LDS "world famous scholar" publishes book

[_Pumplehoober]

Do you realize how much hate you have spewed all over the internet?

The truth is not hateful, no matter how hard it is to accept.

How terribly ironic!!

[Guest]

Neither are you or Robert Spencer, but that does not stop you.

Spencer is, but I am not. But in any event, even non authorities can make so-called authorities look foolish. Take for example, Peterson, Hamblin and yourself.

And here is a blatant lie, but I will let you prove it. Where is the reference? Here is where Kevin will bluster and refuse to look, which he will probably later lie about (he has done this in the past).

You’re not so lucky. It is found in a thread you started two and a half years ago called “Hollywood is controled by secular Jews who hate Christianity.” Now that’s a bigoted title if I ever saw one, but maybe bigotry against Jews and Christians isn’t really bigotry in Islam.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 21&stop=23

The relevant citation is this:

"I can point out that pipes is not published by a respectable academic press, because he is not respectable. I asked for say three publications from academic presses from the past 10 years and you never replied." (12/19/04 12:02 pm)

Once I proved Pipes had been published by both Yale and Oxford, you tried to say you “stipulated” the past ten years. Your English skills are horrific. Not only can you not determine the difference between present perfect and future tense, but you think you’re able to reinvent the language to suit your need to be right all the time. Your statement, “pipes is not published by a respectable academic press” was not qualified with the second sentence. The second sentence was a request independent of your initial assertion.

You are no longer a believing Mormon.

Says who?

I suppose you could claim some sort of official membership, but it would just be a pretense.

Does my current calling as Sunday School teacher have any bearing on your claim? How about the fact that I haven’t missed a sacrament meeting in over a year? Do you practice making stupid comments with a straight face, or does it just come natural?

You're a bigot. Education does no good. You have access to it, but you refuse to read or study. Your plagiarism proves this.

My plagiarism! You do not know what plagiarism is apparently, which again, makes me wonder what kind of crap education you have been receiving. English is not your only Achilles heel. And this charge of plagiarism comes from someone who copied several comments from Dan Peterson without attribution (which is plagiarism) just so you could see my reaction.

You can bluster all you like, but the fact is you are a mediocre mind and your “research” proves this.

My research skills have been commended by numerous scholars as a matter of fact. Only recently are apologists upset with me, but they cannot attack my research skills because they have been praising them for years.

Yelling about it does not change this.

Who is yelling? You’re the one who came here uninvited, for the sole purpose of attacking me. You come on Mormon forums and discuss absolutely nothing about Mormonism. You do this all the time. This is all you do, in fact.

I say you are not intelligent because you are simply not.

And you reiterate it because you know you can convince no one of this except yourself.

You lack the mental discipline to conduct real research and study.

Yet, I am the only one who has ever engaged in research. You never respond to questions with answers unless it is something related to personal attacks. Remember the time I cited Esposito and you accused me of inventing a reference simply because you were reading an outdated printing? You then had to go hunt for the latest printing to verify the citation. You never apologized or admitted wrong doing. Instead you reinvented your argument and tried to give me a quiz on each chapter of the book. Do you think this impresses anyone? You make yourself look like an absolute idiot every time you come at me with these wild accusations. The audiences can verify for themselves whether what I say is true or not, but you don’t want them to. I couldn’t care less what they think of me; as long as they hear what needs to be said, they can verify for themselves.

Stalk? I do not seem to be the one spreading your name around cyberspace. How many times have you referenced me here? I do not seem to be the one obsessed with you, quite the opposite. Unless responding to you I rarely think of you at all.

Sure, I might mention you on occasion as a perfect example of Islamic apologetics gone wrong. How is this “stalking”? You on the other hand, actually look for me. You proved this much already by hunting down posts I don’t even remember making years ago on forums I forgot existed (I doubt I posted more than twice there).

I know where you post, but I do not go there. Whenever you find out where I post, you always go there. You have followed me around on four different forums now. I went to one forum where you were only because I was asked to verify whether or not “Alabaster” was you. I verified it but I didn’t stick around to argue with you.

