Connection. The lovers, the dreamers, and me." Thank you, Jim Henson. Now what the hell is a "rainbow connection?"
This is all leading up to something cool, I promise.
Also, the Light of Christ is available to all, and as such we have common knowledge of good and evil, and, I believe, a sort of unconscious knowledge that the world needs saving. We still make new movies each year about some great evil coming to destroy the world, and the heroes that fight it.
In the Church we know the world needs saving from Satan's grasp -- although we tend to forget that we must establish the Kingdom of God before the Kingdom of Heaven can come; the Savior's return will not be when the world becomes sufficiently evil, but rather when there is a society that can endure his presence -- when we've become sufficiently good!
Hence,
Postulate B. The world needs to be saved from evil.
By that we mean as many souls as possible.
Moving on.
Artists, songwriters, poets, painters -- there's an unmistakable correlation between artists and bipolarity or depression. WHY? What kind of God would give people a disorder that prevents them from feeling happiness like most other folks do? (Unless, perhaps, you prescribe to the belief, like I once did, that all depression results from sin. To you I say, Screw You. My darkest despair came when I was at my most righteous. And the medications work. Why would I be able to chemically make myself happier if blah blah blah you get the point.)
Well, all gifts of the Spirit are intended to bless the lives of others, right? Right.
Bare with me, it's somewhat offensive if you've ever suffered from depression. You've already made the connection, but now I have to say it.
Depression is a "gift" given to souls in order to bless the lives of others. Van Gogh. Beethoven. Churchill. Keats. Fitzgerald. Tchaikovsky. Lincoln. Dickens. Twain. Michelangelo. The list goes on. Why are they better able to help the world around them?
Postulate C. Those with depression cannot be complacent with the world as it stands, because happiness is much more elusive for them. They search harder, and try harder, to bring happiness into the world.
Like how my postulates are to be taken as "givens", when they're really more like hypotheses? Yeah. I was never much of a mathematician. Even when I passed the AP BC Calculus exam -- I think there must have been some heavy curving that year. But, like I said, the math never added up before anyway.
So. Whew. You still with me? We're coming up on a fourth and final postulate before the conclusion, the epiphany, that I mentioned at the start.
Start here, if you think "justification" and "sanctification" are the same thing. They're not. "By the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified." We're talking the good kind of justified, not the self-justifying thing we idiots tend to do to hide our sins. Justified is forgiven, but sanctified goes beyond that -- sanctified is being "made perfect in Christ" and having your "garments washed clean". (Moroni 10:32-33)
Now. Lehi talks about the fruit of the tree that was desirable above all other fruit. And it filled him with exceedingly great joy. Is he talking about justification, which Saints enjoy when they partake of the Sacrament? Or is he talking about sanctification, which a select few people on this Earth are probably enjoying right now?
Postulate D. Sanctification is the great joy Lehi spoke of.
I can cite more scriptures -- the people of King Benjamin were righteous, offering up sacrifices, coming to the temple to hear a prophet, and THEN they had the mighty change of heart that filled their hearts with joy -- which show that justification is where we find ourselves at any given time when we're righteous. You worthy to take the sacrament? Feeling the Spirit? You're justified.
But the main reason I know that Lehi's great joy is sanctification, rather than the justification we all know and experience, is that justification DOESN'T MAKE ME THAT HAPPY.
I mean, bipolarity aside, if someone were to tell me that I have partaken of the fruit, but I'm in denial, or I'm beating myself up, or failing to forgive myself, or anything like that, then I can tell them they're insane. Unless they're the President of the Church, in which case I'm outta here. Seriously, I'd leave the Church if I believed that I have experienced the great joy Alma spoke of when he described joy "as exceeding as" was his pain.
I haven't felt it. Not yet. But I believe in it. Now more than ever.
HA! It goes back to Postulate C... it makes sense now more than it did when I WROTE that 10 minutes ago. Ready? Normal people have fluctuations between happiness and sadness that are sufficient for them to live life contentendly. They get enough variety. But the depressed person gets a taste for sadness that CANNOT be rivaled in this life WITHOUT sanctification. "AS EXCEEDING AS WAS MY PAIN," says Alma.
