Runtu wrote:That, I think, is what reflects the writer/editor more than the church.
So the Editor and the Correlation Committee do not hold to the idea of examining their publications "line upon line", eh? How could they not see the implications of this passage in the present?
moksha wrote:So the Editor and the Correlation Committee do not hold to the idea of examining their publications "line upon line", eh? How could they not see the implications of this passage in the present?
Having edited the first two Aaronic Priesthood manuals, I know that we were told not to change anything but simply to reprint. I objected strenuously, but it wasn't my call.
I did not edit the last manual, though, with the passage about interracial marriage.
Droopy, I have no desire to discuss anything with you. Plus, I addressed your claims in my publications.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
Droopy, I have no desire to discuss anything with you. Plus, I addressed your claims in my publications.
Just as I thought. You're fine as long as you have the floor and there are no interlocutors. Once faced with serious critique, however, you wilt. There is, indeed, a historic trend of precisely this kind at the MADboard.
Is this what contemporary academic philosophy departments are turning out? Drive by philosophers that write nice essays but can't think and hold there own in critical debate when extemporaneously confronted with intellectual challenge?
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 17, 2011 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy, I have no desire to discuss anything with you. Plus, I addressed your claims in my publications.
Just as I thought. You're fine as long as you have the floor and their are no interlocutors. Once faced with serious critique, however, you wilt. There is, indeed, a historic trend of precisely this kind at the MADboard.
Is this what contemporary academic philosophy departments are turning out? Drive by philosophers that write nice essays but can't think and hold there own in critical debate when extemporaneously confronted with intellectual challenge?
No Droopy. As I said, "I have no desire to discuss anything with YOU." As any intelligent person can see on the very thread, I am willing to discuss things with others--as I have done with bcspace (and I would add that I enjoyed my discussion with him and was pleased to find that I found myself in more agreement than I normally have). I assume that he has enjoyed it as well. Furthermore, my publication on the topic was discussed in print with Robert Millet and Nate Oman (with my rejoinder being a response to both of their responses).
In other words Droopy, I have discussed these topics with others and have enjoyed doing so and want to do more. I just have no desire to do it with you Droopy. And please, do take it personally.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 17, 2011 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
No Droopy. As I said, "I have no desire to discuss anything with YOU." As any intelligent person can see on the very thread, I am willing to discuss things with others--as I have done with bcspace (and I would add that I enjoyed my discussion with him and was pleased to find that I found myself in more agreement than I normally have). I assume that he has enjoyed it as well. Furthermore, my publication on the topic was discussed in print with Robert Millet and Nate Oman (with my rejoinder being a response to both of their responses).
In other words Droopy, I have discussed these topics with others and have enjoyed doing so and want to do more. I just have no desire to do it with you Droopy. And please, do take it personally.
How I do love white flags...especially when waved with such vigor.
I am not by any means the only one who has taken note of your hit-and-run style of debate. Depth and rigor just do not appear to be your forté Narrator, which is why I publicly voiced my astonishment that you were actually an academic philosopher (but look. we are dealing with the contemporary, post sixties PC academy after all, not the traditional liberal arts conception of critical thought, close reasoning, and philosophical breadth), as neither your prose style, the substance of your arguments, nor your appreciable vain, snarky, self satisfied pose of intellectual superiority that a number of individuals took strong note of, bespeak that kind of training or that kind of mind, at least when meeting others who disagree with you in the marketplace of ideas.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Or, in other words, let me make it explicit, quoting your own sig line:
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
No Droopy. As I said, "I have no desire to discuss anything with YOU." As any intelligent person can see on the very thread, I am willing to discuss things with others--as I have done with bcspace (and I would add that I enjoyed my discussion with him and was pleased to find that I found myself in more agreement than I normally have). I assume that he has enjoyed it as well. Furthermore, my publication on the topic was discussed in print with Robert Millet and Nate Oman (with my rejoinder being a response to both of their responses).
In other words Droopy, I have discussed these topics with others and have enjoyed doing so and want to do more. I just have no desire to do it with you Droopy. And please, do take it personally.
How I do love white flags...especially when waved with such vigor.
I am not by any means the only one who has taken note of your hit-and-run style of debate. Depth and rigor just do not appear to be your forté Narrator, which is why I publicly voiced my astonishment that you were actually an academic philosopher (but look. we are dealing with the contemporary, post sixties PC academy after all, not the traditional liberal arts conception of critical thought, close reasoning, and philosophical breadth), as neither your prose style, the substance of your arguments, nor your appreciable vain, snarky, self satisfied pose of intellectual superiority that a number of individuals took strong note of, bespeak that kind of training or that kind of mind, at least when meeting others who disagree with you in the marketplace of ideas.
You're right Droopy. I surrender!!! You're just too darn smart for me. Please stop attacking me with your utter brilliance. I'm too scared of you and your astounding wisdom and insight. Please just leave me alone so I can hide from you and instead engage with stupid idiots in stupid worthless academic journals instead.
Seriously, you win. Please accept this waving white flag as a sign of your utter intellectual domination over me. By engaging with others on this thread and other threads as well as in these worthless publications, I have clearly shown that I am not willing to engage discussion with others.
Wow. You really showed me for what I am = a cowardice, arrogant fool incapable of engaging others. Having shown the world for what I am, I guess it is best to just accept this fact and not discuss anything with you ever again. I'm just too darn scared.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
the narrator wrote:I assume that he has enjoyed it as well. Furthermore, my publication on the topic was discussed in print with Robert Millet and Nate Oman (with my rejoinder being a response to both of their responses).
In other words Droopy, I have discussed these topics with others and have enjoyed doing so and want to do more. I just have no desire to do it with you Droopy. And please, do take it personally.
So, you tangled with Nate Oman, but couldn't handle the Droopster. Don't take it too hard. Many a soldier has fallen to his mighty sword of truth. You haven't faced real competition until you've gone toe to toe with Droopy.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist