FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_Mister Scratch]

I, for one, am very interested to hear DCP's report. In particular, I would like to know why the people at FARMS seem to be in the habit of ignoring pesky inquiries into their questionable assertions. Was the "Contact" function really "broken"? Or was something else at play?

[_Tarski]

I, for one, am very interested to hear DCP's report. In particular, I would like to know why the people at FARMS seem to be in the habit of ignoring pesky inquiries into their questionable assertions. Was the "Contact" function really "broken"? Or was something else at play?

Don't forget that the answer that was finally given was just terrible. It produces even more evidence of deceptiveness.

The continued misrepresentation of the situation is very bad. The real situation is that overwhelming evidence tell us that horses went extinct in america before Book of Mormon times. Any attempt to make it seem that new evidence calls this into serious question is just deceptive "faith promotion".

[_Yoda]

... I've never heard anybody say that their finding was a fraud.

[We're going to kick you off this board summarily if you don't provide cites for your assertions.]

I hope the text in red is simply one of Bob's jokes, but if it is from a Mod, then I'm pissed. This bb ain't FAIR/MAD, but a deliciously censor-free open forum. Let's keep it that way.

I am 100% sure it is from Bob. He has a penchant for failing to produce sources (often because he has unscrupulously manipulated those sources), and so this is a bit of humor on his part.

You are correct. This was Bob's little form of humor, not anything Shades, Bond, or I did. As much as I clash with Bob, it's much more fun to watch him get trounced upon, than to "summarily kick him off the board".

;)

[_Tarski]

..and the webpage remains. There it is, sending out a faith promoting false sense of equine paleontology for anyone who cares to naïvely read it.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/faq.php ... =questions

What did we eventually get as a reply? Well we got nothing that justifies whats on that site for sure, but we did get more assertions without proper references.

[_Dr. Shades]

... I've never heard anybody say that their finding was a fraud.

[We're going to kick you off this board summarily if you don't provide cites for your assertions.]

I hope the text in red is simply one of Bob's jokes, but if it is from a Mod, then I'm pissed. This bb ain't FAIR/MAD, but a deliciously censor-free open forum. Let's keep it that way.

Bond and Liz are correct. I know I certainly didn't write that.

rcrocket (and everyone else), please don't do that in the future. It just creates confusion.

[_asbestosman]

rcrocket (and everyone else), please don't do that in the future. It just creates confusion.

How about if we make it obvious that it was a joke by signing it -The Pods or -The Frawd or something?

[_Yoda]

rcrocket (and everyone else), please don't do that in the future. It just creates confusion.

How about if we make it obvious that it was a joke by signing it -The Pods or -The Frawd or something?

How about Dunamis wannabe?

[_wenglund]

Many followed with much interest the recent thread (which, with over ten thousand views, has proven to be one of the most popular threads of all time on this MB), and the way it exposed the way that certain Mopologists contrived evidence in an effort to smear Tom Murphy. In particular, juliann was guilty of this, and she was abetted with Confidential Informant, Jan, and Calmoriah, among others. On the sidelines, DCP, a.k.a. "FreeThinker", tossed in sarcastic rejoinders and mean witticisms. The old ZLMB thread was important since it marked a key historical moment in online Mormonism: that is, the creation of a safe haven for the Mopologists' dirty tactics.

After reading through this thread, and the "popular thread" just mentioned, as well as a more recent thread started by Beastie, titled: More Invention of Evidence, I was amused to find that Scratch, who has been lionized here for his investigation of the "old ZLMB thread", appears to have conjured up evidence to smear Smac97, accusing him of: 1) stealing Scratch's identity, 2) being "Mr. Itchy", 3) being vociferously opposed to Scratch's blog, as well as insinuating that he was "Opie Rockwell". According to the compelling evidence presented in the "Why Would Mod Rhad's post be signed 'SMAC'? thread, these accusation, and the "evidence" upon which they were based, are a figments of Scratch's active imagination--as is also evidently the case with the smear campaign he has waged against Dr. Peterson and the SCMC (see: this thread, as well as Calling Dr. Peterson, The SCMC: New information Comes to Light, DCP and Quinn, and other threads too numerous to mention).

Now, I certainly don't expect Scratch to be outraged with himself (that would require a measure of self-criticism--something he shows no signs of wanting to do, and even appears to shune it with a passion), but Beastie in particular has been rather adiment in telling me that one should clean one's own house before calling for the cleaning of another, and so I am wondering if she will be leading the charge in discrediting and demonizing Scratch for his smearing fabrications just like she and Scratch and others have done here against Juliann and FARMS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Many followed with much interest the recent thread (which, with over ten thousand views, has proven to be one of the most popular threads of all time on this MB), and the way it exposed the way that certain Mopologists contrived evidence in an effort to smear Tom Murphy. In particular, juliann was guilty of this, and she was abetted with Confidential Informant, Jan, and Calmoriah, among others. On the sidelines, DCP, a.k.a. "FreeThinker", tossed in sarcastic rejoinders and mean witticisms. The old ZLMB thread was important since it marked a key historical moment in online Mormonism: that is, the creation of a safe haven for the Mopologists' dirty tactics.

After reading through this thread, and the "popular thread" just mentioned, as well as a more recent thread started by Beastie, titled: More Invention of Evidence, I was amused to find that Scratch, who has been lionized here for his investigation of the "old ZLMB thread", appears to have conjured up evidence to smear Smac97, accusing him of: 1) stealing Scratch's identity, 2) being "Mr. Itchy", 3) being vociferously opposed to Scratch's blog, as well as insinuating that he was "Opie Rockwell". According to the compelling evidence presented in the "Why Would Mod Rhad's post be signed 'SMAC'? thread, these accusation, and the "evidence" upon which they were based, are a figments of Scratch's active imagination--as is also evidently the case with the smear campaign he has waged against Dr. Peterson and the SCMC (see: this thread, as well as Calling Dr. Peterson, The SCMC: New information Comes to Light, DCP and Quinn, and other threads too numerous to mention).

Now, I certainly don't expect Scratch to be outraged with himself (that would require a measure of self-criticism--something he shows no signs of wanting to do, and even appears to shune it with a passion), but Beastie in particular has been rather adiment in telling me that one should clean one's own house before calling for the cleaning of another, and so I am wondering if she will be leading the charge in discrediting and demonizing Scratch for his smearing fabrications just like she and Scratch and others have done here against Juliann and FARMS?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, Wade, you really seem to have worked yourself up into a lather, since all your old spelling mistakes have returned in full-force.

Anyhow, on to your point. As I told Smac in the other thread, I call it like I see it based on the evidence at hand. Do I always have all the evidence? No, and when that happens, I make an educated guess, based on the evidence I *do* have. At no time have I ever wholly invented evidence, as juliann & co. did with their Murphy transcript. Further, I did not "conjure" up any evidence against Smac. Was I doing a bit of guessing? Yes, but there was some evidence against him. He did make a number of comments against my blog, calling me a hypocrite, etc. A few of these comments are still there, for your reading pleasure. He was one of the few people who came over here to complain about the blog, and thus I figured he was a likely candidate for Itchy.

[_Jersey Girl]

rcrocket (and everyone else), please don't do that in the future. It just creates confusion.

How about if we make it obvious that it was a joke by signing it -The Pods or -The Frawd or something?

Yes, like when I insert a comment from Pseudo Dunamis.

Pseudo Dunamis: The mods on this board don't need any help from board nannies like you. Move along, LSD.