It goes back to the need for opposition in all things -- how could we know to strive for a greater happiness if we didn't have a greater misery to show us the scale? It's like... what is it like? I wanted to say "life's emotional dipstick" but that doesn't work. It's basically like a see-saw, shrouded in darkness. Most folks are near the axle, experiencing the good side and the bad side in small portions. But the super-happy side requires enormous effort to attain, and it's hidden from view. So we get a chemical helper that shows how much misery is possible. (And by no means do I believe I've reached the farthest end of misery -- I just know that I have had more misery than most folks I've talked to. Greater amounts with greater frequency.)
And while we stand at the edge of the see-saw, wallowing in despair... we might just realize that there must exist a happiness to match our pain. If we don't kill ourselves first.
There is a greater happiness, and it's sanctification.
Here comes the conclusion.
When one person achieves sanctification, he should be better able to help those around him achieve it. When you see a truly sanctified soul, you will be inspired to do everything they do to have the joy they have -- you'll give up all your sins to get what they've got. As it is, missionaries aren't the most happy people in the world, so missionary work is growing more slowly than it could.
But imagine a ward where the members have achieved sanctification. They radiate joy and love. People around them want to be like them, near them. The Church starts drawing in more and more people, and they repent faster and better -- no more holding on to some sins like we do -- half-heartedly repenting, getting rid of the big ones but leaving some smaller ones "to make this life livable" as Depeche Mode sings.
THEN, the wildfire starts. THEN the people start coming in droves; baptisms of hundreds rather than individuals or families.
From there, who knows how long until the Lord returns. Or how many people need to join the ranks of the sanctified before he comes back. (Certainly there are SOME people in the world now that could endure his presence; but he's waiting for more. How many more?)
Conclusion. The world will be saved, in essence, by individuals who attain sanctification through Christ's atonement. They'll be the saviors on Mount Zion. (And my depression has helped me to see that) sanctification is the greater happiness that the world needs, that I need. If I repent, truly repent, and seek sanctification, I can be a force in saving the world from evil on a scale that is unprecedented.
Then again, maybe I'm just hypomanic. Raving like a lunatic, not quite medicated properly. But I don't see what damage can come from trying.
(I haven't said much about how to become sanctified, though I've read a lot about it in the Book of Mormon. Mainly, though -- I need to stop sinning. Pretty simple.)
Anyhow, maybe it will take me ten years -- maybe more, hopefully less -- and then I can bring my family to my level of joy, and then those around us... I can't wait! Time to start repenting for real.
If not revelation, then epiphany. Probably epiphany.
The math... the math of life has never added up. One of the results of a bipolar mind, I suppose; as I look around at the world, I've never been able to see how it could be anything but depressing to the souls within it.
Seriously -- any good thing has a thousand negatives tagged on as well. At least, from the point of view of someone that is clinically depressed.
But the Church and the Gospel point out that "men are that they might have joy". Additionally, most folks seem to think life is pretty decent. MOST folks haven't thought about killing themselves to escape the pain of existence. How can that be? The math isn't adding up. So.
So, I take it on faith that my math is wrong, and that the majority are right, and that the Church is right, and that life is pretty good, and I just need medication. It's kept me alive so far, which, depending on your point of view, is probably a good thing. (Ask the depressed octagenarian who wishes they'd killed themselves five decades previously and you might get a different answer.)
So, all that is postulate A.
Postulate A. The world is not a horrible, miserable place.
There is misery, and there is horror, but somehow there's also enough good that most folks want to keep living in it.
Next, we come to the fact that the collective unconscious, the myths and archetypes in all great stories and legends, tell us there is something more that we can have. When the hero saves the day, he saves the world. Superman. Luke Skywalker. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't know, but probably Buddha, and definitely the Savior. I've long believed that the myths in all cultures stem from the fact that Christianity was the original religion of Adam and Eve, and the prophecies of the Christ soaked into the mythos and cultures that devolved from there.
Boston sings "I gotta keep on chasing that dream, or I may never find it." WHAT dream? They don't even know for sure, which is what makes it so elusive.
