a five+ year crusade of character assassination

[_Simon Belmont]

Still "no" then....

You're welcome to start one.

[_Drifting]

Still "no" then....

You're welcome to start one.

Still "no" then....

[_Simon Belmont]

Still "no" then....

I see your point, Drifting.

Each and every belief about anything must be accompanied by a thread on a message board on the Internet, else it is not a belief. Am I correct in that assessment of your logic?

So, when Thomas Jefferson believed that "all men are created equal" and that they have "unalienable rights," among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he was simply lying. How could those be his beliefs when he didn't start a thread on an Internet message board about them?

Go away, Drifting.

[_Drifting]

Simon, has DCP done anything, posted anything, that you consider to have been misleading or disingenuous?

As I have repeatedly said: I am under no illusion that DCP is perfect.

So is there another thread where you are calling DCP to repentance, you know anytime over the last five years or so?

Bump for Simon...

[_Simon Belmont]

So is there another thread where you are calling DCP to repentance, you know anytime over the last five years or so?

Bump for Simon...

Drifting, I don't have to start a thread to believe something.

Get it?

(I'm guessing no).

[_Drifting]

So is there another thread where you are calling DCP to repentance, you know anytime over the last five years or so?

Bump for Simon...

Drifting, I don't have to start a thread to believe something.

Get it?

(I'm guessing no).

So not one example in five years of you calling DCP to repentance.
Nothing, nada, zilch.....

[Guest]

In other words, I gave a relevant response to show the speciousness of Simon Belmont's reasoning about what was stated in the OP.

That's a "deflection" in Stemelbow-speak.

Why can't you just talk to people instead of talking about me, in some bizarre way?

Has anyone ever wondered what the animals are thinking when people from National Geographic are filming them?

In real life, to reasonable, functionally literate people who are not Stemelbow, a deflection would be completely missing the point of demonstrating how it is specious to claim that criticism of a pseudonym is not a criticism of what is represented by that pseudonym, and instead being so trapped in an elementary school level of reading comprehension that you really think my obvious point is a "deflective way to complain [about] the Church."

To be fair to Stemelbow, though, a deflection seems to imply forethought. Experience suggests that Stemelbow is not being deliberately obtuse in order to change the subject. He really is this obtuse.

Stemelbow, why don't you follow up by bitching about "personal attacks," after you have called this thread "an idiotic representation"?

Then maybe someone can explain (or attempt to!) the irony of you calling this thread an "idiotic representation" when you have completely missed the point.

I haven't missed the point. I think it obvious that Simon recognizes that Scratch's real identity is unknown, but the church's identity is known. The comparison doesn't seem to make sense--it appears to be nothing but deflection to me.

Of course it seems that way to you. That's because all of this is in the context of a message board about Mormonism, and the LDS Church has conditioned you to assess the truth value of a given proposition or argument in terms of your emotions. Your visceral reaction to "an attack on the Church" distracted you from the actual point, which is that criticism of a "pseudonym" is obviously criticism of who is using the pseudonym. It isn't a "comparison;" it is illustrating the double standard, that being the calling card of Simon Belmont's sense of morality.

Your being spoon fed by the Church the idea that good feelings are indicative of truth value is a large part of why you cannot distinguish between facts and value judgments or between evidence and dogma. It's why you so often characterize evidence-based argument as "whimperin' and whinin'," and why you assume that people who are not dazzled by the puerile reasoning so often seen in defense of the faith must be "angry." You impute reaching conclusions based on emotion to other people because you simply have no frame of reference otherwise. And you are utterly incapable of self-reflection about this, no more than a fish is capable of introspection about the water in which it swims.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I guess Simon is the sort of guy who thinks it's cool to mock and ridicule other people's sacred religious rituals.

[_Yoda]

Where'd Liz go? Is she just going to level a series of false accusations and then bail out of the thread?

I have a life, Scratch. I have been working all day. This is the first real opportunity I have had to look at the board, period.

Let me look through the pages of this thread and see exactly what you are talking about. I am not aware of any false accusations I have thrown around.

[_Yoda]

Simon:

Does the account--with the name "D. Peterson" on it--belong to Daniel C. Peterson, the Mopologist? Or does it belong to his son? You and Liz have both said that I went specifically looking for the son's account/wish list. Is that what happened? Or are you guys telling fibs?

No..I said that you made an issue out of an Amazon wish list which turned out to be Dan's son's wish list. This was explained by Daniel, himself, in the thread that Simon referenced.

Frankly, I think it is creepy that you are perusing through Amazon, looking for Dan's wish list.

That spells both creepy and obsessive to me. It is exactly what I have been talking about. You crossed the line over into other areas of Dan's personal life. This has nothing to do with his stance on Mormon apologetics. It doesn't even have anything to do with how he treated critics on a personal level. It's just creepy!

Also, you KNOW that what I posted about Tim Tribe is true. Here is the thread where posting his Linked In picture is discussed:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 63#p313063

Again, this is another example of you engaging in clearly over the top intimidation tactics. As far as I am concerned, there is a clear line drawn regarding delving into posters' outside lives, and you are famous for crossing it.

You can deny this and justify it all you want. The readers here can decide for themselves based on the information presented. All I know is, anyone who crosses you should seriously be looking over their shoulder because you don't play fair, by any means.