Also, I know you recently posted here as Richardlionhart, by which you acted like a complete fool, suggesting Medina should be nuked. I blew your cover by mentioning your name.

I was banned from FAIR because of a run-in with Brian Hauglid. This is verifiable for those who care at all about “research.” Anyone who knows anything about that situation knows it had nothing to do with bigotry, prejudice or Islam. My falling out with FAIR was every bit MY DECISION. You have to remember that you had been accusing me of hate and bigotry at FAIR for at least a year before I was banned, but they never considered banning me because of the “value” (their words) I provided the forum. Once I started being critical of apologetics, stopped attacking the critics and began challenging the LDS scholars, only then did they make the decision to ban me. It was in the context of a heated Book of Abraham fiasco; absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

I also find it interesting that you would note that I once posted on “Jedi Forums” – as if this is supposed to say something about my interests - yet you have apparently posted on a “Dungeons and Dragons” forum! And you did so, not once, but twenty-three times!! (http://p082.ezboard.com/SeanKReynolds-B ... oldsboards)

As usual, your silliness is only surpassed by your hypocrisy.

[_Chap]

Just to get the facts straight, here is a list of Pipes publications from Wikipedia. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, and other good ones - looks academic enough for me.

(So at least we can all stop fighting about that bit of the battlefield, for what it is worth)



* Miniatures: Views of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics (2003), Transaction Publishers, ISBN 0-7658-0215-5
* Militant Islam Reaches America (2002), W.W. Norton & Company; paperback (2003) ISBN 0-393-32531-8
* with Abdelnour, Z. (2000), Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role Middle East Forum, ISBN 0-9701484-0-2
* In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (2002), Transaction Publishers, ISBN 0-7658-0981-8
* Muslim immigrants in the United States (Backgrounder) (2002), Center for Immigration Studies
* The Long Shadow : Culture and Politics in the Middle East (1999), Transaction Publishers, ISBN 0-88738-220-7
* The Hidden Hand : Middle East Fears of Conspiracy (1997), Palgrave Macmillan; paperback (1998) ISBN 0-312-17688-0
* Conspiracy : How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (1997), Touchstone; paperback (1999) ISBN 0-684-87111-4
* Syria Beyond the Peace Process (Policy Papers, No. 41) (1995), Washington Institute for Near East Policy, ISBN 0-944029-64-7
* Sandstorm (1993), Rowman & Littlefield, paperback (1993) ISBN 0-8191-8894-8
* Damascus Courts the West: Syrian Politics, 1989-1991 (Policy Papers, No. 26) (1991), Washington Institute for Near East Policy, ISBN 0-944029-13-2
* with Garfinkle, A. (1991), Friendly Tyrants: An American Dilemma Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-312-04535-2
* From a distance: Influencing foreign policy from Philadelphia (The Heritage lectures) (1991), Heritage Foundation, ASIN B0006DGHE4
* The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West (1990), Transaction Publishers, paperback (2003) ISBN 0-7658-0996-6
* Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition (1990), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-506021-0
* An Arabist's guide to Colloquial Egyptian (1983), Foreign Service Institute
* Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a Military System (1981), Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-02447-9

[_Pumplehoober]

You're not so lucky. It is found in a thread you started two and a half years ago called “Hollywood is controled by secular Jews who hate Christianity.” Now that's a bigoted title if I ever saw one, but maybe bigotry against Jews and Christians isn't really bigotry in Islam.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 21&stop=23

You do realize that the title is a quote of right wing bigot William Donohue? I never supported the statement at all.

The relevant citation is this:

"I can point out that pipes is not published by a respectable academic press, because he is not respectable. I asked for say three publications from academic presses from the past 10 years and you never replied." (12/19/04 12:02 pm)

Once I proved Pipes had been published by both Yale and Oxford, you tried to say you “stipulated” the past ten years. Your English skills are horrific. Not only can you not determine the difference between present perfect and future tense, but you think you're able to reinvent the language to suit your need to be right all the time. Your statement, “pipes is not published by a respectable academic press” was not qualified with the second sentence. The second sentence was a request independent of your initial assertion.