"Someday we'll find it: the Rainbow Connection. The lovers, the dreamers, and me." Thank you, Jim Henson. Now what the hell is a "rainbow connection?"
This is all leading up to something cool, I promise.
Also, the Light of Christ is available to all, and as such we have common knowledge of good and evil, and, I believe, a sort of unconscious knowledge that the world needs saving. We still make new movies each year about some great evil coming to destroy the world, and the heroes that fight it.
In the Church we know the world needs saving from Satan's grasp -- although we tend to forget that we must establish the Kingdom of God before the Kingdom of Heaven can come; the Savior's return will not be when the world becomes sufficiently evil, but rather when there is a society that can endure his presence -- when we've become sufficiently good!
Hence,
Postulate B. The world needs to be saved from evil.
By that we mean as many souls as possible.
Moving on.
Artists, songwriters, poets, painters -- there's an unmistakable correlation between artists and bipolarity or depression. WHY? What kind of God would give people a disorder that prevents them from feeling happiness like most other folks do? (Unless, perhaps, you prescribe to the belief, like I once did, that all depression results from sin. To you I say, Screw You. My darkest despair came when I was at my most righteous. And the medications work. Why would I be able to chemically make myself happier if blah blah blah you get the point.)
Well, all gifts of the Spirit are intended to bless the lives of others, right? Right.
Bare with me, it's somewhat offensive if you've ever suffered from depression. You've already made the connection, but now I have to say it.
Depression is a "gift" given to souls in order to bless the lives of others. Van Gogh. Beethoven. Churchill. Keats. Fitzgerald. Tchaikovsky. Lincoln. Dickens. Twain. Michelangelo. The list goes on. Why are they better able to help the world around them?
Postulate C. Those with depression cannot be complacent with the world as it stands, because happiness is much more elusive for them. They search harder, and try harder, to bring happiness into the world.
Like how my postulates are to be taken as "givens", when they're really more like hypotheses? Yeah. I was never much of a mathematician. Even when I passed the AP BC Calculus exam -- I think there must have been some heavy curving that year. But, like I said, the math never added up before anyway.
So. Whew. You still with me? We're coming up on a fourth and final postulate before the conclusion, the epiphany, that I mentioned at the start.
Start here, if you think "justification" and "sanctification" are the same thing. They're not. "By the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified." We're talking the good kind of justified, not the self-justifying thing we idiots tend to do to hide our sins. Justified is forgiven, but sanctified goes beyond that -- sanctified is being "made perfect in Christ" and having your "garments washed clean". (Moroni 10:32-33)
Now. Lehi talks about the fruit of the tree that was desirable above all other fruit. And it filled him with exceedingly great joy. Is he talking about justification, which Saints enjoy when they partake of the Sacrament? Or is he talking about sanctification, which a select few people on this Earth are probably enjoying right now?
Postulate D. Sanctification is the great joy Lehi spoke of.
I can cite more scriptures -- the people of King Benjamin were righteous, offering up sacrifices, coming to the temple to hear a prophet, and THEN they had the mighty change of heart that filled their hearts with joy -- which show that justification is where we find ourselves at any given time when we're righteous. You worthy to take the sacrament? Feeling the Spirit? You're justified.
But the main reason I know that Lehi's great joy is sanctification, rather than the justification we all know and experience, is that justification DOESN'T MAKE ME THAT HAPPY.
I mean, bipolarity aside, if someone were to tell me that I have partaken of the fruit, but I'm in denial, or I'm beating myself up, or failing to forgive myself, or anything like that, then I can tell them they're insane. Unless they're the President of the Church, in which case I'm outta here. Seriously, I'd leave the Church if I believed that I have experienced the great joy Alma spoke of when he described joy "as exceeding as" was his pain.
I haven't felt it. Not yet. But I believe in it. Now more than ever.
HA! It goes back to Postulate C... it makes sense now more than it did when I WROTE that 10 minutes ago. Ready? Normal people have fluctuations between happiness and sadness that are sufficient for them to live life contentendly. They get enough variety. But the depressed person gets a taste for sadness that CANNOT be rivaled in this life WITHOUT sanctification. "AS EXCEEDING AS WAS MY PAIN," says Alma.
