Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Philo Sofee]

Three witnesses to the ban screen, all consistent in their story and timing. All saw it with their physical eyes.

I for one know what I saw, and I was banned. Whether Dr. Peterson changed his mind and took the ban off, I have not checked. But Mr Kiwi, the liars club is not here. Dan is lying to all of you about the ban. And you have three witnesses to one about that.

Oh didn't you get the memo? Witnesses only count in Mormonism, all others are suspect....

[_Philo Sofee]

Pahoran
(I) Enjoy Mormonism the Liars' club. (I'll) fit right in.

There, fixed that for ya.

[Guest]

Of all issues on this board Pahoran finally shows up to make a few cheap scores on Dan banning Ph.d posters off his blog?! LOL! My the priorities are strong with this one.
Nothing else is worth talking about, except to defend Dapper Dan. And he fails miserably at this.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Careful, Kiwi. Ain’t no one here to protect your six when you’re being an [CamNC4Me]

There. Fixed it for you.

So, that's your one-off. I always do this for anyone who thinks they want to get nasty with me. I'd prefer you just be decent, and then we can discuss Mormon-related topics without being passive-aggressive, lobbing light insults, or just being downright terrible. Next time you pull that crap I'll just return the favor. Again. You don't have the luxury of top cover by Dan on his little vanity project blog, so it's best to behave.

- Doc

[_Gadianton]

Instead, he (1) explained in detail why Mister Palmer's various activities prior to the publication of his anti-Mormon book are directly relevant to its content, and (2) pointed out that the claim that his investigation into the intellectual history of that work was "an ad hominem attack" would necessarily apply to the content of that work itself, being that it would thus become an "an ad hominem attack" against Joseph Smith.

When those in charge of the Seminary and Institute program of the Church of Jesus Christ asked me to respond specifically to Palmer's duplicity and apostasy,

Oh, so your definition of "a hit piece" is "responding to duplicity."

It's an example of a hit piece, but it by no means exhausts the variety of hit pieces undertaken by organizations like FARMS. And why is this so? It has less to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition, "Palmer was duplicitous" and more to do with the circumstances and manner of the investigation. Mr. Midgley has admitted that he undertook a study of Palmer at behest of the highest ranking officials within the Institute program, in order to flesh out a predetermined conclusion by the officials that Palmer was duplicitous and an apostate. And Mr. Midgley went dirt gathering with avarice and purpose, to support the conclusions that these brethren had dictated. Had the conclusion of duplicity not been predetermined by both the brethren and their researcher, then in carefully sifting the evidence, determining incidences of "duplicity" or even "apostasy" would not necessarily disqualify the work as intellectual history. However, an overall moral evaluation that "Palmer was duplicitous" would be against the grain of intellectual history.

And you are incorrect that if Midgley's work on Palmer was an ad hominem attack on Palmer then Palmer's work on Smith was an ad hominem attack on Smith. That both involve investigations of the person isn't material to the case, nor even is an outcome many would find unfavorable to the moral integrity of the persons investigated material to the case. Palmer was not charged to uncover his conclusions by a higher authority. Palmer was perplexed over what he'd uncovered, and suffered for it. Palmer had no vested interest to uncover what he had uncovered over the years and hoped all along it wasn't true. Now, was Palmer's work a hit piece? I haven't read the book, and perhaps it is, I do not know, however, it doesn't follow that it is a hit piece just because Midgley's article on Palmer was.

[_Philo Sofee]

I sincerely hope Pahoran sticks around for some table talk with Gadianton. This could be sincerely a worthy discussion of usefulness for all parties involved in both writing and reading and learning how to think through things. That was a very kind and good response Gad. I hope Pahoran responds in kind and explains his view of this.
Let Peterson and Midgley snark, here, we ought to take the higher ground between two actual intelligent posters as Pahoran and Gad.

[_Dr. Shades]

So Shades: nine hours after you claimed to have been banned, you posted a comment, then deleted it.

Got it.

Yes. I essentially admitted precisely that, prior to your announcement thereof. With emphasis added:

WAIT: I just experimented with it, and apparently the "Post as Dr. Shades" button still works. Perhaps any comment I make will be invisible to anyone else?

So, yes, I experimented with it, and in doing so found out that the "Post as Dr. Shades" button still works. This entailed me posting a comment, wouldn't you say? I deleted the comment because I had only typed in random characters to see if I could get it to work, which it did. No use cluttering up DCP's blog.

[_Shulem]

Enjoy the Liars' club. You'll fit right in.

Are you saying we're all liars? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, are you calling me a liar, Pahoran?



The only time I ever lied was when I was in the church.



You disgusting little man.

What's the king's name in Facsimile No. 3? You don't know? Well, I'll keep on asking and will ram the Facsimile down the Liars' club throat. Eat it, Pahoran.

[_Dr LOD]

I’m still banned, not sure exactly what set that off.

No. You are not.

It was a lie when you first told it. It is still a lie.

But don't let that slow you down. Liars are highly valued here.

Not only that, it's the kind of lie that might just become true if you keep up the spite.

I felt I had some good questions that they didn’t have answers for.

You were wrong.

Before I posted I rechecked on two different devices and two different browsers. It brought up the red flag at the bottom of the comment box. I checked sometime about 11AM todayand it had been removed.

So unless you are some other knowledge that you aren’t sharing then you are more the liar. IM calling BS on this one.

Why don’t you answer some of those questions if you are so brilliant.

[_Pahoran]

Three witnesses to the ban screen, all consistent in their story and timing. All saw it with their physical eyes.

I for one know what I saw, and I was banned. Whether Dr. Peterson changed his mind and took the ban off, I have not checked. But Mr Kiwi, the liars club is not here. Dan is lying to all of you about the ban. And you have three witnesses to one about that.

For one thing, I don't know how many the "three" of you really are.

For another, there is no such thing as an anonymous witness.

And if that isn't enough to disqualify you, there is the fact that you, by your own admission, have lied about yourself. Why should we believe that you are telling the truth now?

As Gadianton has pointed out, Patheos is very quirky. It does strange things at odd times. It is just conceivable that it might have told you you were banned when you were not. Are you willing to give Dan the benefit of the doubt on that point? Of course not. It's contrary to your hate-based ideology. But why should any of us trust your claims about anything?

Two points:

1. Dan is always reluctant to drop the ban hammer. He never does so without repeated warnings, and he always announces that he's doing so. Did he announce it in your case? (Answer: no.)
2. Patheos, despite its many quirks, always does the same thing when a commenter is banned: it removes the screen name from all the comments, and replaces it with "Guest." Well, not one of your comments is attributed to "Guest." Every single one of them is by "Dr Moore." https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... mon-2.html

And that has not been different any time in the last 36 hours.

You are not banned. You have not been banned.

That's just a fact.