Maybe I'm Just Paranoid

Fregramis · Senior Member

Maybe I'm Just Paranoid

arbilad · Head Chef

It shows how tired I am that instead of reading "Al Queda plans to detonate multiple nukes" I read "Al Gore plans to detonate multiple nukes".
I don't think that you're paranoid. It's good to acknowledge potential threats and do your best to avoid them. Is the threat you mention credible? Well, first you have to establish whether someone has a motive to do so. I think that one's a slam dunk - radical islamists want to destroy the "great satan". They'd jump at a chance to nuke us. Second, you have to look at ability to make such a device. The science behind it is fairly straightforward. The fissionable material is much harder to come by, but nations like Iran and North Korea are suspected of already having some. Not to mention that it wouldn't be too hard to bribe some underpaid (or not paid at all) Russian scientist not only to provide the material for the bomb, but to help in its construction. So, they have the ability to construct such a device. Do they have the ability to get such a device into the country? That part is the easiest of all. Our southern border is wide open, and for all we know thousands of such devices could be coming across each day (I don't believe that it is actually thousands; if such have been snuck across, it's probably just a couple of dozen total at most).

Convert · Veteran Member

As of right now Russia has 12 nukes they can't account for. Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets "lost" in Russia. If a soldier "loses" his rifle his punishment is severe. So what has happened to those nukes? They've made there way onto the black market, or was it really the black market.

Russia is 100% behind AQ. Ayman al-Zawahiri is KGB trained.

As for have the nukes made their way here, you can be assured they have and they are being maintained to prevent detection.

As for the borders. Far too many non-mexicans have been caught coming across the border with Potassium Iodide pills on their person. Those are just the ones we've caught. For every 1 we catch, there are 1000+ that sneak in undetected. Some are Chinese, some are middle eastern.

In the future, report those kinds of things to Homeland Security or the FBI. We can't afford to be coy about events like this. Tis better to be safe than sorry.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Convert wrote:
Russia is 100% behind AQ.

Sources, please.

Please don't think I'm calling you out, Convert. I'm a former military intelligence officer and provided anti-terrorism training to our unit for several years. Even though I'm an elementary school teacher now, terrorism is still a subject of interest for me, and I try to stay current through open-source intelligence such as Stratfor.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Just a thought... potassium idodide is not at all difficult to come by. Why would these people need to smuggle it in with them?

Fregramis · Senior Member

Speaking of Russians, does anyone here remember the first few days of the ground war in Iraq when Fox News reported that Russian military intelligence had been in Bagdad? I never heard another thing about it. Was it swept, or was the story false? Just wondering.

My personal hunch is that when Putin sees the US, it is a patient bear seeing a wounded deer and he is biding his time, growing bolder by the day.

arbilad · Head Chef

bokbadok wrote:

Just a thought... potassium idodide is not at all difficult to come by. Why would these people need to smuggle it in with them?

That's a good question, Bok. I think that one possible answer is that everything you bring over yourself is one less thing that you have to obtain in the US, and thus one less thing that can be used to track you down. After all, isn't that a major way they look for criminals and terrorists, is track unusual buying patterns?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Freg, I remember hearing about it. No, it did not get swept over... it just wasn't given media attention after the war started. The Russians had vested interest, much like France and Germany, in there being no war... they had invested significantly into Iraq since the first gulf war and were party to much of the scandal because a lot of it had been under the table in regards to the UN sanctions against the Hussein regime. The Russians were covertly providing military equipment and training in return for oil. The French and Germans were not as covertly providing industrial and infrastructure stuff, also in return for oil.

This all got conveniently "forgotten" when the UN and those individuals and nations who would not stand for right started the rhetoric of there were no WMD and that it was all a fabrication to justify an invasion because Hussein was not in noncompliance with the so-called peace / armistace terms of the first gulf war and the US just wanted Iraqi oil... and the funny (as in ironic thing) was that people actually bought the line fed them by a corrupt UN which was quickly trying to cover it's own behind...