You are lying. I notice that you have not produced the original statement, only where you referenced it. Where is the original Kevin? I actually looked (research) up Dr. Pipes publishing record and saw when he had published. You will note that I asked in the last 10 years. This was because I counted years.

The problem here is you want to assert that since someone does something once that the can claim those laurels for the rest of their lives. Cuba Golding Jr. won an Oscar once, but that does not mean his current movies are Oscar worthy. Likewise publishing well over a decade ago does not mean current works are academically worthy.

My plagiarism! You do not know what plagiarism is apparently, which again, makes me wonder what kind of crap education you have been receiving. English is not your only Achilles heel. And this charge of plagiarism comes from someone who copied several comments from Dan Peterson without attribution (which is plagiarism) just so you could see my reaction.

I copied Dr. Peterson to show how bigoted they were, waited for you to call them stupid and imbecilic, and then admitted they were from Dr. Peterson. The point was to show other Mormons how bigoted you were. It worked.

You quote websites, pretending like you have researched a subject, when all you did was a Google search. This is the same reason you quote authors out of context and are considered racist and prejudiced by other Mormons.

My research skills have been commended by numerous scholars as a matter of fact. Only recently are apologists upset with me, but they cannot attack my research skills because they have been praising them for years.

Sure. I thought Mormon apologists were a joke? If so such accolades would also be a joke. Which is it? You cannot play it both ways.

Who is yelling? You're the one who came here uninvited, for the sole purpose of attacking me. You come on Mormon forums and discuss absolutely nothing about Mormonism. You do this all the time. This is all you do, in fact.

Really? I recently published an article in a professional journal, I took a yoga class last night, I am taking an Aikido class tonight, and I have plans for the rest of the week. I thought my schedule was full!!!

And you reiterate it because you know you can convince no one of this except yourself.

I don't feel the need to convince anyone. Reasonable people will see you for what you are, a hateful, racist bigot. Unlike you, I see no reason to seek acceptance from your anti-Mormon crowd.

Yet, I am the only one who has ever engaged in research.

Only if you count cutting and pasting as research.

Sure, I might mention you on occasion as a perfect example of Islamic apologetics gone wrong. How is this “stalking”? You on the other hand, actually look for me. You proved this much already by hunting down posts I don't even remember making years ago on forums I forgot existed (I doubt I posted more than twice there).

I took .7 seconds to do a Google search for aselahx and Islam. Lots of hunting there. Try Bloodnut and islam, or pumplehoober and islam. I think those might return too. Kevinator might work as well. That's a LOT of effort to you, I understand, but in reality it is really simple.

I know where you post, but I do not go there.

Really, where?

My falling out with FAIR was every bit MY DECISION. You have to remember that you had been accusing me of hate and bigotry at FAIR for at least a year before I was banned, but they never considered banning me because of the “value” (their words) I provided the forum. Once I started being critical of apologetics, stopped attacking the critics and began challenging the LDS scholars, only then did they make the decision to ban me. It was in the context of a heated Book of Abraham fiasco; absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

You fell out with FAIR Because they stopped stroking your ego. You became Mormon because it stroked your ego. You liked being fawned over because you were kicked out of your house and mistreated. Once FAIR-ites realized what a bigot and racist you were you found better ego stroking with the anti-Mormon crowd. Don't paint this as anything other than a desperate search for acceptance from whoever will have you. You left Mormonism because of ego and pride. I could not care less if you are Mormon or not, so I do not care which side you are on, and the cause and effect is crystal clear.

You need to be accepted, and without that acceptance, you left Mormons for anti-Mormons. You would go back if the situation were reversed.

I also find it interesting that you would note that I once posted on “Jedi Forums” - as if this is supposed to say something about my interests - yet you have apparently posted on a “Dungeons and Dragons” forum! And you did so, not once, but twenty-three times!! (http://p082.ezboard.com/SeanKReynolds-B ... oldsboards)

Really? You mean in the political subforum? Heavens NO!!!

