Rollo Tomasi wrote:Quinn didn't publicly come out until 1996.
You've said that so many times. And, your support? A statement from Quinn himself? Or Wiki?
Around the time Quinn's Same-Sex Dynamics book was published in 1996, Quinn gave a press interview during which he came out as homosexual (this was reported in Sunstone).
What does it mean to "come out publicly" if attending academic meetings with your paramour and carrying on in an affectionate manner isn't?
There you go again. No one, other than you, has ever claimed that Quinn was "holding hands with his mates" or being "affectionate" with his "paramour." Just keep digging your hole deeper, Bob.
"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)
This is merely a thought of how Christian kindness could rise above the fray, but if Dr. Quinn were invited to be a speaker at a FAIR conference next year, it would truly be beneficent.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:There you go again. No one, other than you, has ever claimed that Quinn was "holding hands with his mates" or being "affectionate" with his "paramour." Just keep digging your hole deeper, Bob.
And Dr. Quinn is there digging the hole with me. Ask him yourself. He can be reached in Rancho Cucumonga. Quinn came out long long before his press release.
Daniel Peterson wrote:It's hopeless. Utterly futile. There is simply no point. Absolutely none.
You know it, I suspect. I've known it for a long time, too.
It's understandable that you continue to try: The heart refuses to give up hope.
But there is no hope.
None.
You are absolutely right when it comes to getting you and Bob to admit the obvious: that you gossiped about Quinn, and Bob improperly manipulated a quote for his MMM article in the FARMS Journal.
"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:It's hopeless. Utterly futile. There is simply no point. Absolutely none.
You know it, I suspect. I've known it for a long time, too.
It's understandable that you continue to try: The heart refuses to give up hope.
But there is no hope.
None.
You are absolutely right when it comes to getting you and Bob to admit the obvious: that you gossiped about Quinn, and Bob improperly manipulated a quote for his MMM article in the FARMS Journal.
How did I manipulate a quote from the MMM article? You and your alter ego Scratch (who hasn't even read my article) are the only two human beings to make this charge. After all, the article was a review of Bagley's book, and HE doesn't make this charge, and HE has admitted to me that perhaps it would have been wise to refer to the cited Bishop letter in his book. So HE doesn't see it the way you do. HE is the expert. Please cite my any expert source, Bagley included, which agrees with your reading of my article.
Really, now, how can one "gossip" about a public fact? Is it "gossip" to talk about Clinton's affair with Monica?
How can one accept the charges and claims of an anonymous poster? Show some courage and name yourself as you slander others.
Hey, I'm still still still waiting for Scratch to cite me one university journal which supports his position about peer-reviewing (hand picked; blind reviewers; expertise in the area; not selected for countervailing viewpoints). You two are too precious. Really. Must I be ignored for so long?
But it seems that my challenges should be met, rather than ignored. I just don't get it. Why continue to repeat a falsehood about review I wrote about Will Bagely's book? Bagley himself agreed that it would have wise to include the letter for the point I made about it.