Pt314 · Senior Member

One thing is sure.

If New York, Washington DC, Boston, Los Angeles, Los Vegas, Miami, and Houston get nuked (The cities suspected of being targeted), it would be the end of American influence in the world, the world economy will go to pot, opportunistic wars will break out around the world (China/Taiwan, North/South Korea, Everyone/Israel), and would just be a mess.

Convert · Veteran Member

Sources, please.Sorry, no can do. Info is not open source.

I'm a former military intelligence officer and provided anti-terrorism training to our unit for several years. Even though I'm an elementary school teacher now, terrorism is still a subject of interest for me, and I try to stay current through open-source intelligence such as Stratfor.Mmm, interesting. I'll keep that in mind. Have any spare time these days?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Point of protocol... One should not make claims or assertions in Bountiful that they can not / will not back up with source materials that can be independently verified by others. Until such claims or assertions can be verified, they will hold little to no credibility and in all likelihood will be entered into the famed vetting program of the Foil Cap Conspiracy Theory of the Week Award Contest.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

To protect us from imminent nukings that are most certainly to come, I suggest we all form a commune somewhere safe, like Belize or French Guiana... I'll bring the koolaid...

--Ray

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Putting on the moderator hat thingy, that is messing up my hair... ashamed

Please provide sources... Without sources to back it up, infomation posted becomes simply part of someone elses rumor network... For those who do not wish to post sources, please consider whether it would be better to edit...

Thank you. smile

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Oh, no. Polly's back to the alien doll of the walking dead.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm of two minds about this. We don't want people trying to "win arguments" using made up data. But neither do we want to shut down everything that doesn't use publicly sourced data. For instance, Fregramis didn't provide the name and telephone number of the pharmacist he worked with who made the statement. That's unsourced data. But it's still interesting. I say that we allow unsourced stuff, as long as it isn't being used to "win" a heated discussion, and as long as it is clearly labeled as unsourced (or from a source that can't be revealed).

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Convert wrote:
Have any spare time these days?

Sorry, Convert. It's a challenge to wrest away 20 minutes for my favorite addiction--Bountiful. I have 9 graduate hours squeezed into this summer's 10-week session and I'm studying for my ESL (Eglish as a second language) certification. That's one of the reasons I'm not as current as I'd like to be on the latest terrorism analyses.

Something to add to the sources discussion: If sources are classified, law enforcement sensitive, perishable or actionable intel, etc., where sources are protected, then the content shouldn't be discussed in any public forum. Even generalizing and "talking around the classification" can get people into trouble--I've sat on investigative panels to revoke security clearances for stuff like that.

My opinion is that statements should conform at least minimally to academic inquiry standards: When evidence is used to support an assertion, that evidence should be verifiable.

Fregramis · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

For instance, Fregramis didn't provide the name and telephone number of the pharmacist he worked with who made the statement. That's unsourced data.

Wouldn't I be violating HIPPA regulations? smile

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

If you can't spell it, probably not.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Fregramis wrote:

arbilad wrote:

For instance, Fregramis didn't provide the name and telephone number of the pharmacist he worked with who made the statement. That's unsourced data.
Wouldn't I be violating HIPPA regulations?

Not likely. HIPPA (which is the correct abbreviation... Mrs. Cat works in a pharmacy) is about revealing confidential, personal identifiable information on patients to unauthorized parties. In this case, it would simply be a violation of common decency as to the privacy of a former co-worker, and the pharmacist is not going to tell that so-in-so got this or that medication in this dosage on this date to anyone without legal grounds to divulge the information unless he / she is willing to risk losing their license and livelihood...