[_Pumplehoober]

Just to get the facts straight, here is a list of Pipes publications from Wikipedia. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, and other good ones - looks academic enough for me.

(So at least we can all stop fighting about that bit of the battlefield, for what it is worth)

If someone does something once they can claim that status forever? When was the last time Dr. Pipes ventured into academia? I suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger could still win Mr. Olympia? He did win it several times in the past.

[_Ray A]

Permit me to allow Gordon B. Hinckley himself to respond to your stupid assertion, as it relates to Mormonism (which of course is the context of our discussion here):

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

How much cognitive impairment is required to not understand what your own prophet announces, over the pulpit, in the church's general conference? Would you answer that one, Ray? Here it is, one more time:

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (That's from the 2003 GC talk "Loyalty". Look it up on LDS.org).

Perhaps knowing he'd be speaking to members just like you, Hinckley even saw fit to include this scripture in the same talk:

The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15–16).

Are Hinckley's blunt statements enough to get through to you? Of course not. Anyone who could so miss the fact, articulated in every testimony meeting, GC address, and scripture, that it is Mormonism itself which demands that its truth/authority claims be evaluated in black and white terms, could never be presumed to understand even when it is reiterated in plainest language by the church's president.

Your comments are ridiculous, Ray, I am sorry to say. You label me a "fundamentalist" for beginning with a premise that every sane man, Mormon or not, would acknowledge, and what the sitting president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints himself proclaims from the GC pulpit: that whether Mormonism is all it claims to be or not, is ENTIRELY a "black or white" issue.

Of course some things are black and white. For example if it can be positively shown, beyond any doubt, that the Book of Mormon was a creation of Joseph Smith alone, and his method of doing it exposed, then the Book of Mormon would be a fraud. Even I can accept that. This is what Pres.Hinckley is talking about. I don't, however, recall reading anywhere in Pres. Hinckley's writings that he was prepared to be a suicide bomber (or such like) if asked by the Prophet. What I am saying is that you appear to have transferred your black and white thinking to your present anti-Mormonism. Nor do I believe that all members think like me on all matters Mormon, since I'm basically a "Liahona". See Richard Poll's Reflections of A Mormon Historian. That might be too liberal for you do digest, though. This is what Shades calls an "Internet Mormon", but I've been critical of this interpretation elsewhere.

About Dan Peterson - your argument seems to be that getting interviewed and being invited to give lectures at some place on university campuses means one is a "highly-respected scholar". By that line of "reasoning", I'd qualify just as much as a 'highly respected scholar" as would Dan Peterson - and truth be told, by your line of reasoning, perhaps more so. But I'm not any such scholar - and neither is he.

I have never argued that Dan Peterson is a "world famous scholar", and I'm confident he hasn't either. He is a highly respected Mormon scholar, and when here in Oz visited with many prominent politicians, and met with the countries most prominent Muslim leaders, one of whom was the Mufti, and his spokesperson Keysar Trad. According to a media release put out by the University of Queensland:

Professor Daniel C Peterson, one of the few scholars in the world today translating Islamic texts into English, will discuss his work and its significance at a public lecture at The University of Queensland on Tuesday, September 5.

Because you don't understand the importance of Dr. Peterson's work, and because you have an axe to grind against Mormonism, your criticisms seem very shallow and premature. Judging Dan's reputation or his work as a scholar is a bit like him judging your music. Remember again, I'm not arguing that he's a "world famous scholar", and I'm still waiting to see who has argued that.

Though you appear not to have noticed, being a scholar highly regarded by one's peers takes a lot of hard work. In academia, it takes publishing a lot of good, original research in one's field.

He is doing original research, as noted above, and is one of the "few" scholars in the world today doing this research, which, of necessity, means that only a few are really qualified to critique his research.

