Ray A.....total nut.

[_Runtu]

Scratch is here because here Scratch is in his element: personal slander, innuendo, and ad hominem breast beating.

Scratch is attracted to threads involving angry, bitter personal exchanges like King Kong is attracted to petite blonds with good lungs.

Oh, the irony is thick.

[_Chap]

That's because crocket, at least, has more brains than you.

No doubt. You've already informed me I was a bitch, as well. And you know, even if every accusation you've made against me were true, I've still never said anything as vicious as "YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD."

I hope crocket and coggins think long and hard about whose bed they are hopping into. I have very little respect for either of these characters, but they are certainly not in Ray's league.

Still smarting over that Smithsonian report I located which documented pre-Columbian horses, aren't you? (C. Ray, Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan, The Journal of Mammalogy, Vol 38, No 2, p. 278 (1957).) I'll bet you haven't even read the article. I wouldn't worry my pretty little head over it, really. [sarcastic wink icon].

rcrocket

Is your head little and pretty, rcrocket? How nice for you. You sound a bit patronising, did you know that? I am sure you didn't mean it.

Well, I have JSTOR and have read this one-page note written fifty years ago. The man who wrote it did his job well by reporting the "upper molar and three fragmentary lower molars" he found, but to judge from the total absence of citations or related articles, the finds he cites have long been discounted as of no evidential significance.

The brute fact is that no LDS apologist can find any professional palaeozoologiist in the 21st century who believes that there were living horses on the American continent in Book of Mormon times. Can you? Bet you can't (Not that this stops people trying - do you remember the fun a while back on the MAD board about the alleged pre-Spanish horses in Southern California? That did not turn out happily for the TBMs, did it? Poor things - they just have to keep trying, or there is nothing left but the tapirs)

[_beastie]

Is your head little and pretty, rcrocket? How nice for you. You sound a bit patronising, did you know that? I am sure you didn't mean it.

Well, I have JSTOR and have read this one-page note written fifty years ago. The man who wrote it did his job well by reporting the "upper molar and three fragmentary lower molars" he found, but to judge from the total absence of citations or related articles, the finds he cites have long been discounted as of no evidential significance.

The brute fact is that no LDS apologist can find any professional palaeozoologiist in the 21st century who believes that there were living horses on the American continent in Book of Mormon times. Can you? Bet you can't (Not that this stops people trying - do you remember the fun a while back on the MAD board about the alleged pre-Spanish horses in Southern California? That did not turn out happily for the TBMs, did it? Poor things - they just have to keep trying, or there is nothing left but the tapirs)

crock knows good and well there is no supporting evidence for horses in ancient Mesoamerica. We had a very long discussion about this not too long ago. (I'll try to come back with the link later)

He's not interested in a genuine conversation about it. He's taunting me. He knows I believe he's a misogynist and have no respect for him. That's why he used "pretty little head" - although I believe he's used that phrase before I labeled him a misogynist.

Don't let him fool you into thinking he wants to discuss horses.

[_beastie]

Here's one recent thread about horses, although I'm not sure this is the one where Bob participated with his reference:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... se&start=0

(chap participated on that one)

Here's the thread I think contained this original reference

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sc&start=0

[_Coggins7]

Oh, the irony is thick.

The only thing thick around here Runtu, is the B.S. incessantly shoveled by the likes of yourself.

True, I have given as good as I've gotten here when I've allowed myself to be dragged into ad hominem fights by the likes of yourself and Scratch, but it is not my style. I have made effort upon effort, time and time again, to engage in serious, idea based discussion but virtually all such have been derailed and pushed into the ad hominem mode by the likes of yourself and Scratch.

The difference between me and those whom I am signifying here is that, while I am capable of lowering myself to their standards, that is an exception, not a rule, and that's the difference.

It would be wise to cease the Runtu-is-the-social-conscience-of-the-board-pose at this point, because your tendentious misrepresentations of the Church, its doctrines, and its history, and your smarmy slanders of its leaders bespeak something quite different in your character.

[_beastie]

Coggins,

You are in serious denial.

[_Mister Scratch]

Coggins,

You are in serious denial.

Boy, is that ever true. What I find fascinating is that I ceased interacting with Coggs months ago, and yet here he is (again) trying to attack me. He must still really be smarting from the many butt-kickings I gave him.

Also, am I alone here? Did anybody else notice this?:

Hmmmm...now I know you writes all the dialog for most of Tarantino's flicks...

Well, durn it! When I read a sentence like this, I cannot help but hear the mellow refrains of "Dueling Banjos" wafting through the air. I gather that ol' Loran has his jug with the three Xs at his side....

[_beastie]

I rarely take coggins seriously enough to even waste time reading his posts. The few times I do, I am reminded of the wisdom of my decision to generally ignore him.

[_Coggins7]

I rarely take coggins seriously enough to even waste time reading his posts. The few times I do, I am reminded of the wisdom of my decision to generally ignore him.

And not reading my posts is clearly a pattern with you, as you clearly do little reading of the reams of work FARMS and other LDS scholars have produced over the years which engages your own perhaps not quite so water tight theories and speculations concerning the historicity of various Book of Mormon events or characters.

I say "clearly" because--well, its clear. But then, that's a long standing patter with in the exmo world, EV and secular liberal.

[_beastie]

When I respond to your posts, I've read them. I rarely respond to your posts.

In regards to whether I read and respond meaningfully to apologia, I have written lengthy essays about the Book of Mormon in mesoamerica that directly deal with that apologia. These essays alone demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... esoamerica

All of my essays were based on accepting certain apologetic claims which are actually quite open to scrutiny, such as the existence of the "others", and the idea that one cannot differentiate a religious group if they have culturally assimilated into the larger group. I don't necessarily accept either of those premises, but since apologists insist upon them, I wrote my essays with those in mind.

The reason I so rarely read or respond to your posts is because you are so often so wildly incorrect that it feels insane to even try to engage you. (see your recent assertion that I never really believed in the church.)