DCP Publishes Material from this Board---Sans Attribution!

[_Polygamy Porter]

Actually I had to stop and wack off after posting that because it gave me such a huge erection.

I have been slinging anti Mormon mud for a bit over two years now, and yes it does feel good. Damn good as a matter of fact. I am an exmormon missionary and that is what I do. Every exmember a missionary I say! Stop trafficking human mo'spam on the door steps of America and I will put down my bottomless bucket of mud.

Dan has been defending this cult for what 15-20 years? Does any of his mo'polgetics "work" get ANY serious archaeological attention outside of the FARMS chapel? NOPE.


Tell us then, if this place is just a pack of antimormon wolves all fighting over the dead carcass of Brother Joseph, why are you here?

Because I was told that this was a place for everyone, but now that everyone has made it clear that this is another recovery board for pissed off people who have to have a target for their discouragement with themselves I will bid you all good day and not return. Thanks for clearing that up, I was beginning to think everyone was just deluded about who was welcome here.

Awwww shucks! Are you gonna take your precious Book of Mormon and go home?

So then, is this how you function? You can dish it, but turn your nose up when it is dished back?

Grow some thicker skin to cover that thick skull.

[_dartagnan]

But, I credit your anonymity, for it permits you to protect your integrity whilst coming off as an uneducated, unlettered and illread fool.

After more than a decade of being involved in internet discussions/debates there have only been two people who have considered me uneducated. Both of you have never been able to hold your own in a one on one debate with me, so it comes as no surprise that you would resort to the only thing that is left: ad hominem.

The vast majority of those I have encountered, on the contrary, have flattered me. Even those who knock heads with me pay me the due respect I have earned, none of whom were preoccupied with names. Even Scott Gordon insists I was among the brightest of the apologetic lot. That is why they had to rid themselves of me. If I were truly some blathering idiot who only knew how to embarrass himself, then they would have allowed me to remain on the forum as they allow numerous idiots to post there.

As far as being uneducated, you’re wrong. I’m quite educated, both formally and perhaps more so informally. Currently I am a professor at the most prestigious University in Brasil. The time will come when I make my identity known I’m sure – probably when I get around to publishing a book.

I am not worried about whether or not people believe me, and nobody except you has made a big deal about background credentials. As far as being “illread,” I doubt you would find anyone, even among my nemeses at FAIR, who would agree with that bit of absurdity.

David Bitton, world-class historian at BYU asked me to help him with his FARMS review of Grant Palmer. I had no idea who this man was when he emailed me. He came across my website and read some of my articles, and considered me a worthy resource. Incidentally, several years ago Tvetdness emailed me for permission to cite me in his upcoming book. These are but only a couple of compliments that have come my way by those you would consider scholars. So what seems more likely? That 1) these men would rely on an uneducated blathering fool who can’t read or write, or 2) you’re just pitching a fit because you cannot provide a composed, cogent counter-argument to anything I have said, and must resort to these types of attacks?

I’ll let the readers decide.

That you would pass judgment on people using nothing more than typos as a standard, is typical of those who cannot make compelling arguments.

[_Polygamy Porter]

David Bitton, world-class historian at BYU asked me to help him with his FARMS review of Grant Palmer.

Review Grant Palmer?

Review the man rather than his work? Typical stench from the FARM.

[_Mister Scratch]

And then there are dorks who ironically hide behind monikers while bragging about their so-called "courage" to provide their true name on selective occasions; those who are just as vulgar (turds?) as the next dork – anonymous or not. Those lone rangers without a home since their sidekicks or mentors have already become cowards themselves by their standards (DCP and Pahoran have both validated the need to remain anonymous on an unforgiving internet).

So you’re the bravest man on the internet “Plutarch,” if not the dumbest. Just because you already screwed the pooch and let your name fly about, doesn’t mean it was “cowardice” for others who were smart enough in advance.

You’re just trying to invent some kind of admirable quality out of what was obviously bad planning on your part.

Yep, you're a lawyer.

Well, and not a very good one I imagine.

According to the website you linked to, it appears you've won quite an impressive number of cases.

But, I have never hidden my identity on this board or the prior iteration of it (other than one playful instance where I pretended to be somebody else criticizing myself).

This isn't strictly true. After all, how do explain your numerous screen names on the previous board (I can recall, "Lee Bishop," "Lee," "Null Hypothesis," and "rcrockett," from FAIR. Why change names so often if it's your intention to be totally up front about your identity?

[_wenglund]

Dr. Peterson explained to JB why he did not provide specific attribution (rather than the general attribution he gave to "vocal critics") for the quotes in question. I found his explanation to be reasonable, convincing, and in compliance with the authoritative style guide he applies as editor and author.

Do the "vocal critics" here accept that explanation, or are you still prone to huff and puff mightily about this virtual non-issue (pun intended)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

But, I credit your anonymity, for it permits you to protect your integrity whilst coming off as an uneducated, unlettered and illread fool.

After more than a decade of being involved in internet discussions/debates there have only been two people who have considered me uneducated. Both of you have never been able to hold your own in a one on one debate with me, so it comes as no surprise that you would resort to the only thing that is left: ad hominem.