Now, if one's field is spin doctoring, or trying to keep oneself in a state of mind where one can keep believing in the most demonstrably false claims imaginable (whether Mormon, Nation of Islam, or Moonie), then Dan Peterson, and every other one of those FARMS guys, and every other counterpart in every other crazy religion or cause, are all highly successful. But, except for rare cases, they are not also "highly successful" in what should be their academic disciplines, in the sense of being "well-regarded scholars". And I can hardly believe that you would cite the regard of Owen and Mosser, who themselves are apologists for fraud (and you yourself necessarily agree with me on that, if you believe that Mormonism is the only true religion) and aren't exactly Rodney Stark and Paula Fredericksen in their own reputations, as evidence that your man Peterson is a "well-respected scholar" in his academic field. Truly embarrassing.

I already answered this. So far you haven't replied to my comment that Rodney Stark has said that he believes Mormonism is mainstream. In fact, critical replies in the Mormon journal Dialogue, from Mormons, claimed that Stark may have been a bit premature in his statement.

About C. S. Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, etc. - yes, I've read them all. Judging from your posts, I can't help but imagine that I've read far more of what they've written than you have - supposing that's even relevant, which I'm not sure it is. In fact, I might even say that anyone who could read the genial and witty apologetic writings of Lewis, and think there was any affinity between them and the pedantic, obfuscatory, often surly monstrosities churned out by the ideologues over at FARMS (or any other, such outfit for that matter), could only be an ideologue himself.

I have no doubt you've read more of Dostoevsky (even though you've spelt his name wrong), but I don't know about Lewis or Tolstoy. As for the "ideologues" at FARMS, you sound like somewhat of an ideologue yourself.

You talk like a big, Ray - but I think you're just as much a fraud as the frauds you defend here.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm honoured to be considered a fraud by someone like you.

So, why not prove me wrong? Show us all just how much you really believe what you say, by attemtping to replicate the results of my little email experiment about Peterson (or Rhodes or Gee for that matter)? Email ten top Islamic scholars about your man Peterson. See what they say. Then post the results here.

Sure, but don't expect it overnight. Dr. Peterson's book was only recently published, and my feeling is that he's still relatively young, considering how many "world famous scholars" didn't become so until late in life. This isn't music, Tal, where you can have 14 year olds becoming famous and Michael Jackson prodigies.

If you're right about Peterson's standing, you should be able to totally embarrass me. What glory would be yours! Embarrassing the evil Tal Bachman! Go ahead and do it, Ray. Pick ten TOP ISLAMIC SCHOLARS AROUND THE WORLD - scan the directories of Oxford and Cambridge, Columbia, ANU perhaps, Michigan, UCLA, wherever they have Near or Middle Eastern Studies programs at top flight universities, and then email as many professors as you want and ask them if they have ever heard of the "Islamist" (which is what Peterson calls himself) Daniel C. Peterson, and what their professional opinion of his research is.

See above.

DO IT. Show the world your cojones, Ray. Show the world what a puny, dishonest wretch I am, and how right you are! Show us that you yourself are not a fraud.

If you really believe what you are saying, you should have no hesitation whatsoever.

I didn't say you're a "puny, dishonest wretch", just a misguided and overzealous anti-Mormon.

[_Coggins7]

About C. S. Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, etc. - yes, I've read them all. Judging from your posts, I can't help but imagine that I've read far more of what they've written than you have - supposing that's even relevant, which I'm not sure it is. In fact, I might even say that anyone who could read the genial and witty apologetic writings of Lewis, and think there was any affinity between them and the pedantic, obfuscatory, often surly monstrosities churned out by the ideologues over at FARMS (or any other, such outfit for that matter), could only be an ideologue himself.

Uh huh. And Mr. Scratch has advanced academic degrees.

If you're right about Peterson's standing, you should be able to totally embarrass me. What glory would be yours! Embarrassing the evil Tal Bachman! Go ahead and do it, Ray. Pick ten TOP ISLAMIC SCHOLARS AROUND THE WORLD - scan the directories of Oxford and Cambridge, Columbia, ANU perhaps, Michigan, UCLA, wherever they have Near or Middle Eastern Studies programs at top flight universities, and then email as many professors as you want and ask them if they have ever heard of the "Islamist" (which is what Peterson calls himself) Daniel C. Peterson, and what their professional opinion of his research is.