Oh, and freg's statement is not unsourced data, even though to us it may seem to be mere hearsay. He was a first hand witness to the event, the data is accessible if the proper legal authorization is obtained, and he wasn't repeating something that had been told to him from unsourced / unsourceable data.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I honestly don't see the difference. Convert knows the sources, and trusts them. We do not know them, therefore cannot trust them. Fregramis knew and trusted his source. We do not know this pharmacist, therefore we cannot evaluate the reliability of his info.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Re. the eventual use of nuclear weapons, I recall Apostle Bruce R. McConkie once included in a Conference talk the words "....nuclear holocausts which/that surely shall be."

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Arbi, there is a difference. Fregmanis saw it with his own two eyes as well. It was not information that was passed on by someone who had it passed on to them from someone else. If you are a pharmacist or pharmacy tech, you can call any other pharmacy and get a limited amount of information on prescriptions and the patient. It is done everyday. How else do you think pharmacy's are able to transfer a prescription if you filled it at a different chain / same chain different store?

The question is not whether the data can be verified. Freg's can with the appropriate info and legal authority. Convert's can't because she provided no source but her own post for the data provided...

The question is actually who is more credible, Freg with the telling of a first hand experience or Convert with the unverifiable comments. They both could be wrong, or they both could be right. But, at least there is a way to verify Freg's example. There is nothing but the word of the comment poster on Convert's example.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

How about everyone just take it for what they think then...

It's really no big deal to me... However, I was attempting to be "technical" about this thread... Unless there is some kind of "verifiable" fact or source... **for instance even a comment like, the grass is green could be doubted by someone who has never been able to see grass... perhaps they want to believe that person because they "trust the source"... that that is absolutely fine...**

However to base any "information" on [someone said, I read, I was given intel...] "technically"... is called hearsay

I am attempting to not read into anyone's comments anything more than a technical base. That's where I am coming from...

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 22:46, 2007-05-31

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

lundbaek wrote:

Re. the eventual use of nuclear weapons, I recall Apostle Bruce R. McConkie once included in a Conference talk the words "....nuclear holocausts which/that surely shall be."

Bruce R. McConkie April Conference, 1979
It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be. And so we raise the warning voice and say: take heed; prepare; watch and be ready. There is no security in any course except the course of obedience and conformity and righteousness.

-- Edited by mirkwood at 00:16, 2007-06-01

Convert · Veteran Member

Sorry, Convert. It's a challenge to wrest away 20 minutes for my favorite addiction--Bountiful. I have 9 graduate hours squeezed into this summer's 10-week session and I'm studying for my ESL (Eglish as a second language) certification. That's one of the reasons I'm not as current as I'd like to be on the latest terrorism analyses. Roper, that's too bad, we could use the help. Maybe another time. Something to add to the sources discussion: I've made certain that nothing I've said is classified, sensitive, perishable or actionable. The non-disclosure agreement has not been compromised. My opinion is that statements should conform at least minimally to academic inquiry standards: When evidence is used to support an assertion, that evidence should be verifiable.I understand perfectly. Want to verify it? Do you understand arabic? Do you have a secure proxy server?

To all:
I have to say that I'm more than a little disappointed. I was invited here by a fellow Latter Day Saint. Being one requires that we subscribe to a higher standard of conduct and integrity. But the minute I put forth some information my integrity is immediately called into question. Thanks (sarcasim).
You might retort "but we need sources". To which I would say, no you don't. Your best source can be accessed from a kneeling position.

I understand the whole "its the internet" thing, but amongst fellow saints I say that's bunk. Would you lie? Do you lie? I wouldn't, I don't, and I won't. Don't forget, we all have to account for our actions and lying is included. If that means anything to you then understand that means a lot to me as well.

At this point in time I'm not certain that I want to continue being here. I'll have to think it over. I was intially excited to converse with fellow Saints, but now I'm not so sure.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Actually, fregramis, it could and I would suggest to be reported to the FBI still. Cases are often broken on small things. I would imagine the records still exist.

Convert, I can empathize with what you are saying and I can certainly see it both ways. I don't believe anyone is assailing your integrity. Speaking for myself, I too like sources if anything just to be able to learn more, sometimes, though and naturally, sources are not available. As your example of language, or issues of human intelligence which cannot often be verified.