It goes back to the need for opposition in all things -- how could we know to strive for a greater happiness if we didn't have a greater misery to show us the scale? It's like... what is it like? I wanted to say "life's emotional dipstick" but that doesn't work. It's basically like a see-saw, shrouded in darkness. Most folks are near the axle, experiencing the good side and the bad side in small portions. But the super-happy side requires enormous effort to attain, and it's hidden from view. So we get a chemical helper that shows how much misery is possible. (And by no means do I believe I've reached the farthest end of misery -- I just know that I have had more misery than most folks I've talked to. Greater amounts with greater frequency.)
And while we stand at the edge of the see-saw, wallowing in despair... we might just realize that there must exist a happiness to match our pain. If we don't kill ourselves first.
There is a greater happiness, and it's sanctification.
Here comes the conclusion.
When one person achieves sanctification, he should be better able to help those around him achieve it. When you see a truly sanctified soul, you will be inspired to do everything they do to have the joy they have -- you'll give up all your sins to get what they've got. As it is, missionaries aren't the most happy people in the world, so missionary work is growing more slowly than it could.
But imagine a ward where the members have achieved sanctification. They radiate joy and love. People around them want to be like them, near them. The Church starts drawing in more and more people, and they repent faster and better -- no more holding on to some sins like we do -- half-heartedly repenting, getting rid of the big ones but leaving some smaller ones "to make this life livable" as Depeche Mode sings.
THEN, the wildfire starts. THEN the people start coming in droves; baptisms of hundreds rather than individuals or families.
From there, who knows how long until the Lord returns. Or how many people need to join the ranks of the sanctified before he comes back. (Certainly there are SOME people in the world now that could endure his presence; but he's waiting for more. How many more?)
Conclusion. The world will be saved, in essence, by individuals who attain sanctification through Christ's atonement. They'll be the saviors on Mount Zion. (And my depression has helped me to see that) sanctification is the greater happiness that the world needs, that I need. If I repent, truly repent, and seek sanctification, I can be a force in saving the world from evil on a scale that is unprecedented.
Then again, maybe I'm just hypomanic. Raving like a lunatic, not quite medicated properly. But I don't see what damage can come from trying.
(I haven't said much about how to become sanctified, though I've read a lot about it in the Book of Mormon. Mainly, though -- I need to stop sinning. Pretty simple.)
Anyhow, maybe it will take me ten years -- maybe more, hopefully less -- and then I can bring my family to my level of joy, and then those around us... I can't wait! Time to start repenting for real.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Well, Singlesaints has jumped up in rank for the search term "lds singles", and I think it's because I finally hunted down a couple missing things -- one was a missing image, and the other was my old counter.php page. Having found those, the site jumped from page 6 to page 1... for about an hour. Then it fell back to page 2, but no complaints -- it's still closer than before, and it makes me think we're within reach of the top 3 once again.
Valentine's Day was okay; the fudge never settled, so we ate chocolate-sugar goo. ALL of it.
And I'm down another pound, somehow. Makes no sense -- what with Madison's birthday and Valentine's day, I had sugar about every day this last week, yet I'm still down to 168.6. (Digital scale.) I guess it's the Prozac that's doing it.
New memberships at Singlesaints have slowed down somewhat... I'm hoping our newfound search rank will change that a bit.
Valentine's Day was okay; the fudge never settled, so we ate chocolate-sugar goo. ALL of it.
And I'm down another pound, somehow. Makes no sense -- what with Madison's birthday and Valentine's day, I had sugar about every day this last week, yet I'm still down to 168.6. (Digital scale.) I guess it's the Prozac that's doing it.
New memberships at Singlesaints have slowed down somewhat... I'm hoping our newfound search rank will change that a bit.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Well, I made fudge while Rebecca slept. It's now 1:12 AM, before Valentine's Day, and I'm hoping she thinks it's romantic. I even cut up a pie-pan to make a heart-shape. Oh, and I killed Cupid, and stuck his head on a pike coming out of the fudge. Hope she likes that, too.
