the category was 'Smith' the clue was about Lucy Mack Smith; 'who did she give birth to'?


We All know/regret the Answer, don't we.

well it could have been, hyrum, alvin, sophrina, samuel, or maybe Don Carlos (the son who spoke spanglish)

I think it asked something like who was the religious leader she gave birth to.

It is strange they have so much trivia about Mormons compared to comparable religions.

Hyrum was a religious leader.

I wonder if they would have accepted that answer.

Please Don't / thanks to those who haven't hijacked my thread.

I understand this as an opportunistic insult to viewers, I will be posting contact info for the producer(s) of the program.

I think of this situation as an opportunistic reproach to viewers, and I will be posting contact information to the producers of Jeopardy!

Thanks to those who haven't hijacked this thread, this is serious to me.

I know. I couldn't believe my ears. Again. It's like they want to be seen as totally part of the fabric of the nation.

Wait. Not 'like'. They DO want that. And they're managing it, little by little. Who's asking why so much Smith et al on Jeopardy lately (4-5 mo-related clues in 2 weeks - more than for most other topics, which they at least alternate - you don't get 'Bible' every week, for instance - maybe once or twice a year. Which is more, it is true, than other religious books). Only (some) exmos are asking why. If anybody else is noticing, how would we know?

There absolutely must be a Mormon on the inside of the show. Part of the "clue crew" or somewhere.

M B Eddy comes up once in a while. Not every week like JS 'n pals lately.

As I've posted a few times, CS is declining and will soon be an irrelevant historical curiosity, like the Shakers, for example. Hopefully we'll see the same happen to TSCC.

But both involve substantial financial and real property assets. Certain well-connected individuals will come out very, very well off--In LDS, especially.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I've posted a few times, CS is declining and
> will soon be an irrelevant historical curiosity,
> like the Shakers, for example. Hopefully we'll see
> the same happen to TSCC.
>
> But both involve substantial financial and real
> property assets. Certain well-connected
> individuals will come out very, very well off--In
> LDS, especially.

I'll say one thing for Christian Science - they have beautiful buildings. I was in a town last year, and there was a gorgeous church near my guesthouse which was run by some cultish church I'd never heard of. It turned out to have been Christian Science before that and designed by a well known architect.

And strangely, they do an okay newspaper as well.

It's always been more about you than the subjects about which you post.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always been more about you than the subjects
> about which you post.

It wasn't before I chose this name...

Now I get quizzed on my private lofe every day.

Oh, this again?

I asked this the last time you claimed this, I'll ask again... Where has anyone asked you to divulge personal information that could possibly compromise your anonymity?

EOD:
> It's always been more about you than the
> subjects
> about which you post.

Jordan:
> It wasn't before I chose this name...

This comes very close to acknowledging that you have used multiple names on RfM. That seems fully reasonable given your record and those of your very close relatives.


---------------------
> Now I get quizzed on my private lofe every day.

No one should criticize your lofe. That is beyond the pale.

You're worse than the villain on an old Columbo episode who thinks s/he will be vindicated by accusing Columbo of what s/he does.

It's like your political. Openly nicey nicey, but in reality based on oppression. You can never hide it.

> You're worse than the villain on an old Columbo
> episode who thinks s/he will be vindicated by
> accusing Columbo of what s/he does.

Sure.



-----------------
> It's like your political. Openly nicey nicey, but
> in reality based on oppression. You can never hide
> it.

Well, I'm horrified that my "political" is "nicey nicey." That hurts, Jargon, it really hurts.

Maybe I should cut and paste like yulou do to get my spelling right, mavourneen.

More attempts to belittle a woman by calling her "Mrs," "Dearie," etc.

Those were pathetic gestures in the dim and distant past, a way for weak men to overrule superior logic by women. But those days are past. Now they are just the atavistic convulsions of a sick mind.

But then I must remember, you are "mature and professionally successful." Right?

I don't care where it was, but it's obvious you are "good" at interacting within an online community. It's very likely that all the jargon you've used here has been used before. No one will deny how facile you are.

It is also likely that the reception you're getting here is familiar to you.

My impression is that creating a ruckus is the skill you have chosen to hone.

So here's my question: What's the average time you spend in an online community before the 'regulars' stop paying much in the way of attention to you?

I've been online for around twenty five years so of course I've "interacted with an online community". As have you. Don't be stupid. That means nothing.

As Lot's Wife would say, "Whoosh!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 04:58PM by Finally Free!.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Lot's Wife would say, "Whoosh!"

Don't tell me you're the same dude as well.

Hahahahahahah!

As I stated in the other thread, we're all Lot's Wife, every account. This board was created specifically for you to give you lots of accounts to interact with for entertainment purposes.

Honestly, it's nice to be included in the club. I have a great deal of respect for Lot's Wife, elderdog, and saucie and the others you can't tell one from the other.

