Thanks for the article, but you still don't get it. It's not the words you said, or the existence of an article that said them first, it's that you said them i

Thanks for the article, but you still don't get it. It's not the words you said, or the existence of an article that said them first, it's that you said them in a context that seemed to circularly "prove" both that Mormons are known "primarily for loyalty, not critical thinking", and that NSA values those personality features above anything else, all under cover of an accurate statistic from a reputable article. If you care to understand or to convince me, look at my hypothetical Jewish thread analogy from last post and explain why it is either a) not offensive/illogical, or b) is not a fair analogy to the thread here. (To be honest, I probably would have said nothing if you had targeted another group, but I still would have found your post illogical and prejudiced.) Either I am completely crazy here, looking for offense, or you can't empathize very well. I feel that I really don't care or get offended if individuals think I or any other Mormons are just loyal robots or gullible fools, or NSA et al. like hiring us for it, but it's totally illogical (and offensive to the spirit of healthy, honest discourse) for you to cite either as if they're a proof that the NSA only wants loyal robots. And maybe that is a completely misunderstood characterization of your original comment, but all your replies have been doing are re-emphasizing the parts I don't disagree with and seemingly ignoring the real issue. I'm not even demanding an apology or anything, but some sort of recognition of my real point or a nuanced rebuttal would be nice.