And can I just say, the soft-ball stage is a pain in the hiney. And the wrist -- I kept stirring and stirring, and it seemed to never quite get there. I HOPE I cooked it hot enough -- we'll see if this puppy sets up.
And can I just say, the soft-ball stage is a pain in the hiney. And the wrist -- I kept stirring and stirring, and it seemed to never quite get there. I HOPE I cooked it hot enough -- we'll see if this puppy sets up.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
So, Massachusetts is all up in arms about the gay marriage thing, because their Supreme Court said their current constitution does not forbid gay couples to marry. Politicians are trying to hammer something out, and crowds are protesting the attempts to ban gay marriage.
So here's my idea. Join the protesters, but with signs that say "Incest is best! Let siblings marry!" and "Siblings are people too!" I think most folks are still appalled at that idea, and I think it puts things into the proper perspective: some things are wrong, period.
If I lived in Massachusetts (does anyone even know anyone that lives there? Isn't it like a county in Rhode Island?) I'd be doing it in a heartbeat.
I also thought about some posters advocating bestiality, like "let me marry my best friend" with a dog's picture, but that's probably a bit too incendiary.
So here's my idea. Join the protesters, but with signs that say "Incest is best! Let siblings marry!" and "Siblings are people too!" I think most folks are still appalled at that idea, and I think it puts things into the proper perspective: some things are wrong, period.
If I lived in Massachusetts (does anyone even know anyone that lives there? Isn't it like a county in Rhode Island?) I'd be doing it in a heartbeat.
I also thought about some posters advocating bestiality, like "let me marry my best friend" with a dog's picture, but that's probably a bit too incendiary.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Update on "Mahana":
She wrote back. *sigh*
So because I don't log onto my account every day I just loose my account and my money? Really not cool. And your email didn't in any way ask me to defend myself, it just simply stated that you believed some email from someone and deleted my account, no questions asked. I'd much rather have my account reinstated but if you can't do that, then send my money back to my Paypal account. I know you have some time to refund that, without cost to you as I have been a member of Paypal for many years. This is in no way my fault. I'm sorry my ex is a jerk, gee I wonder why we aren't married any longer, and I don't log on every day, I have a job, a boyfriend, play rehearsal and 3 kids to take care of, so the internet isn't my life. The moment I read your email I responded. Can't respond to some issue if I don't know it exsists.
To which I said:
Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify.
A) the email came from < her email addy >, which is the email you gave to Paypal. Why would someone be able to check your email and send from your email? Seems reasonable to assume only a spouse (or, yes, a jerk ex) would have that kind of access.
B) I responded to THAT email address, not to this one. I don't understand why you have a separate email account for Paypal, and why you don't check it.
C) Naturally I can't have not-completely-divorced people on the site, so I had to take action ASAP; I felt 24 hours was plenty. I'm happy to reinstate your account, but I'd like a faxed copy of your divorce paper (any page of it with the divorce date on it will do) so I can see the date myself. It's his word against yours, and that will solve the problem.
Sorry to make you jump through hoops. I'm liable if I let non-single people be on the site. If you'd like your account reinstated, please fax me the doc at < my fax # >, and it'll be back in no time.
Randy
I thought that was fair. She didn't.
Good grief. Okay here is the WHOLE story. I tried to give Paypal my new email address but I had to have my old checking account number in order to change that. Since I am divorced and have moved halfway across the country from my ex, I do not have any of those old checks, or check books, bank statements, etc... So I wasn't able to change my email addy. When I made the payment I knew it would go to my old aol account, which I knew Thurston would gain access too, because no matter how many times I change my password he still has the ability to call aol and get it. I waited for the confirmation email to arrive at my aol account, so I could delete it before Thurston got to it. I deleted it but I didn't think about deleting it from my recently deleted file, which of course he checked and which is why you got an email from him. Am I used to this? Yes, it's been a problem for quite some time and I'm just! not as cunning as him I guess. So, that is why I have used a yahoo account for all email and why Paypal still has my old one.