To back up what Convert is saying, I read last night of nucs already being in the US as reported by a former FBI director. Though I have no direct knowledge, I absolutely believe that Al Quaeda is backed or at the very least received training from the KGB. The KGB and Russia have been up to their necks in the middle east to use the people and countries in a proxy war of combat and economics against the West. This is documented everywhere. Much of the terrorism of the 70s and 80s was backed, trained, and funded by Russia. Listen to Putin's current rhetoric now, it is the same that flowed from the USSR constantly. BTW, Putin is former KGB, or more likely is still very closely connected. He hates the US and has been making many threats. It is in his interest to see the US undermined and using Al Quaeda is a perfect way. Weakening the US allows Russia to grow in strength and make moves to rebuild its empire. Russia is not our friend.

Frankly, I have seen enough outside sources to state that Convert is right on the money. As an additional, Hezzbollah, Iranian backed Lebanese terror group with Iran backed by Russia and China has a major base in South America and is conducting terror operations there. Many are Spanish speaking and can easily pass for Hispanics sneaking into the US.

In the mouths of 2 or 3 witnessess....

I highly recommend this book written by a poster on Zion's Camp website. It is based on all these matters and an excellent read: A Well-Regulated Militia http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-John-Carpenter/dp/1413788890/ref=sr_1_2/102-0541318-0188934?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180709007&sr=1-2

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Convert,

(non-moderating hat on since I no longer moderate in this arena, but friendly advise giving hat on as one of the charter members of the forum)

A general common courtesy in Bountiful is and always has been that when a participant in the forum posts any sort of assertions or allegations, be it in the line of conspiracy theory or in something as innocuous as opinion on a children's TV show or as potentially inflammatory as differences in political opinion, the participant needs to be ready to back the comment up with verifiable source material that others in the forum can go and look at and draw their own conclusions from. Otherwise, others are justified in viewing the comments with a healthy amount of skepticism.

The comments directed your way by a number of us the last couple days in these couple of threads are not at you, or even at your comments directly. They are directed at the lack of provision you provided the rest of us to go and vet the basis of said comments. That is all.

We all appreciate your participation and hope you will continue to do so (you only have 38 posts and have been a member of the forum for 11 days now), but if the fact most of the rest of us operate under that courtesy expectation is something you would have a hard time extending, then it could be frustrating to you indeed. Please try to understand and adapt to our forum culture rather than throwing your hands up in frustration and in essence saying "bag it, I'm out of here!"

We also try to encourage the paradigm of seeking to understand before being understood. While the bulk of us are on the conservative side when it comes to politics, we also range in that spectrum from moderates to what some may even classify as reactionary. So, the forum is not a homogeneous group of LDS conservatives. And there are even some who are more interested in non-political related discussions for a variety of reasons.

I am sorry and apologize that you misunderstood what I was saying as calling your personal integrity into question. I was not. I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between the two examples of source that had been presented (or not presented as the case may be) here in this thread... that without a process or source to verify a statement with, it all hinges on whether a person believes the individual or not. And honestly, there is no reason to believe either one of the individuals or their examples any more than the other until proper vetting has occured. Does that make sense?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Convert: I thought long and hard before expressing incredulity to any of your thoughts. Ultimately though, I just don't know what can be done.

SHould our wives at home stop talking to their neighbors out of fear they're terrorists?

Should we support legislation that puts arab speaking americans and mexican speaking americans in camps?

Should I go into debt to stockpile ammunition and mres?

Should I make a sizeable financial donation to your network of intelligence operatives?

Should I eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow I die?

When I read the news, I am often stirred up to fear, by the fearmongers in the media. I am sure you feel that your membership affords you certain privileges of trust, but I'm still shrugging... you're another anonymous voice... Honestly, I cannot even verify that you're a member of the church...

