rcrocket wrote:"Facts of the case" are those unrelated to the legal proceedings but which are brought into the legal proceedings.
Bishop referred to facts "connected with the trial and history of the case."
As I continued to whine away.
Indeed.
Agree with you on point 1. Thus, I win.
Agree with you on point 2.
Point 1: You're still confused because you lose.
Point 2: You win.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
rcrocket wrote:No. I win on both points. I have seventeen lurkers to attest to that in my favor and only sixteen against. Thus, I have a consensus.
I still win ... I've got William Bishop on my side. ;)
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Boy, that sure adds to the discussion.
You're welcome. I thought so, too.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Since you are the editor for the journal in which Bob published his article, I guess you should bear some of the blame for that butchered quote getting through to publication. You must be so proud.
I feel just fine. Mercifully, your nonstop dyspepsia and malice aren't contagious.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Boy, that sure adds to the discussion.
You're welcome. I thought so, too.
You would.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Since you are the editor for the journal in which Bob published his article, I guess you should bear some of the blame for that butchered quote getting through to publication. You must be so proud.
I feel just fine.
Of course you are -- you felt no remorse after the Quinn debacle, either. It must be nice going through life without feeling accountable.
Mercifully, your nonstop dyspepsia and malice aren't contagious.
Nor is your state of denial.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Is there anyway we can get a forum restricted to arguments about Quinn? A forum where all threads and or posts mentioning D. Michael Quinn, or any other Quinns (such as Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, Colin Quinn, Brady Quinn, Dr. Quintin Q. Quinn, etc) will be funneled? I even thought up a name....The Quinn Quota. Whadda ya say?
Sincerely,
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Why don't we just transform every thread into a discussion of my vicious gossip campaign against Mike Quinn?
Given the manifest enthusiasm of Scratch Senior and Scratch Junior for this epic tale, I think it would take very little contribution from me to accomplish such a goal. What think ye? (It appears to be an infinite and inexhaustible subject.)
Daniel Peterson wrote:Given the manifest enthusiasm of Scratch Senior and Scratch Junior for this epic tale, I think it would take very little contribution from me to accomplish such a goal.
Surely you jest. Quinn threads go on forever because of your sophomoric one-liners and absurd denials.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
rcrocket wrote:I just can't understand why I would have intentionally omitted a phrase from a quote which, had I inserted it, would have made my paper even stronger.
I just can't understand why you and Scratch (who hasn't even read my paper) are the only two human beings on the planet who accuse me of manipulating that letter.
I just can't understand that, when Bagley saw the letter, he agreed with me and not with your position.
Unless, I suppose, your real goal is simply to repeat anonymously a falsehood so often, and long enough, that my character will be impeached sufficiently.
rcrocket
OK....Everyone here knows I am NOT a fan of Bob's.
However, I have to agree with Bob on this one. If Bob wrote an article critiquing Bagley, and Bagley is fine with what was written, then what the hell are we arguing about here?
Liz---
How do we know that "Bagley is fine with [it]"? Simply on the basis of Bob's word? Now, as much as I like gool ol' Bob, and as much as I would like to believe him, given his track record, I am afraid that I'm going to have to demand a bit more evidence than that. After all, his story about how he knew Quinn was gay has been utterly exploded: he has changed his account, and further, his story contradicts what was published by Mitton and James in their FARMS Review article on Same Sex Dynamics.
Maybe Rollo and Scratch are not understanding, Bob, how including the phrase would make your paper stronger as you suggest. It seems like they think that you manipulated it for your own gain.
Yes, that is exactly what I think. Just like I think juliann & co. invented the Murphy transcript for their "gain." Just like I think the baloney about the 100 B.C. horse was manipulated for their "gain."
Maybe you could explain how utilizing the quote in full context would have better supported your position.