The top ten Islamic scholars around the world may indeed not know who he is. So what? There are any number of competent scholars who do good work and publish, and yet who aren't well known. Peterson's work rises or falls on its merits, Tal, not on the word of a hyperventilating demagogue who thinks he can use a credentialist argument against a man who has more than enough relative to his professional and personal interests.

Here's the homepage of BYUs near eastern languages department. Now, I'd like you to explain to me why his credentials and academic history are inadequate.

http://meti.BYU.edu/meti_staff.php

[_dartagnan]

You do realize that the title is a quote of right wing bigot William Donohue? I never supported the statement at all.

So by that logic it is alright to start a thread “Niggers go to hell,” so long as it is in reference to something someone else said? For someone who whines about bigotry as much as you do, you sure do seem highly insensitive, if not socially inept.

You are lying. I notice that you have not produced the original statement, only where you referenced it.

No, I’m not lying, as anyone who can read and comprehend will notice. I know what it means to be “published,” even if you don’t. If you meant what you claim you meant, then you were ambiguous at best in conveying it. The statement “Pipes is not published by academic presses,” has a clear, definitive meaning, just the same as “Pipes is not published.” When someone has been published he or she is published, period. Nothing changes that. There is no statute of limitations on publications. Printed books don’t spontaneously combust after a decade. Plenty of people go through their lives having only one book published. They remain published. When they die they continue to be published. Consider your logic applied in a different context:

“Mark Twain is not published. I ask for say three publications from him during his last ten years.”

Your ad hoc explanation for your ambiguity makes absolutely no sense, unless you really are this dim and don’t know what it means to be published. Whether it was one year ago or ten years ago has no bearing on the fact. Likewise, it doesn't matter if I produced three as you requested; one is all that was needed.

Where is the original Kevin?

I provided the first comment you made about this in this thread/discussion. I don’t recall you making any other statements like this elsewhere.

I said: “Just look at how you react to Pipes. You can't refute or handle anything he says, and you can't even attack his education like you do everyone else.”

To which to replied,

Actually I can. I can point out that pipes is not published by a respectable academic press, because he is not respectable . I asked for say three publications from academic presses from the past 10 years and you never replied.

Your logic is absurd and I bet nobody at BYU agrees with it. I remember talking to Dan about this during our email conversation concerning his respect and admiration for Pipes. He didn’t buy what you were saying then and I doubt he buys into it now. The idea that one must maintain an ongoing, consistent publication record in academic presses, or else one’s "education and scholarship" becomes damaged or worthless, is just too stupid to consider seriously, even for a second. Who was your professor who brainwashed you into this elitist mentality? Pipes and Kramer both had read the thread and thought you were a complete idiot. They couldn’t believe you were actually involved in academia on any level if this was your perspective. They have degrees from Princeton and Harvard, so I think they have more insight than you do.

The problem here is you want to assert that since someone does something once that the can claim those laurels for the rest of their lives. Cuba Golding Jr. won an Oscar once, but that does not mean his current movies are Oscar worthy. Likewise publishing well over a decade ago does not mean current works are academically worthy.

This is such an absurd analogy, it is no wonder you failed as an Islamic scholar and turned to consulting. They must be truly desperate for bad avice over there.

A Harvard education is a Harvard education, and it doesn’t come by easily. One doesn’t lose this level of knowledge one has earned simply because he or she decided to take leave from the academic scene and join the Think Tank environment. Again, I cannot think of one single scholar who would agree with anything you’re saying here, but I have a feeling we both know you’re just talking out of your butt as usual. Your analogy, that compares knowledge, which grows with age, to physical stamina, which diminishes with age, pretty much says it all.

I copied Dr. Peterson to show how bigoted they were

Without attribution, which constitutes plagiarism – your misguided and indignant excuse for plagiarizing him is irrelevant. You also did this on two other occasions which didn’t result in the response you were hoping to get, and I don’t remember you ever indicating to the audience you were actually plagiarizing Dan again. He certainly didn’t know about it, and he wasn’t pleased to find out you were using him as some kind of bait in your own little hate campaign. You come to Mormon related forums and pick fights; fights which have nothing to do with Mormonism. Do you really think people don’t see this? You pollute every forum with personal luggage nobody wants to hear.

