DCP Publishes Material from this Board---Sans Attribution!

[_Mercury]

And then there are vulgar anonymous dorks.

P

Tell me then, why do you even participate in this cesspool of antimormon lies?

He believes that somehow his participation as an anonymous person is justified because he is "fighting for god".

Silly Mormon, Logic is for adults.

[_Mercury]

PP, did they finially let you out for good behavior, or did the electroshock treatments not go as expected?

Stop stealing my lines. I started teh mental patient shtick and any attempt on your part to use it cheapens it.

[_Mercury]

Oh no! Yet another demand for an apology from our friend Mr. Scratch.

P[/b]

Well, maybe you should take heed.

[_Mister Scratch]

The lesson that I take away from this for myself, is the importance of picking my battles. A lot of time and energy can be wasted sweating the small stuff. And, one's credibility doesn't fare too well when one elevates insignificant and petty things to the level of profound importance. So, I regret having pressed this non-issue even as little as I have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Spoken like a person with no dog in the fight. In your case, taking a powder is the appropriate action, Wade. Scratch, on the other hand, does have a dog in the fight, so he's not likely to let it go as easily.

The lesson to me is the same, regardless whether or not I had a supposed "dog in the fight." If the dog is microscopic, and the fight meaningless and counterproductive, as appears to me to be the case here with Scratch and the quote, then I don't see it as in anyone's interest to put that dog in that fight. It, then, is not a matter of "taking a powder", but rather devoting one's time, energy, and talents to what really matters.

But, I suppose if someone is intent on meaningless and counterproductive fighting, and the best they have to offer is a microscopic dog, then that is their choice and that is what they will do. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All this demonstrates is your inability to understand the terms---or the stakes---of the debate. And besides, no matter how badly your beloved Prof. Peterson (whom you have elsewhere referred to as "an intellectual Howitzer) gets whooped or embarrassed, you will never admit it, because you are intellectually dishonest.

[_wenglund]

All this demonstrates is your inability to understand the terms---or the stakes---of the debate.

I suppose Einstien was right when he intimated that it is all relative. If I strain my ear hard enough I just may, like Horton, be able to hear the dog of Scratch's argument barking in the Whoville of importance. Whereas, to those residing in Whoville, where even the tinniest things (in relation to the outside world) may appear monumental, the bark of Scratch's dog may be ear-shattering.

Again, to each their own. I will leave those of you in Whoville to your relatively Whoville-size problems.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

All this demonstrates is your inability to understand the terms---or the stakes---of the debate.

I suppose Einstien was right when he intimated that it is all relative. If I strain my ear hard enough I just may, like Horton, be able to hear the dog of Scratch's argument barking in the Whoville of importance. Whereas, to those residing in Whoville, where even the tinniest things (in relation to the outside world) may appear monumental, the bark of Scratch's dog may be ear-shattering.

Again, to each their own. I will leave those of you in Whoville to your relatively Whoville-size problems.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Throwing in the towel yet again. Wade: why do you even bother posting on threads like this is you're just going to be a quitter? Do you actually want to discuss the issues, or do you just want to whine?

[_Coggins7]

Scratch has already wiped the floor with Daniel, using Daniel's own style manual. Are you sure you want to get in the ring with him?

You've GOT to be kidding? This individual known as Mr. Scratch has as little actual education on and knowldedge of the issues regarding the church to whcih he takes exception and as little serious intellectual ability as I have ever encountered. I have flummoxed this intellectual poser and demagogee again and again in this forum while he flounders in the water splitting hairs (as he's done with both Wade and me over and over again) over sematic qubbles which he has mastered as a stalling tactic when he has no intellectually substantive arguments with which to support his usually silly and sometimes bizzare claims about the church.

Pleas spare me the pain...

[_Coggins7]

Throwing in the towel yet again. Wade: why do you even bother posting on threads like this is you're just going to be a quitter? Do you actually want to discuss the issues, or do you just want to whine?

You just don't get it do you Scratch? You're an irrelevancey. You have not the slightest idea, clearly, of just how, from a philosophica perspective, small and inconsequential you are. The best critics of the church there are can at least challenge Mormons to rethink their arguments and refine them as they engage and dialog with people who have sincere dissagreements, theological or otherwise. All you and people like Harmony really do is create an overwhelming sense of intellectual malaise.

