Books I Haven't Read 1: The Vision of the Annointed

[_Kevin Graham]

The truth, as always.

That has always been apologetic kryptonite.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the comments Kev.

He favors Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for God's sake

Hah! What a loser. I have to say reading the comments from his fans was pretty entertaining. He really knows how to get right-thinkin' people "fired up" and angry.

I'm surprised Droopy hasn't stepped in to give an intellectually serious lecture on -- something.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Equating, Dr. Peterson, what you are doing to Kishkumen with what Dr. Scratch has done to you?

Of course they're not comparable. Scratch has been stalking me implacably for five full years now. Half a decade.

I just tweaked Kishkumen a bit.

You've been "tweaking" him for over a year, at least. You've even--as I've learned--been stalking (or "tweaking"?) him on Facebook.

My description of him is obviously true -- as, I know from their private comments to me, is obvious to reasonable observers here. (Hence, there's little or no need for me to explicitly point that out.)

Thanks for the laughs, Dan. At least a few of these "reasonable observers" have PM'ed me to tell me what an obsessive/reactionary freak they think you are. They're playing both sides. I realize the idea of neutrality and/or "playing both sides" is foreign to you, but not everybody feels like they have to maintain utter tribal loyalty. Ray A., Jason Bourne, Liz, Beastie, etc. have offered up criticism of me, but the same can't be said of any of the TBMs with respect to you. Do you regard this as evidence that you're innocent, I wonder?

But, obviously, all of this is rather beside the point. You said you "tweaked" Kishkumen. Shall I say that I've been "tweaking" you, to enormous effect? Perhaps I shall! Per-haps I shall.....

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've even--as I've learned--been stalking (or "tweaking"?) him on Facebook.

If responding a single time with a single sentence to a single Facebook post constitutes "stalking," why, then, yes I have. And for at least a year. Perhaps even for centuries.

It actually began back in the late Pleistocene.

This is, surely, a watershed moment -- or epoch -- in the history of Mopologetics!

At least a few of these "reasonable observers" have PM'ed me to tell me what an obsessive/reactionary freak they think you are.

No reasonable observer has done that.

[_stemelbow]

Thomas Sowell is a professional liar who is only interested in serving far Right Wing extremism. He favors Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for God's sake. That's enough to discredit anything he has to say. But ever since he was proved wrong about the role of the CRA in the housing crisis, along with his subsequent refusal to admit being proved wrong, that did it for me. He has no credibility except among those who hail from the far Right. Kinda like how Dan Peterson has credibility in his apologetics, except among like-minded sheep. And Dan has no credibility in his judgment of characters because he rushes to defend folks like William Schryver who call ex-Mormon women whores and accuse all ex-Mormons on this forum of engaging in group anal sex. That's the kind of people Dan Peterson wants to defend. He wants to call them victims of smear campaigns. He isn't interested in the evidence, as usual. Dan is all about loyalty to the tribe. Truth is relative.

Severly disappointed. In commenting on an author of a book he hasn't read, he twists and turns in order to complain about Peterson and Schryver? When is Shades going to provide us a stickied MD quote page that mimicks the mocking of the MDD posters? (though it probably should get more play than the MDD one, it probably won't since most posters here won't take kindly to it) I hate to say it, Kevin, but this kinda stuff, though plentiful here and not limited to you, is what epitomizes the absurdity that can often shine here. Let's all do a little better, trying to avoid turning into a bunch of Scratches and learn to suppress a little of that unfounded rage that pereates, exposing unhealthy hostility. I truly think it'll do you and many others here some good.

It had to be said.

[_stemelbow]

I'm beginning to wonder what Scratch would be if Dr. Peterson just ignored him and let him go off on his fantasy laden hate journeys without a word? Wouldn't he eventually realize that no one actually cares or takes him seriously? Well of course some here take him seriously...sadly.

I don't know. Is there no solution? Scratch, do you recognize you may need some help? Or is that an unfair question? Are you just playing everyone who reads your stuff for a fool? I just don't get it. Call me crazy I guess.

one more little comment--when people complain about posters over at MDD, like Pahoran and many others, all i have to do is realize that some posters here, like Scratch, come off as far more troubled than any I can think of that regularly post at MDD. I readily acknowledge that some apologists can be jerks and idiots. But come on, people...why complain so much about them? Look what's standing right beside you.

[_Buffalo]

I don't know. Is there no solution?

I've already proposed a solution :o

[_Kevin Graham]

Thomas Sowell is a professional liar who is only interested in serving far Right Wing extremism. He favors Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for God's sake. That's enough to discredit anything he has to say. But ever since he was proved wrong about the role of the CRA in the housing crisis, along with his subsequent refusal to admit being proved wrong, that did it for me. He has no credibility except among those who hail from the far Right. Kinda like how Dan Peterson has credibility in his apologetics, except among like-minded sheep. And Dan has no credibility in his judgment of characters because he rushes to defend folks like William Schryver who call ex-Mormon women whores and accuse all ex-Mormons on this forum of engaging in group anal sex. That's the kind of people Dan Peterson wants to defend. He wants to call them victims of smear campaigns. He isn't interested in the evidence, as usual. Dan is all about loyalty to the tribe. Truth is relative.