Even members are the church are not permitted free reign in the claims they make... they can be challenged and we should be used to it.

I find the Gospel difficult to live in relative peace due to my own fallen nature... fear of imminent death by anyone with dark skin really doesn't help my disposition to faith.

--Ray

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

All we're saying is that the info *sounds* like another alarmist conspiracy theory. Like Cat said, without a source, it comes down to whether we believe you or not. Just membership in the Church isn't quite enough. I get crank conspiracy email forwards from other members of the Church often, but I don't think they're lying.

So then we're left with praying about it. I already have a testimony of preparing, so what's left?

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Euphrasie wrote:

All we're saying is that the info *sounds* like another alarmist conspiracy theory. Like Cat said, without a source, it comes down to whether we believe you or not. Just membership in the Church isn't quite enough. I get crank conspiracy email forwards from other members of the Church often, but I don't think they're lying.

So then we're left with praying about it. I already have a testimony of preparing, so what's left?

Google is your friend, there are tons of references.

Missing nukes and material
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26770
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9549/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=506177
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070501-105445-4737r.htm
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040617_1_n.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/14/162425.shtml?s=lh
KGB Training of Terrorists
http://www.jrnyquist.com/nyquist_2005_0813.htm
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=227
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25157
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/1215.html

arbilad · Head Chef

Convert, I think part of what you're running into is that people are predisposed to disbelieve bad news. It's the "All is well in Zion" trap that we all so frequently fall into. The automatic reaction is, "Well, prove it." Proof is good, when it can be had. When it can't, you use discernment. It's also hard to strike the balance between "believe all bad predictions as if they were 100% fact" and "disbelieve anything that could disrupt my comfortable existence".

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

arbi: I've been very cautious to avoid saying everything is fine. I don't think this has to do with "All is Well in Zion" sentiments, and it is difficult for me not to take offense at how dismissive you're being to our skepticism.

So far nothing has been said about what common members can do. And I wonder aloud, that perhaps this sort of information should not be diseminated to the general body of the members of the church... which this forum seeks to serve. I don't know a good solution...

I do know that a lot of good, faithful, believing latter-day saints have been bilked out of money, trust and fellowship due to con-artists and people claiming to have a special insider get-rich-quick type approach to information, gospel knowlege, or money matters.

Utah has a record for having an usually high number of victims of fraud not just because there are so many elderly there... but because we trust our fellow saints without employing criticality... and NOT because "All is well in Zion" thinking...

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Well, Ray, hopefully you don't take offense where none was given. But I actually do think that the "All is well in Zion" attitude is common to all of us (including myself, a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist), so I don't mean it as an insult in the slightest. When I can tell that someone is about to tell me bad news, I mentally cringe because I know that I will have to deal with it, or that I will worry about it. So I tend to avoid bad news when I can.
I know that you didn't say "All is well". If I understand correctly, you are skeptical because you didn't see the sources and the information is outside the realm of what you think is likely. That is, if someone makes what you consider to be an unlikely claim, you would prefer that they back it up. It is my opinion that that is a manifestation of the desire to disprove information that, if proven, would be unpleasant. If your wife were to call you at work and say that she got in an accident, what would be your first reaction? Probably a variation of, "I hope that it's much better than the worst case scenario I've conjured in my head". You look for reasons to disprove the worst case scenario. For instance, you ask your wife "How bad was it" to determine the general seriousness of the accident. If she says, "It was bad", you try to see if that's an emotional reaction to the stress of being in an accident, or whether she's talking bodies strewn everywhere and a car that can now only be swept up, not towed away. You try to see the best in a potentially bad situation. There's nothing wrong with that. Someone who likes to believe the worst is generally a very unpleasant person. So it's natural to look for reasons why bad news isn't as bad as you initially fear. I think that is exactly what's happening here. A couple of people have talked about potentially very bad news. So the natural reaction is to look for reasons why it isn't as bad as initially expressed. Now, it may be true that it is not that bad. Further investigation may prove that it really isn't that serious of an issue. But there is also the potential that it is every bit as bad, maybe even worse, than what was said. It is a hard balancing act to make sure that you are skeptical enough, but at the same time wiling to believe the truth.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

My wife has a tendency to get very agitated about things that "could be" true. This type of thing can often ruin a nice peaceful evening. The baby is being too quiet. The children just went to bed without making too much noise. The kids are making too much noise... whatever. She doesn't know how to relax.

