Blixa wrote:That is not what I said. I plainly said you should do that because only you would come up with such a dicfacious analogy.
In other words, those with whom you agree are permitted to make up words and those words automatically carry meaning for you.
I am not permitted, because I don't share your viewpoints.
Simon, you seriously can not be this dense. Please review Schmo's post on why "dicfacious" carries meaning even if you've never seen the word before. My students grasped the idea immediately.
I promise you if I ask my students to explain why "mopologist" is to "Mormon apologist" in a way that "asgihioghaerol" is not to "critic" or "anti-mormon," they will do so quite easily and die laughing when I tell them of a person with a master's degree in philosophy who can't.
Either talk sense or stop trollling. Good night.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Is or is not "mopologist" or any of its variants a made up word?
Now, yes, the dictionary adds new words every year, but usually these words have found their way into common lexicon. Bit, Xerox, and Kleenex for example, are well known terms and have evolved to become official words.
Mopologist has not. Instead, it is used here as an epithet. Each time I see an otherwise intelligent and well-read individual use the word, a small part of me weeps for that person.
It is as if, right now, I decide that I am going to start calling all LDS critics and anti-Mormons asgihioghaerol. In your opinion, would I be justified in doing so? Would I be taken seriously in doing so? Would anyone?
Belmont,
I don't know why you take offense to the word "Mopologist" or why you seem stuck on this issue. It is simply a blend of two words, used as a type of shorthand on these boards.
I remember back on ZLMB, when Kerry Shirts (who has a marvelous sense of humor) used the word "Lobotomopologist" as a descriptor for himself on his board profile in much the same way as our "status" here is "godhood" or what have you.
I don't see why you think this is a nit worth picking.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I don't know why you take offense to the word "Mopologist" or why you seem stuck on this issue.
I don't think he does take offense. It's just the new word he wants to pretend to take offense in some weak attempt to attack others becuase he doesn't actually have any substance to defend the church's truth claims.
Simon's form of Mopologia is to infect threads with questions and criticisms about any irrelevance, in the hope That the main substance of the discussion will be lost in the static.
You could say he is a form of board bacteria, or mopologeria, to coin another word...
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Since Dan is apparently in "courage mode," by starting more and more threads at MAD about me based criticisms of him on this forum, maybe he'd like it if our MAD lurkers checked out some of the stronger examples of Dan's propensity for misrepresentation.
jon wrote:Simon's form of Mopologia is to infect threads with questions and criticisms about any irrelevance, in the hope That the main substance of the discussion will be lost in the static.
You could say he is a form of board bacteria, or mopologeria, to coin another word...
How strange that we have recently had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of another quite Belmontesque poster who actually chose the nickname 'static' ...
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Here are two more instances where Dan slandered Ritner in ignorance:
From ZLMB:
"It would be the same John Gee who, having suffered much at the hands of Robert Ritner (in ways that no doctoral candidate should have to), successfully petitioned his department to have Ritner replaced as his doctoral advisor, and who then, under the direction of the eminent Yale Egyptologist William Kelly Simpson, proceeded to earn a Ph.D. Yes, it would be that one." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "Logic Chopper" alias, 11/20/2002
"Did you know that Dr. Ritner was Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale -- until, after a lengthy period of immense and growing dissatisfaction, Gee successfully petitioned Yale to have Dr. Ritner removed and another person substituted? Such things are not common at Yale." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "FreeThinker" alias, 10/31/2003
Kevin Graham wrote:Here are two more instances where Dan slandered Ritner in ignorance:
From ZLMB:
"It would be the same John Gee who, having suffered much at the hands of Robert Ritner (in ways that no doctoral candidate should have to), successfully petitioned his department to have Ritner replaced as his doctoral advisor, and who then, under the direction of the eminent Yale Egyptologist William Kelly Simpson, proceeded to earn a Ph.D. Yes, it would be that one." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "Logic Chopper" alias, 11/20/2002
"Did you know that Dr. Ritner was Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale -- until, after a lengthy period of immense and growing dissatisfaction, Gee successfully petitioned Yale to have Dr. Ritner removed and another person substituted? Such things are not common at Yale." - Daniel C. Peterson posting under his "FreeThinker" alias, 10/31/2003
But ... where's the 'ignorance' here? DCP knew that Ritner was an anti-Mormon. Gee on the other hand is a Mormon. Knowing that, DCP knew all he needed to know before launching an attack on any aspect of Ritner's identity that might present a plausible target.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.