I do not have a computer of my own. I'm using one at the library as I speak, there is no scanner, so I can't scan the divorce papers to email them to you. I also do not have a fax machine, and therefore would have to pay to send you a paper that I really don't think I should have to send. Yup, his word against mine. In fact I also have no furniture, no car, not even a dish to account for 9 whole years of marraige. I do however have 3 beautiful children that I had to fight for. Thurston hasn't paid a dime of child support to help me care for them, but instead dumped $30,000 of debt on me. He kept the 4 houses we own, both cars and every possession. All I wanted was out of the marraige[sic] because he's totally crazy and I couldn't take it anymore.
So, after all that, I find a great website where I can talk to people. People who have been in similar situations and for the most part live too far away from me, so I can be myself, dump my crap on and don't have to worry about what they think. Then you decide to start charging us for talking on your site and it took me about 3 days to finally get the stupid thing paid for because of the previous Paypal account issues that I told you. My ex did exactly as I thought he would (boy I never learn) and you cancel my account, want me to now prove I'm divorced which will cost me even more money that I don't have and I'm so dang frustrated I think I could cry right now. Just give me back my money and I'll never go to your site again.
Well, I caved in and refunded her money. Though I'm having a hard time imagining a way she could get NOTHING financial out of the divorce, unless Thurston (names have been changed, by the way) was telling the truth about her having committed adultery.
Then again, I'm no divorce lawyer. But I'm struggling, because I have very, very little love for someone that commits adultery. Fornication, sure. You are in love, things get heated, you make a (large) mistake. But ADULTERY -- whew, nelly. I don't see how you can do something so evil -- I don't see how you could hold hands with someone that's not your spouse, much less go all the way.
Does it matter if she did or didn't? Eh, no, not really. I mean, if she DID commit adultery, then there's a greater chance she's lying about the finalization of the divorce, and if her divorce wasn't final, then I deserve to keep her $9.99, since she violated the Terms of Use. But there's no way to tell, and it's better to err on the side of mercy, I figure. So I refunded her money.
But, like I said, I'm struggling a bit, because part of me wonders if I'm just letting myself get taken by a liar.
-Randy "Can You Have The Librarian Photocopy and Fax Your Pants So I Can See If They're On Fire?" Tayler
She wrote back. *sigh*
So because I don't log onto my account every day I just loose my account and my money? Really not cool. And your email didn't in any way ask me to defend myself, it just simply stated that you believed some email from someone and deleted my account, no questions asked. I'd much rather have my account reinstated but if you can't do that, then send my money back to my Paypal account. I know you have some time to refund that, without cost to you as I have been a member of Paypal for many years. This is in no way my fault. I'm sorry my ex is a jerk, gee I wonder why we aren't married any longer, and I don't log on every day, I have a job, a boyfriend, play rehearsal and 3 kids to take care of, so the internet isn't my life. The moment I read your email I responded. Can't respond to some issue if I don't know it exsists.
To which I said:
Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify.
A) the email came from < her email addy >, which is the email you gave to Paypal. Why would someone be able to check your email and send from your email? Seems reasonable to assume only a spouse (or, yes, a jerk ex) would have that kind of access.
B) I responded to THAT email address, not to this one. I don't understand why you have a separate email account for Paypal, and why you don't check it.
C) Naturally I can't have not-completely-divorced people on the site, so I had to take action ASAP; I felt 24 hours was plenty. I'm happy to reinstate your account, but I'd like a faxed copy of your divorce paper (any page of it with the divorce date on it will do) so I can see the date myself. It's his word against yours, and that will solve the problem.
Sorry to make you jump through hoops. I'm liable if I let non-single people be on the site. If you'd like your account reinstated, please fax me the doc at < my fax # >, and it'll be back in no time.
Randy
I thought that was fair. She didn't.
Good grief. Okay here is the WHOLE story. I tried to give Paypal my new email address but I had to have my old checking account number in order to change that. Since I am divorced and have moved halfway across the country from my ex, I do not have any of those old checks, or check books, bank statements, etc... So I wasn't able to change my email addy. When I made the payment I knew it would go to my old aol account, which I knew Thurston would gain access too, because no matter how many times I change my password he still has the ability to call aol and get it. I waited for the confirmation email to arrive at my aol account, so I could delete it before Thurston got to it. I deleted it but I didn't think about deleting it from my recently deleted file, which of course he checked and which is why you got an email from him. Am I used to this? Yes, it's been a problem for quite some time and I'm just! not as cunning as him I guess. So, that is why I have used a yahoo account for all email and why Paypal still has my old one.