Sometimes I'll say, Sure the kids might be dead, but wouldn't you rather enjoy a few hours of peace before all the weeping and whailing and the planning of funerals?

We all have duties. It is not my current life duty to be an intelligence Czar, or overly concern myself about the Russians, other than that I hope someday my children might get a chance to preach the Gospel to these people. I work a simple job. I am teaching my children to be morally straight, good citizens, to respect and honor freedom and their fellow citizens. I teach them to study and love the Gospel. I don't dwell too much upon the Russians, though maybe someday there may be war... because... well... these are the moments in which we have to work according to our wills and consciences, and I will let no man or woman--no matter how hysterical--rob me of that privilege.

And seeing as how there is no intelligence communicated--no great enlightening of the Spirit of God, I personally have nothing to do with conspiracies and doom and gloom.

--Ray

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

that said... there are things that do agitate me...

Have I repented and humbled myself sufficiently?
How are my hometeaching families fairing?
How is the Elder's Quorum?
How are my neighbors, and their spiritual welfare?
How can I help my neighbors and family?
How can I help my children attain perfection and not make all the same mistakes I do?

Some of these fears and concerns get to me and can be just as ridiculous as the question, "Is the baby too quiet?"

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Question authority.

I was born in the 60s, and it seeped into my blood somehow.

That, and I'm currently taking a graduate course on qualitative research (had quantitative last semester) in preparation for a thesis. So I guess I'm forgetting that this is a forum for fairly unstructured discussion and not really the place to subject every idea to rigorous academic scrutiny.

Convert, I hope you stay and continue to share your ideas.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

"HIPPA (which is the correct abbreviation... Mrs. Cat works in a pharmacy)"

My bad, I thought you were talking about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (HIPAA)

Convert, I hope you stay, too.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Valhalla...thanks for the links, but those things weren't what I was referring to. I'm aware that bad things are happening and that it's wide-spread and all. I am skeptical at this point just about the specific (more or less) time frame given.

My line of reasoning is something like "Given a specific time line, how do they know? If they know for sure, how is it possible that it's unclassified? If it's unclassified and they don't actually know for sure, why is it presented in such a 'sure' manner? How was this conclusion reached?" It's possible that arbilad's car accident scenario is at work. It's also connected to the adjacent thread poll...if it's gonna happen, I want as many details as possible.

If I'm being pigheaded here, feel free to kick me in the pants.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Cocobeem wrote:

"HIPPA (which is the correct abbreviation... Mrs. Cat works in a pharmacy)"

My bad, I thought you were talking about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (HIPAA)

Bad Mrs. Cat! Bad! I even asked her if it was the correct abbreviation. Her excuse now is "Well, I knew it was two of some letter!"

Thanks Dear, I'll gladly take the public embarrasment for your spelling error...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Mahonri wrote:

Back when I first was ordained a bishop in the early 90's, I was given a vision of part of my future... suffice it to say, within the next 10 years, Phoenix will be much different... and so will the rest of this country.

Take it for what it's worth to you. No conspiracies here.

We just keep living the way we've been taught, serve others and plant cherry trees.

I had a missionary companion who claimed his patriarchal blessing stated that he would live in a time when wars would be spread across the face of the land (meaninig specifically our land, not generically around the world). Of course, this blessing was given prior to his mission when he had been trying to get into the military so one could surmise the patriarch may have been adding some personal feelings based on knowledge of the recipients interests in with the inspiration (oh come on, before anyone accuses me of heresy, think about it -- like that has never happened... a patriarch giving some non-inspired parts of a blessing... rolleyes

)... Anyway, it is always possible, but from a general standpoint, don't know what utility the info would be to anyone but the recipient.