Severly disappointed. In commenting on an author of a book he hasn't read, he twists and turns in order to complain about Peterson and Schryver? When is Shades going to provide us a stickied MD quote page that mimicks the mocking of the MDD posters? (though it probably should get more play than the MDD one, it probably won't since most posters here won't take kindly to it) I hate to say it, Kevin, but this kinda stuff, though plentiful here and not limited to you, is what epitomizes the absurdity that can often shine here. Let's all do a little better, trying to avoid turning into a bunch of Scratches and learn to suppress a little of that unfounded rage that pereates, exposing unhealthy hostility. I truly think it'll do you and many others here some good.

It had to be said.

What's wrong Stem, truth hurt? I have "rage" now for simply pointing out the facts? You're turning into a Droopy clone. Anyone who thinks I am seething with rage is really out of touch with reality. The fact is Dan Peterson is a hypocrite, and should really keep his hypocritical remarks to himself unless he wants to be called out for hypocrisy. I know enough about Sowell to know nothing he says can be trusted, the same way I know nothing John Gee or William Schryver say can be trusted. There is no need to read whatever books they come out with when you know the authors are not interested in what's actually true. They're only interested in their agenda. Sowell's agenda is to get more funding from rich Right Wing interest groups by pumping out more nonsense for the FOX News talking points, and Gee and Schryver's agenda is to deceive their audience on Book of Abraham matters.

You find nothing wrong with defending someone like William Schryver? Over at MAD Dan had the audacity to say William is a victim of a smear campaign. He said the evidence wasn't enough to convince him he had any ill feelings towards women. People dumb enough to make these kinds of comments deserve to have their names attached to Schryver's slime. I hope Will's supporters like Dan and "Pahoran" and other folks who try to have credibility online, get exactly what they ask for. Would Dan make these kinds of statements to a broader audience if Schryver's misogynistic rants were read out in public? Of course not. He would condemn them in a heart beat. So I think Dan is bluffing. He doesn't really have the guts to go on record and publicly support William's attacks on women. But on hallowed apologetic battlegrounds such as these, he'll pretend to support fellow apologists simply because that is the loyal thing to do.

[_stemelbow]

What's wrong Stem, truth hurt? I have "rage" now for simply pointing out the facts? You're turning into a Droopy clone. Anyone who thinks I am seething with rage is really out of touch with reality. The fact is Dan Peterson is a hypocrite, and should really keep his hypocritical remarks to himself unless he wants to be called out for hypocrisy. I know enough about Sowell to know nothing he says can be trusted, the same way I know nothing John Gee or William Schryver say can be trusted. There is no need to read whatever books they come out with when you know the authors are not interested in what's actually true. They're only interested in their agenda. Sowell's agenda is to get more funding from rich Right Wing interest groups by pumping out more nonsense for the FOX News talking points, and Gee and Schryver's agenda is to deceive their audience on Book of Abraham matters.

You find nothing wrong with defending someone like William Schryver? Over at MAD Dan had the audacity to say William is a victim of a smear campaign. He said the evidence wasn't enough to convince him he had any ill feelings towards women. People dumb enough to make these kinds of comments deserve to have their names attached to Schryver's slime. I hope Will's supporters like Dan and "Pahoran" and other folks who try to have credibility online, get exactly what they ask for. Would Dan make these kinds of statements to a broader audience if Schryver's misogynistic rants were read out in public? Of course not. He would condemn them in a heart beat. So I think Dan is bluffing. He doesn't really have the guts to go on record and publicly support William's attacks on women. But on hallowed apologetic battlegrounds such as these, he'll pretend to support fellow apologists simply because that is the loyal thing to do.

I honestly find Droopy off-putting. I'm even more disapponted you are trying to equte us. But as for your comments here...oh well...I tried to help. It looks like you're on your own.

p.s. this would be the second post today, which you've authored, I'd indiscriminately put on the MD quote page for people to read and mock. Sorry, if I offend, but I'm on one today.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You've even--as I've learned--been stalking (or "tweaking"?) him on Facebook.

If responding a single time with a single sentence to a single Facebook post constitutes "stalking," why, then, yes I have. And for at least a year. Perhaps even for centuries.

It actually began back in the late Pleistocene.

This is, surely, a watershed moment -- or epoch -- in the history of Mopologetics!

It's not a "watershed moment" at all. It's par for the course. You guys have been doing this stuff for decades--without a single shred of remorse.

At least a few of these "reasonable observers" have PM'ed me to tell me what an obsessive/reactionary freak they think you are.

No reasonable observer has done that.

What are you saying? That anybody who dares to hold a neutral or critical opinion of you is therefore "unreasonable"? It ain't true, Dan. I've got a series of PMs from one person in particular whom I'm fairly positive you consider "reasonable," and these PMs expressed a kind of exasperation for your reactionary behavior. This individual, without fail, would receive an angry PM from you every time he/she dared to criticize something that was apparently "near and dear" to you. S/he found it amusing/odd every time you would flip out.

But isn't it fun to make broad insinuations on PMs that will never see the light of day?