The vast majority of those I have encountered, on the contrary, have flattered me. Even those who knock heads with me pay me the due respect I have earned, none of whom were preoccupied with names. Even Scott Gordon insists I was among the brightest of the apologetic lot. That is why they had to rid themselves of me. If I were truly some blathering idiot who only knew how to embarrass himself, then they would have allowed me to remain on the forum as they allow numerous idiots to post there.

As far as being uneducated, you’re wrong. I’m quite educated, both formally and perhaps more so informally. Currently I am a professor at the most prestigious University in Brasil. The time will come when I make my identity known I’m sure – probably when I get around to publishing a book.

I am not worried about whether or not people believe me, and nobody except you has made a big deal about background credentials. As far as being “illread,” I doubt you would find anyone, even among my nemeses at FAIR, who would agree with that bit of absurdity.

David Bitton, world-class historian at BYU asked me to help him with his FARMS review of Grant Palmer. I had no idea who this man was when he emailed me. He came across my website and read some of my articles, and considered me a worthy resource. Incidentally, several years ago Tvetdness emailed me for permission to cite me in his upcoming book. These are but only a couple of compliments that have come my way by those you would consider scholars. So what seems more likely? That 1) these men would rely on an uneducated blathering fool who can’t read or write, or 2) you’re just pitching a fit because you cannot provide a composed, cogent counter-argument to anything I have said, and must resort to these types of attacks?

I’ll let the readers decide.

That you would pass judgment on people using nothing more than typos as a standard, is typical of those who cannot make compelling arguments.

Oh, did I forget? Your posts display remarkable immaturity; you let opponents push your buttons.

Carry on. I bow to your obsessions; you may once have been a contributor to LDS thought; no longer.

P

[_rcrocket]

This isn't strictly true. After all, how do explain your numerous screen names on the previous board (I can recall, "Lee Bishop," "Lee," "Null Hypothesis," and "rcrockett," from FAIR. Why change names so often if it's your intention to be totally up front about your identity?

And, like I have said so many times before, anonymity is not the same as psuedonymity.

P

[_dartagnan]

So now that I have demolished yet another bald assertion of yours, you choose to move the goal posts back to the other hemisphere. Since you cannot demonstrate that I am uneducated or “illread” you now have to fall back on the claim that I am immature.

Granted. I still play American Football, even in Brazil. I have a tendency to play with kids rather than go out with grown adults. But none of this changes the fact that my immaturity has not helped you win any arguments with me. This is a result of your own deficiencies, not mine.

I have no buttons to be pushed. I simply respond to those who challenge me on debate forums. That is what a debate forum is. That is what takes place. You have appeared here for other reasons, apparently. You pop in, offer pithy remarks, and then leave in a huff while tossing insults over your shoulder. One might consider that immature, if not cowardice.

[_Mister Scratch]

Dr. Peterson explained to JB why he did not provide specific attribution (rather than the general attribution he gave to "vocal critics") for the quotes in question. I found his explanation to be reasonable, convincing, and in compliance with the authoritative style guide he applies as editor and author.

Do the "vocal critics" here accept that explanation, or are you still prone to huff and puff mightily about this virtual non-issue (pun intended)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are quite wrong, Wade. The style guide to which Prof. P. referred is the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., which appeared in 2003. Sadly for both you and your beloved professor, this manual does indeed cover guidelines for citing both websites (such as this one) and blogs. In fact, this is such basic stuff that you can view samples of this at the Manual's website:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/too ... guide.html

Scroll down to the bottom to see the pertinent information. So, I guess Prof. Peterson simply decided to ignore his authoritative guide this time around.

I noticed in his post that he is also attempting to claim that I'm ignoring the "substance" of his article, which simply isn't true. I intend to write up a lengthier analysis of his article once I've got a bit more free time. Moreover, I think that his engagement with the quotes from myself, Kevin Graham, and (I believe) Rollo, are very much within the main "substance" of the article, which was mostly aimed at defusing criticism of FARMS Review. He even said so himself, in the thread he started on the fittingly named MADboard in order to announce the new issue: he said he was tired of all the criticism, and thus decided to answer it.

[_harmony]

Dr. Peterson explained to JB why he did not provide specific attribution (rather than the general attribution he gave to "vocal critics") for the quotes in question. I found his explanation to be reasonable, convincing, and in compliance with the authoritative style guide he applies as editor and author.

Do the "vocal critics" here accept that explanation, or are you still prone to huff and puff mightily about this virtual non-issue (pun intended)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are quite wrong, Wade. The style guide to which Prof. P. referred is the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., which appeared in 2003. Sadly for both you and your beloved professor, this manual does indeed cover guidelines for citing both websites (such as this one) and blogs. In fact, this is such basic stuff that you can view samples of this at the Manual's website:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/too ... guide.html

Scroll down to the bottom to see the pertinent information. So, I guess Prof. Peterson simply decided to ignore his authoritative guide this time around.

I noticed in his post that he is also attempting to claim that I'm ignoring the "substance" of his article, which simply isn't true. I intend to write up a lengthier analysis of his article once I've got a bit more free time. Moreover, I think that his engagement with the quotes from myself, Kevin Graham, and (I believe) Rollo, are very much within the main "substance" of the article, which was mostly aimed at defusing criticism of FARMS Review. He even said so himself, in the thread he started on the fittingly named MADboard in order to announce the new issue: he said he was tired of all the criticism, and thus decided to answer it.

So now Daniel makes decisions based on the critics? Just who is piloting the apologists' plane? The #1 apologist or the critics?