I agree, regardless of what may, could, or might even actually happen, the most important thing is to keep living the gospel to the best of our individual and family ability, serving others and The Lord, and to keep on planting apple trees even if we suspect the world would end tomorrow.

My only thought on the matter beyond that is if I am not "called" to survive the calamities that may, could, or might occur, that The Lord takes me and my family quickly so that we all may be spared undue suffering.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Honestly... it wasn't enough of a mistake to make an issue over... We love Sis Cat as a person wthout guile... even those that saw the spelling error understood what was being referenced... As in, "no one thought this was a 'different' privacy stipulation..."

I noticed it was spelled wrong, but since everyone understood which requirement was being referenced... I am of the opinion that I don't need to be **** "pretensive" in order to moderate... correct??? biggrin

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 07:54, 2007-06-02

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Moderator again....

I believe y'all have worked through some of your initial concerns in the thread, and for the most part "discussed with candor," not tried to force others to your way of thinking... (personally, I had faith in you all the time...)

My only thought at this point is that there is not really an issue to provide sources, as long as you allow that some will not be able to overcome their need for "studying out" the issue... if you either cannot or choose not to provide sources. We are all grown ups, and know how to think for ourselves... (well, most of us.... I am CRANKY OLD LADY right now... which is not at all grown up...)

While it is true that the truth is the truth no matter what anyone else believes, I personally see that Heavenly Father gives us a lot of tools to work with for the responsibility of stewardship. Attending to my stewardship is something I take very seriously, as I believe all of you do as well... If it is necessary to have more info to provide for your family and you desire that info as has been mentioned it is possible to find those sources of info...

I keep quoting my daddy, but he was one of my best teachers... and he truly was a GREAT man, till the end of his 95 years... "It is not necessary to agree, in order to understand, but we do have to understand to agree."

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 11:40, 2007-06-02

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

Bad Mrs. Cat! Bad! I even asked her if it was the correct abbreviation. Her excuse now is "Well, I knew it was two of some letter!" Thanks Dear, I'll gladly take the public embarrasment for your spelling error...

...and for your own?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Jeez, people. Just a little joke with the spelling, okay? It was like, hey if we don't spell them right, who cares if we bend their ethics? ha ha Little joke. Anyway, spelling shouldn't be part of the moderator's problem, should it? I don't think we have any obsessive spelling correctors here. Just a joak.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:

I don't think we have any obsessive spelling correctors here. Just a joke.

Think again. furious

Convert · Veteran Member

Okay the al-Zawahiri thing was open source. My bad. Too much info, too many links to remember them all. Enjoy. Youll have to do a little foot work to get the actual link, hope that isnt too hard.

Secret Service: Report" -- AFP headline
AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE
Sunday, July 17, 2005 T16:21:56Z
Journal Code: 2131 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT
Document Type: FBIS Transcribed Text
Word Count: 161

WARSAW, Jul 16 (AFP) -- Al-Qa'ida's number two was trained by Russia's secret service and served as a KGB agent before becoming Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man, a former KGB secret agent told Poland's

newspaper on Saturday ( 16 July).
"Ayman al-Zawahiri trained at a Federal Security Service (FSB, former KGB) base in Dagestan in 1998," claimed ex-FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko who fled Russia in 2000.
"He was then transferred to Afghanistan where he became Usama Bin Ladin's deputy", Litvinenko told the newspaper.
"I was working in that section at the time and I can confirm the fact Zawahiri was not the only link between the FSB and Al-Qa'ida", he said.
Last month Al-Jazeerah television aired a new videotape of Egyptian-born Zawahiri in which he called for more "jihad," or holy war, against US forces and Israel.
(Description of Source: Paris AFP in English -- North European Service of independent French press agency Agence France-Presse)