I do not have a computer of my own. I'm using one at the library as I speak, there is no scanner, so I can't scan the divorce papers to email them to you. I also do not have a fax machine, and therefore would have to pay to send you a paper that I really don't think I should have to send. Yup, his word against mine. In fact I also have no furniture, no car, not even a dish to account for 9 whole years of marraige. I do however have 3 beautiful children that I had to fight for. Thurston hasn't paid a dime of child support to help me care for them, but instead dumped $30,000 of debt on me. He kept the 4 houses we own, both cars and every possession. All I wanted was out of the marraige[sic] because he's totally crazy and I couldn't take it anymore.
So, after all that, I find a great website where I can talk to people. People who have been in similar situations and for the most part live too far away from me, so I can be myself, dump my crap on and don't have to worry about what they think. Then you decide to start charging us for talking on your site and it took me about 3 days to finally get the stupid thing paid for because of the previous Paypal account issues that I told you. My ex did exactly as I thought he would (boy I never learn) and you cancel my account, want me to now prove I'm divorced which will cost me even more money that I don't have and I'm so dang frustrated I think I could cry right now. Just give me back my money and I'll never go to your site again.
Well, I caved in and refunded her money. Though I'm having a hard time imagining a way she could get NOTHING financial out of the divorce, unless Thurston (names have been changed, by the way) was telling the truth about her having committed adultery.
Then again, I'm no divorce lawyer. But I'm struggling, because I have very, very little love for someone that commits adultery. Fornication, sure. You are in love, things get heated, you make a (large) mistake. But ADULTERY -- whew, nelly. I don't see how you can do something so evil -- I don't see how you could hold hands with someone that's not your spouse, much less go all the way.
Does it matter if she did or didn't? Eh, no, not really. I mean, if she DID commit adultery, then there's a greater chance she's lying about the finalization of the divorce, and if her divorce wasn't final, then I deserve to keep her $9.99, since she violated the Terms of Use. But there's no way to tell, and it's better to err on the side of mercy, I figure. So I refunded her money.
But, like I said, I'm struggling a bit, because part of me wonders if I'm just letting myself get taken by a liar.
-Randy "Can You Have The Librarian Photocopy and Fax Your Pants So I Can See If They're On Fire?" Tayler
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
So, I got an unusual email the other day:
Randy,
I am Mahana's husband. I thought you should know that she is not single but is married. She has filed for divorce after committing adultery but that divorce is not final. Just thought you should know.
Only it didn't say "Mahana" -- names have been changed to protect the parties involved.
Now, it came as a REPLY to the email that Paypal sends users when they pay to join Singlesaints. So this was somebody using the same email address as "Mahana", which provided further support to the claim of being her husband.
I replied with the following:
Mahana or husband,
Contact information? Divorce date? What's the story, folks? Mahana, I'll have to assume this is correct information, and will delete your account, if I don't hear back from you.
Randy
She didn't respond within 24 hours, so I deleted her account. But 24 and a half hours later, I got the following from a different email address, apparently the one the automated "You've been deleted" message was sent to:
I appreciate what you are trying to do but I wish you would have asked me about this before just cancelling my account. That email very well could have been from my ex husband, but yes my divorce is final. On the other hand it could have been from any of my ex boyfriends, since I have met a few men from this site, or just some jerk who thought it would be funny. Not cool to just cancel my account.
-Mahana
Apparently she never got my email asking for details, since she says she wished I would have asked.
Am I worried I deleted an innocent person? No, not really. She's not too vehement about getting her money back, which you'd think she would be if she felt like she'd been wronged. She didn't really even fight my decision.
My favorite part was "it could have been from any of my ex boyfriends". Girlfriend, what kind of lice are you dating?