I thought Mormon apologists were a joke?

You think so? Some are, to be sure, but not all. The best ones have gradually left FAIR just the same. I’m hardly alone here.

If so such accolades would also be a joke. Which is it? You cannot play it both ways.

Accolades aren’t the point. My point is that you cannot legitimately run to them for sound-bites as evidence against my research ability, because if they try to criticize it now they are being hypocritical. Again, I have received enough compliments from real scholars to know it doesn’t matter what apologists or disgruntled Muslims on message boards say. I have nothing to prove to anyone.

I recently published an article in a professional journal

Where at?

I don't feel the need to convince anyone.

Of course you do. That is why you’re here. Nobody is interested in anything you’ve had to say, but you cannot drag yourself away without venting all the hate you have built up towards me. I’m critical of Islam, and we all know what that means in the mind of the Muslim. Your presence and your purposes here are understood for what they are.

Reasonable people will see you for what you are, a hateful, racist bigot.

Then there must not be any reasonable people on the web except you. You were the first and the last to call me a bigot; the only one to call me a racist. You still think Islam is a race!

Remember, I knew who you were because of your accusations of hate and bigotry? If this were such a common accusation among other LDS, then how did I know you were you? Your bigot-baiting is what sets you apart from the rest.

Unlike you, I see no reason to seek acceptance from your anti-Mormon crowd.

I get a kick out of comments like these because if acceptance is truly all I care about, then I would have remained where I was - never in my life have been so accepted. To say I would give all that up so I could feel welcomed by a few anonymous people - who have no clue who I am - on a forum a few times a week, is beyond reason. It makes no sense.

But I realize you have no intention to make sense. You’re all about trying to get a rise out of people via pop-psychology and insults.

Sorry, you failed again.

Only if you count cutting and pasting as research.

Actually, I remember sitting at the keyboard and typing pages from Pipes, Esposito and Lewis, all because you asked me to; citations nowhere available on the web. Three years later you’re still trying to convince yourself I don’t own any of the books.

I took .7 seconds to do a Google search for aselahx and Islam. Lots of hunting there. Try Bloodnut and islam, or pumplehoober and islam. I think those might return too. Kevinator might work as well. That's a LOT of effort to you, I understand, but in reality it is really simple.

It takes more time to go to the forums, create various monikers like pumplehoober and richardlionhart, just to make yourself look foolish. You must have been awfully upset when I didn’t agree with anything you were spouting as RtLH. Just another one of your games that didn’t play out the way you had hoped.

Really, where?

You post as Alabaster on christianforums.com, where you lie to your audience about your religious affiliation, and where you also bash America and Americans in general. You’ve definitely become a product of your Muslim environment – I’d expect differently from stronger minds.

You fell out with FAIR Because they stopped stroking your ego.

Actually, the record shows - for those interested in “researching” it out and knowing what the hell they are talking about – that our fall out was every bit my decision. I was asking them to remove articles I had written, long before I was banned from that silly message forum. I have many email conversations from the year prior, with popular LDS apologists urging me to stick it out. But Book of Abraham apologetics, its ineffectiveness and the dishonesty by its leadership, took a huge toll on my loyalty.

You became Mormon because it stroked your ego.

You clearly don’t know much about being an LDS convert. Ego stroking is hardly a benefit, especially when you’re rushed off on a mission a year later.

You liked being fawned over because you were kicked out of your house and mistreated.

Well naturally, anyone who gets kicked out of his home is going to feel good when others take him in. But to say this was a plan of mine is absurd.

Once FAIR-ites realized what a bigot and racist you were

Ah, here is where you’re dabbling into wishful thinking. You’re always willing to speak for others when they’ve said nothing of the sort. Is this what you call honest research? You’ve presumed to speak for Dan in the past and you’re still doing it, even though he wants nothing to do with you.

You found better ego stroking with the anti-Mormon crowd.

Ha!