Compiled and distributed by NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce. All rights reserved.
City/Source: Paris
DIALOG Update Date: 20050717; 13:32:28 EST
Descriptors: International Political; Leader; Terrorism; Urgent
Geographic Codes: POL; RUS; AFG
Geographic Names: Poland; Russia; Afghanistan; Europe; Eurasia; Asia; North Europe; South Asia
NewsEdge Document Number: 200507171477.1_450c0019f1d88e6d
Original Source Language: English
Region: Europe; Eurasia; Asia

World News Connection®
Compiled and distributed by NTIS. All rights reserved.
Dialog® File Number 985 Accession Number 210750185
******
And if you want some additional reading
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/

And then there is this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/717338/posts

Would you care to read this?
http://www.jrnyquist.com/nyquist_2005_0813.htm

There is much more but I havent the time to give you all the sources necessary to invalidate your disbelief.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Moderator hat on... Let's all just relax a little okay???

Convert it was nice of you to provide data and sources for those that wish to make themselves more informed, we certainly do live in a difficult and dangerous world... However, the requests made by those asking for sources is not about "invalidating disbelief"... Personally I didn't really care one way or another about sources because I already had read some of the things that you just commented on.

However my effort here is to ask that you please attempt to "allow others to ask for more information", and that doing so is not that same as saying "prove it, you may not be telling me the truth"... Many people like to disseminated for themselves information. Several in this thread have tried to express that opinion... I do not see this as "you against them", please accept that. I hope that you will continue to enjoy your association here... However it would be helpful to future discussions if you would try to bear in mind that you are not being personally attacked. If you choose to take requests personally that is your choice, however in trying to be objective in this moderation, I did not read accusation in the comments of those asking for informational sources. And they were certainly not present in my comments.

I also saw nothing wrong with your comments, it is certainly your right to feel how you feel... it does sadden me that you still seem to feel that this was a personal affront...

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 21:34, 2007-06-02

arbilad · Head Chef

I personally believe that Convert did not receive a very nice welcome to Bountiful. Granted, the fact that I tend to agree with her (but not on all things, such as Romney) colors my opinion of this. But I think sometimes we worry too much about making people adapt to us, instead of making accommodation for others This forum is not the same as it was 8 months ago, nor will it probably be the same 8 months from now. We grow stronger and more vibrant by being accepting as a community, and seeking out the best in each new member of the forum. We need to be Christ-like in all our dealings.
There are those on this forum whose opinions are drastically different on certain matters from those held by Convert. But we are all, in the end, members. In the end, we will all have to give an accounting to a righteous Heavenly Father for every stray word that may have caused harm. Elder Holland talked in last conference about how words can hurt. To someone who believes in the things Convert posted, there are certain words which have been used hurtfully in the past which hurt when heard on this forum. Those words are used, I'm sure, without ill intent. But just as someone who has had another pregnancy end in miscarriage can cringe at another talk about motherhood, someone who believes in pending danger and the need to warn others will cringe at certain phrases used. To be specific, while I'm sure no malice was intended in the use of the words, "tin foil hat conspiracy" or "form a commune somewhere safe and I'll bring the kool aid", they all the same hold a negative emotional charge.
So I agree with you, PollyAnna. Let's all sit back and relax. I've enjoyed Convert's posts. I hope she stays. She's definitely added to the forum in ways other than just warnings.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Convert is a her? Hmm, thought convert was a guy.

Anyway, as to attacks on US cities: http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/?PROMO_CODE=34BE-1

arbilad · Head Chef

In her profile she lists her name as Diane. I'm assuming

I don't lie awake at night worrying about the prospect of nuclear attack, as does the author of the book in the article, but I do acknowledge that it is a real threat. It helps illustrate to me that it's right to follow the prophet's counsel and have my supplies in order. Not that I should need any external reason to follow the prophets' counsel, but it is nice to have the supporting evidence.