Rollo Tomasi wrote:Simply answer my question, and the issue will drop.
You must be missing your Peterson-smeared-Mike-Quinn thread. You can repeat yourself fourteen thousand times daily, for all I care.
Fair enough. The question will remain unanswered ... as I expected.
"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)
Daniel Peterson wrote:Just on the off-chance that I actually missed some genuine non-OCD question, please state it clearly.
Sure, I'd be happy to: What is your back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review?
"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:Sure, I'd be happy to: What is your back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review?
Okay. Good. As I thought, I had already answered your question. The back-up for my statements in that brief Sunstone review is to be found in various articles published by me, by my co-author of the review (Professor Stephen Ricks), and by others.
Now you may return to your incessant mantra about my not having answered your question. (In case you've forgotten, I've also failed to plead guilty to your continual accusation of having smeared Mike Quinn. You'll just have to add this one to my incredibly long list of grievous failings and disgusting moral flaws.)
Dr. Peterson wrote:Okay. Good. As I thought, I had already answered your question. The back-up for my statements in that brief Sunstone review is to be found in various articles published by me, by my co-author of the review (Professor Stephen Ricks), and by others.
OK....before Rollo says that your answer is not specific enough, can you please save us all another exchange, and, for the record, tell him that the various articles you are referring to are easily cross-referenced? (Not reading the review at the moment...just a hunch, here..but I imagine a fairly good one)
I suspect, without having looked at them in the past several years, that, once you get into one of the later ones, it will contain lots of references to the previously published ones, as well as to a considerable amount of other relevant literature.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Sure, I'd be happy to: What is your back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review?
Okay. Good. As I thought, I had already answered your question. The back-up for my statements in that brief Sunstone review is to be found in various articles published by me, by my co-author of the review (Professor Stephen Ricks), and by others.
That's no answer. Citations, please.
(In case you've forgotten, I've also failed to plead guilty to your continual accusation of having smeared Mike Quinn.
I never said you smeared him; I simply asserted (and still do) that you and your "circles" gossiped about Quinn's private sex life.
"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)
Have I suggested before that you do your own research?
If I haven't, let me do so: Do your own research.
Most people I'm inclined to help. You, I'm not.
You would not be helping me -- you'd be helping yourself. Please recollect, my dear professor, that it was your statement in your article. I had nothing to do with it. Back up your written statement of a "consensus."
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
(In case you've forgotten, I've also failed to plead guilty to your continual accusation of having smeared Mike Quinn.
I never said you smeared him; I simply asserted (and still do) that you and your "circles" gossiped about Quinn's private sex life.
Ah. I often get you and Scratch mixed up. It's Scratch who favors the verb to smear, while you prefer the verb to gossip. My apologies.
Is this your way of admitting that you gossiped about Quinn's sex life?
"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)