Really? Well let’s compare then shall we?

Once I was a respected internet apologist who received weekly, anywhere between two to a half-dozen emails from complete strangers thanking me for strengthening their testimonies and pushing them back over from the dark side. I was making friends with real people, some of whom invited me to their homes if I ever decided to travel their way. I received emails from LDS scholars I had never before spoken with, thanking me for research that has helped even them!

And that was just the internet side. In real life I was always known as the member with “that website that refutes critics.” Bishops from every ward told missionaries to send tough investigators my way. I was sometimes called to give talks at firesides – twice on the subject of biblical anthropomorphisms (based on my research posted online - http://www.kevingraham.org/jp1.htm).

And what do I have to look forward to now? An occasional accolade from some anonymous internet personality whom I will never meet. If there is an argument to be made here, it is that I chose this path because I prefer hermit status. Social acceptance is what I gave up, it isn’t what I gained. For this reason, to say I did this for acceptance is hilarious to me.

Don't paint this as anything other than a desperate search for acceptance from whoever will have you.

I’m sure the same could be said of you and your conversion to Islam after moving to a Muslim country, but I am not inclined to psychoanalyze people I really don’t care about.

You left Mormonism because of ego and pride.

This makes no sense. The record shows that my frustration has always been regarding the failure of apologetics and the direction it is heading. This has been documented on several online venues for more than three years. But as usual, you are not interested in researching information that contradicts your own bigoted presuppositions about people.

I could not care less if you are Mormon or not, so I do not care which side you are on, and the cause and effect is crystal clear.

And the irony is that you don’t see it. Everyone else does.

You need to be accepted, and without that acceptance, you left Mormons for anti-Mormons.

Again, the record shows that you’re presenting a cart before the horse scenario. Nobody rejected me- I rejected them. They didn’t like the fact that a TBM apologist was rejecting current apologetics, so obviously some need me to be a crazy anti-Mormon. The truth is just too confusing to absorb or disturbing to bear.

You would go back if the situation were reversed.

Yea, right! So I guess the thousands upon thousands of words, and hundreds of posts I have written about the failure of Book of Abraham apologetics and the repercussions we face if the critical argument wins out, was just a four year charade I threw up to cover my real reasons for leaving the apologetic crowd: because I need acceptance! And of course, when one needs acceptance, where do they go? Naturally they all head over to an obscure internet forum where they can get to know maybe two people by their real name, and meet one of them in their life time if they’re lucky.

And I average less than 20 posts per week, so we know this is definitely where all my social needs are satiated.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Uh huh. And Mr. Scratch has advanced academic degrees.

Alright, Coggins is a CIA operative who knows Scratch's background. Well no sense keeping everyone in the dark....here's Scratch's academic resume:

High School: Graduated with 3.2 from Battlecreek High in Battlecreek MI, letters in Tetherball and Hopscotch, clubs: Underwater Basketweaving and was Mr. Battlecreek and unoffical bikini inspector at Spring Break: Battlecreek
College:
Undergraduate work in Monkeys and related primates at Uncle Joe's College and Tire Store
Graduate work from St. Brutus's Secure College for the Criminally Insane

MA in Taco Shellery with a thesis entitled Soft Shells: A Code to Flavor
PH D in Taco Appreciation with a dissertation entitled Hard Shells: Ambrosia of Lust

[_Mercury]

The top ten Islamic scholars around the world may indeed not know who he is. So what?

This, my dimwitted padawan is the crux of your poor understanding of academia. To be well known is to be successful. Those who remain in obscurity do not contribute to the community of professionals.

Peterson is not recognized by the professionals in his field as someone contributing anything substantial to the field. Instead he remains in obscurity, forever to remain there, just as you in whatever half baked endeavor you choose to follow.

He remains in his present position solely for the task as a placemarker in modern Mormon apologetics, a pseudoauthority "validating" Mormonism to the converted. Alone in his task aside from the other flock of misguided and warped minds twisting their degrees into laughable legitimization.

Peterson is not taken seriously in any way shape or form. This is made evident by the publisher carrying his book.