Prof. P. Continues to Attack GIMR!!!

[_Gazelam]

Bond: "We got Gaz and Coggins. If they're not scholars I don't know who is. ;) "



Ha Ha Ha. I'm an apologist in the fetal form only. I have alot more reading and alot more work to do before I can hold my own with some of the hardcore anti-church members. I will consider myself worthy of some title like scholor or Apologist when I can visit Born Again Christian Churchs and hold an Intelligent and in depth discussion on various subjects. I've only done that once, and felt like a newborn deer staggering about, I did ok, but wasn't as stable as I would like to have been.

I'm only 35, hopefully by 45 I can do much better in these discussions.

[_Coggins7]

Ha Ha Ha. I'm an apologist in the fetal form only. I have alot more reading and alot more work to do before I can hold my own with some of the hardcore anti-church members. I will consider myself worthy of some title like scholor or Apologist when I can visit Born Again Christian Churchs and hold an Intelligent and in depth discussion on various subjects. I've only done that once, and felt like a newborn deer staggering about, I did ok, but wasn't as stable as I would like to have been.

I'm only 35, hopefully by 45 I can do much better in these discussions.

A great and noble desire Gaz, to be sure, but I'm not sure you're in the right place if gaining experience in the area referenced by the italicized portion of your post above is your utlimate objective.


Loran

[_Gazelam]

I think someone like Scratch is capable of a discussion like this when he wants to be. He just chooses to take on the role of a snitty 16 year old girl being mean behind her friends back because its easier.

I'm not one to talk. I told Shades like a month ago that I would start a thread about the doctrines found in the Book of Abraham and haven't done that yet.

[_rcrocket]

I think someone like Scratch is capable of a discussion like this when he wants to be. He just chooses to take on the role of a snitty 16 year old girl being mean behind her friends back because its easier.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this board is that Mr. Scratch has hijacked it with his rhetorical obsession with what goes on at MAD, when many or some of us have no clue or interest in that board. Mr. Scratch is further burdened with his lack of knowledge of Mormon theology and history. He is a good writer, but writing without substance is mere empty rhetoric.

P

[_Brackite]

That is so cool, by the way. You know you have gotten under someones skin when they quote your quotes.

COOL REALLY REALLY COOL....To bad he did not use all of my QUOTE only the part that suited his purposes...We should all be so lucky.....LUCKY DUCKY FU()).....SMILE..

Hi There,

Here is DCP's latest signature line over there:

--------------------

"Prof. P is a coward and a few other things I could name, but I will not stoop to his level." (from Dr. Shades's Obsession Board, 3 February 2007)

"DCP likes to spend his time degenerating others. . . . All DCP is doing is hiding behind the curtain that is MAD, all the while turning gears and flipping switches to make sure that he isn't exposed for the bigoted fraud he is." (from Dr. Shades's Obsession Board, 4 February 2007)

[_harmony]

Where are all those things, on MAD?

How about the Pundit's forum? How about when they talk about articles by FARMS and FAIR? Granted there's not much of it there, but there's more there than there is here.

Articles by FARMS and FAIR hardly qualify as scholarly. And from what I've seen of Pundits, it's the likes of the Dude who take the scholarly honors there.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think someone like Scratch is capable of a discussion like this when he wants to be. He just chooses to take on the role of a snitty 16 year old girl being mean behind her friends back because its easier.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this board is that Mr. Scratch has hijacked it with his rhetorical obsession with what goes on at MAD, when many or some of us have no clue or interest in that board. Mr. Scratch is further burdened with his lack of knowledge of Mormon theology and history. He is a good writer, but writing without substance is mere empty rhetoric.

P

Unfortunate indeed. For you, that is. The truth of the matter is that I have received numerous PMed requests from many people asking for my take on this or that aspect of the fittingly named MADboard and its participants, or for my play-by-play on various threads. A lot of people enjoy reading commentary on MAD, evidently---it is the hotspot of online LDS apologetics, after all.

By the way: thank you for the writing compliment. You're not half bad as a writer yourself, my friend.

[_dartagnan]

This is perhaps the most annoying thing to me, about Dan Peterson. He did this to me several times in closed thread situations. Once he even acknolwedged that my entire post had been deleted yet he chose to write up a response anyway, knowing perfectly well my original comments could never be placed in their proper context and that I would not be able to respond.

When I was banned for demonstrating that Hauglid was fabricating an excuse to leave a debate, he wrote up another post shortly afterwards in the same thread, trying to add justification to the decision by the mods, insisting that I cannot simply criticize scholars; I have to go overboard and "malign" them "viciously." He then went on to list several instances where I had allegedly attacked scholars.

Of course it is apparently acceptible when Dan call's Serge Trifkovic, a scholar I used in one of my arguments, "idiotic," simply because he referred to the city of Baghdad before it actually was named Baghdad. If I were not banned I would have turned Dan's own logic against him when he referred to the Arab sconquest of "Cairo" when in fact it was actually named Alexandria during the raids. By his own standard, Dan is an idiot.

I would disagree though. Scholars frequently do this for the sake of clarity, especially when speaking in a non-academic venue. Neither Dan nor Serge are idiots; Dan was just bending over backwards trying to make him seem stupid and therefore untrustworthy in his analyses. Ultimately, Dan refuted nothing Serge had said regarding the myth of an Islamic Golden Age.

[_grayskull]

I think the main reason Dr. Peterson doesn't come here to Post is because there's not much here he finds worth responding to. Where are the scholars on this board? Where are the keen insights to the history of religion and Mormonism? Where are the theological discussions? Where's the scholoarly stuff or at least reviews of scholarly articles? Shucks, where are the scholarly reviews of FARMS/FAIR articles?

Let us also not forget how crude this place can be. There's a reason he calls this place a sty.

I think you have it wrong asb. Can someone who has access verify how many posts he has contributed to the 'pundit' forum? I'd be surprised if there were many. I know on zlmb, the earmarked scholarly forum I don't think tallied up a single post by him. In fact, he used to boast - when i was following things more closely in the past - about how message boards are for play, and that real scholarly discussion happens in scholarly journals.

[_asbestosman]

I think you have it wrong asb. Can someone who has access verify how many posts he has contributed to the 'pundit' forum? I'd be surprised if there were many. I know on zlmb, the earmarked scholarly forum I don't think tallied up a single post by him. In fact, he used to boast - when i was following things more closely in the past - about how message boards are for play, and that real scholarly discussion happens in scholarly journals.

Maybe you're right in that it isn't so much a question of not enough scholarly things (I think you may actually qualify for scholarly stuff when it comes to questions of the mind, but anyhow). However, I still think he finds the stuff here not worth engaging in. That's what the man says so I'll take him at his word. Perhaps he simply feels that there will be no knowledge gained by either him or us if he engages here.