I wrote back and said "I waited 24 hours after asking you to clarify the situation." That was yesterday; haven't heard back today. I'm thinking it's a pretty clear-cut case of pants being on fire, possibly even hanging from a telephone wire.
That makes her the third person who lied about their divorce being final in the 5 years Singlesaints has been around. Not too bad, I guess.
Randy,
I am Mahana's husband. I thought you should know that she is not single but is married. She has filed for divorce after committing adultery but that divorce is not final. Just thought you should know.
Only it didn't say "Mahana" -- names have been changed to protect the parties involved.
Now, it came as a REPLY to the email that Paypal sends users when they pay to join Singlesaints. So this was somebody using the same email address as "Mahana", which provided further support to the claim of being her husband.
I replied with the following:
Mahana or husband,
Contact information? Divorce date? What's the story, folks? Mahana, I'll have to assume this is correct information, and will delete your account, if I don't hear back from you.
Randy
She didn't respond within 24 hours, so I deleted her account. But 24 and a half hours later, I got the following from a different email address, apparently the one the automated "You've been deleted" message was sent to:
I appreciate what you are trying to do but I wish you would have asked me about this before just cancelling my account. That email very well could have been from my ex husband, but yes my divorce is final. On the other hand it could have been from any of my ex boyfriends, since I have met a few men from this site, or just some jerk who thought it would be funny. Not cool to just cancel my account.
-Mahana
Apparently she never got my email asking for details, since she says she wished I would have asked.
Am I worried I deleted an innocent person? No, not really. She's not too vehement about getting her money back, which you'd think she would be if she felt like she'd been wronged. She didn't really even fight my decision.
My favorite part was "it could have been from any of my ex boyfriends". Girlfriend, what kind of lice are you dating?
I wrote back and said "I waited 24 hours after asking you to clarify the situation." That was yesterday; haven't heard back today. I'm thinking it's a pretty clear-cut case of pants being on fire, possibly even hanging from a telephone wire.
That makes her the third person who lied about their divorce being final in the 5 years Singlesaints has been around. Not too bad, I guess.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
T-minus 7 days and counting before Valentine's Day. Rebecca and I have been married 3 years, our daughter just had her one-year birthday yesterday, and we're living with Rebecca's dad. What gift do these factors mandate?
Dunno, but I hope it's something cheap. If the 25th year of marriage is "silver", and 50th is "gold", then I think we're still on "paper" or perhaps "cardstock". Maybe "paper-mâche" -- that being French and all. A nice, romantic evening with newspaper strips and watered-down paste.
You'd think I'd have some insights into romance since I run a site for LDS singles. Alas, such is not the case; I use to think I was a hopeless romantic, but then I got married, and now romance seems... well, almost silly.
Something I need to get over, obviously, if I want Rebecca to be happy. And, of course, I have no money to spend. I considered stealing flowers from around the neighborhood -- probably not the best idea I've had.
...though maybe I could find some wildflowers...
It's tricky. Maybe I can get Chuck to watch Madison and I can take Rebecca out someplace that's free, but romantic. Maybe we could go make out in a park someplace... hmm.
Or maybe I can get her computer up and running, and we can just flirt online chatting from upstairs to downstairs. That was half of our dating anyway.
Dunno, but I hope it's something cheap. If the 25th year of marriage is "silver", and 50th is "gold", then I think we're still on "paper" or perhaps "cardstock". Maybe "paper-mâche" -- that being French and all. A nice, romantic evening with newspaper strips and watered-down paste.
You'd think I'd have some insights into romance since I run a site for LDS singles. Alas, such is not the case; I use to think I was a hopeless romantic, but then I got married, and now romance seems... well, almost silly.
Something I need to get over, obviously, if I want Rebecca to be happy. And, of course, I have no money to spend. I considered stealing flowers from around the neighborhood -- probably not the best idea I've had.
...though maybe I could find some wildflowers...
It's tricky. Maybe I can get Chuck to watch Madison and I can take Rebecca out someplace that's free, but romantic. Maybe we could go make out in a park someplace... hmm.
Or maybe I can get her computer up and running, and we can just flirt online chatting from upstairs to downstairs. That was half of our dating anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)