Well she has at least three accounta ao nothing would surprise me. ;)

I was only half-joking. I don't call ber Legion for nothing.

You know we're all still waiting for your proof that they are the same account. That data analysis should prove interesting.

Anyway, I like saying "Whoosh!", it's great shorthand when you miss the point of a post.

"My lamp!!! Jordan, did you knock my lamp over?"

"Do you have any idea how many lamps there are in the world!"


"A great many! But did you knock over my lamp!?

"Was it plugged in??


"What does that have to do with it?"

"It's something that we need to take into account! What's wrong with you! Are you admitting to me that you don't know if it was plugged in or not!?


"Well, we can check to see..."

"Nope, you tell me now, without looking, whether you know if it was plugged in or not, and who either plugged it in or unplugged it!! C'mon, quit stalling!!!"


"What the ..."

"Fine, if you're not going to cooperate then I leave you to your own devices! Get back to me when you're ready to make sense."

You forgot...

"Lamps are creations of the Lefist Socialized Electric company in order enable late night planning sessions of the marxists communists against the duly elected proper government."

"I don't think that's true and what does that have to do with my lamp?"

and...

"You know, I once met Thomas Edison, if I had realized if had realized what he had been working on, I would have suggested the carbonized thread right away and he would have advanced the lighting industry much faster."

"wait? What? How is that possible?"

(Lamp laying on the floor with Jordan standing over it quietly shoving pieces of it under a table with his feet, hoping no one notices.)

Still not as funny as someone calling herself Lot's Wife complaining about pseudonyms. I suppose it's true... Maybe Americans really don't do irony...

I believe that you have stated that Jordan isn't your real name. I could be wrong, but I have a vague memory of that. You have certainly stated multiple times that you won't give out private information, which is well within your rights on this board. So, glass houses and all that.

The board allows for people to use anonymous naming, the vast majority of the people here post using pseudonyms. Are you going to use that complaint with everyone who disagree's with you? Wait, great, you probably will now.

This is a weird tack to take... Oh, again, wait... This is your standard redirection. You can't honestly argue the other points against you, so you're going for a "look over there"! tactic.

Yeah, Jordan isn't my real name, and there is nothing wrong with it. But complaining about such things while under your own nom d'ordinateur is hypocritical.

I doubt your real name is Finally Free unless you've gone and been silly enough to change it officially.

You know what, sure. Please continue to misconstrue was people say as if that bolsters your argument. It does showcase your intelligence. I have no doubt that you will continue this line, just like you have about claiming Lot's Wife is actually posting under three names (Wait, does that make her the Trinity? Lot's Wife is the three-in-one!)

You hold on to these inane taunts as if they are helping you. They aren't they just make you look immature because you can't actually back up any of your statements.

They are nothing more than diversionary tactics.

> Yeah, Jordan isn't my real name, and there is
> nothing wrong with it.

I just thought I'd highlight this remarkable sentence. FF touches upon the fact that Jargon is using a pseudonym. The latter then acknowledges that Jargon is not his real name. End of story, right?

No. For some reason Jargon feels he must defend his real name, assuring us that "there is nothing wrong with it." That seems defensive, does it not? One must feel remarkably insecure to defend oneself from attacks no one launched.

Shed a tear for Jargon.

"I don't use pseudonyms, Jordan" - she said while using one...

complains about someone else using a pseudonym while using one...

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're worse than the villain on an old Columbo
> episode who thinks s/he will be vindicated by
> accusing Columbo of what s/he does.
>
> It's like your political. Openly nicey nicey, but
> in reality based on oppression. You can never hide
> it.


From what I've seen, YOU'RE the one who's political and accuses others for your own vindication, sanadamushi*.

This thread was about Mormon related clues on Jeopardy, not how much of a dick you can be on this board.

*サナダムシ, Japanese, "tapeworm."

Is the show owned by a Mormon entity? I don't know current stats, but wasn't TSCC heavily invested in broadcasting at one time?

nomonomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is the show owned by a Mormon entity? I don't know
> current stats, but wasn't TSCC heavily invested in
> broadcasting at one time?

Bonneville, right? It does seem odd. Lucy Mack Smith is not well known. I suppose Joseph Smith is, but not his mother. Smith is a very common name, so it's not like it's an obvious answer.

I agree that it's strange to have so many Mormon-related general knowledge questions, but I don't find the question itself to be all that difficult due to obscurity. If the Jeopardy answer [under the category of 'Famous Lucy's'] had been along the lines of "This 16th century-born Lucy gave birth to the founder of Mormonism" it would have been tough to come up with "Who is lucy Mack Smith?". When it's giving her full name and saying she produced a religious leader, it's a relatively salient and leading clue.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2019 02:54PM by scmd1.

True

I wanted my above posts to go HERE!