Ninty percent of your arguments are either purely manufactured or demagogical, and imply a deep animus against the church that isn't rational at all. The other ten percent might be able to stimulate actual critical thought among your opponents on the Mormon side if you had ever developed the intellectual discipline and habits of mind that allowed you to make your case with any degree of philosophical rigor. But you have a problem with intellectual integrity Scratch; you excel at derailing more of the debates you start then seeing them through intellectually. You're obsessed with the MAD board and its protocols, certain people there whome you can't seem to get out of your mind, and you purvey myths and urban legends about the church that have been dead and buried for any clear minded, unbiased critic for long periods of time.

Wade gives up on occasion, just as I do, for one simple reason, and that is people like you cannot, at the end of the day, be reasoned with. This is not stupidity or lack of intelligence on your part, but simply that you do not want to be reasoned with. That is not why you and people like Harmony, Vegas, PP, GIMR, Runtu, and others are here. You are here to vent and recieve support from other venters, not really to debate in a substantive sense.

That's probably why I devolve in my own right into polemics so easily (and am then raked over the coals for it by others here who wrote the book); real, serious, productive discourse with those with dissenting views is well nigh impossible. I've found it to be the same, with some notable exceptions, on every message board or emal list I've ever been on that featured exmo or anti-Mormon critics, whether from the Left or the Right. Answering Mormonism, the Walter Martin emal list, Mormon-L, Mormon Thinker, Recovery From Mormonism, Mormons in Transition, you name it.

And I'm sure you can.

[_Gazelam]

How do Gimr and Runtu get lumped in the same pot as Vegas and Porter?

Also watch your spelling when dealing with Scratch, he likes to go through and proofread and make corrections, it makes him appear intelligent when he replies to you, a subtle tactic, and a funny one.

[_Mister Scratch]

Throwing in the towel yet again. Wade: why do you even bother posting on threads like this is you're just going to be a quitter? Do you actually want to discuss the issues, or do you just want to whine?

You just don't get it do you Scratch? You're an irrelevancey. You have not the slightest idea, clearly, of just how, from a philosophica perspective, small and inconsequential you are. The best critics of the church there are can at least challenge Mormons to rethink their arguments and refine them as they engage and dialog with people who have sincere dissagreements, theological or otherwise. All you and people like Harmony really do is create an overwhelming sense of intellectual malaise.

Ninty percent of your arguments are either purely manufactured or demagogical, and imply a deep animus against the church that isn't rational at all. The other ten percent might be able to stimulate actual critical thought among your opponents on the Mormon side if you had ever developed the intellectual discipline and habits of mind that allowed you to make your case with any degree of philosophical rigor. But you have a problem with intellectual integrity Scratch; you excel at derailing more of the debates you start then seeing them through intellectually. You're obsessed with the MAD board and its protocols, certain people there whome you can't seem to get out of your mind, and you purvey myths and urban legends about the church that have been dead and buried for any clear minded, unbiased critic for long periods of time.

Wade gives up on occasion, just as I do, for one simple reason, and that is people like you cannot, at the end of the day, be reasoned with. This is not stupidity or lack of intelligence on your part, but simply that you do not want to be reasoned with. That is not why you and people like Harmony, Vegas, PP, GIMR, Runtu, and others are here. You are here to vent and recieve support from other venters, not really to debate in a substantive sense.

That's probably why I devolve in my own right into polemics so easily (and am then raked over the coals for it by others here who wrote the book); real, serious, productive discourse with those with dissenting views is well nigh impossible. I've found it to be the same, with some notable exceptions, on every message board or emal list I've ever been on that featured exmo or anti-Mormon critics, whether from the Left or the Right. Answering Mormonism, the Walter Martin emal list, Mormon-L, Mormon Thinker, Recovery From Mormonism, Mormons in Transition, you name it.

And I'm sure you can.

It's not that debate is impossible, Loran, it's that you, just like Wade, turn apoplectic or else throw in the towel whenever you are being beaten. Two prime examples: our discussion on women and the priesthood, and our discussion on whether the Church has ever been dishonest. I whipped you on both occasions, and you went scurrying off to lick your wounds, only to return more P.O'ed than ever. If you were able to stay calm, and avoid de-evolving into a rabid, fist-pounding Pahoran-wannabe, I'm sure you'd be right: debate would proceed.

by the way: I agree with Gaz---your spelling is a wreck.