Congratulations DCP

[_The Nehor]

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it? Or are you advocating a "two wrongs make a right" sort of approach?

You have my permission to be condescending to me if I get permission to do the same to you.

Sorry about that Nehor---you know I love you. I was only trying to get a point across. I hope you can forgive me. :-(

You know me, I'm too lazy to hold a grudge ;)

[_moksha]

The idea that Bill Hamblin is an anti-Semite, and that he delivered an anti-Semitic rant, may well be the crowning achievement of Scratch's remarkable career in character assassination. It is simply so spectacularly wrong, so absurdly counterfactual, that I very much doubt that Scratch will ever be able to surpass it, however heroically he tries.

Shalom.

Yeah, what is that about? Didn't he attend Brandeis University? It is hard to imagine he is in any way anti-jewish. Oy!

[Guest]

Bill did his doctorate at the University of Michigan, but he's lived in both Egypt and Israel, for probably around three or four years altogether. Completely surrounded by Semites. He reads Hebrew, and he reads and speaks Arabic -- Semitic languages, both. His professional field of study is focused on Semitic history, ancient and medieval.

More importantly, I've known Bill Hamblin for roughly twenty-five years. He's no anti-Semite. The charge would be laughable if it weren't so patently evil and irresponsible. If, in other words, it weren't vintage Scratch. Hiding securely behind his cowardly pseudonym, Scratch spews slander the way Linda Blair spewed projectile vomit. What a repulsive piece of work.

[_asbestosman]

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it?

You have my permission to treat me as I treat you. I'm a total believer in receiving what I dish out.

for what it's worth, I know I'm juvenile at times, but I never intend to be malicious. I like stirring the pot from time to time, but I try avoiding condescension or an all out move to piss someone off (not that I feel I can avoid pissing everyone off, but rather it isn't goal in life to piss anyone off).

[_William Schryver]

Have you not read the silly and juvenile posts I have gotten from wenglund, Pahoran, smac, asbestosman, the Nehor, LifeOnaPlate, etc., etc., etc.? This doesn't mean that I somehow magically get justification to condescend to them (though I confess that I have done that), does it?

You have my permission to treat me as I treat you. I'm a total believer in receiving what I dish out.

for what it's worth, I know I'm juvenile at times, but I never intend to be malicious. I like stirring the pot from time to time, but I try avoiding condescension or an all out move to piss someone off (not that I feel I can avoid pissing everyone off, but rather it isn't goal in life to piss anyone off).

Unlike me. I revel in being simultaneously malicious and condescending. And if I can piss someone off in the process, all the better.

And if I ever meet Mr. Scratch on the street, I'll knock him on his ass, pin him to the ground, and stick blades of grass up his nose until he cries.

[_asbestosman]

And if I ever meet Mr. Scratch on the street, I'll knock him on his ass, pin him to the ground, and stick blades of grass up his nose until he cries.

What ever happened to making people push a penny across the street with their nose and giving 'em a swirly?

[_The Nehor]

Bill did his doctorate at the University of Michigan, but he's lived in both Egypt and Israel, for probably around three or four years altogether. Completely surrounded by Semites. He reads Hebrew, and he reads and speaks Arabic -- Semitic languages, both. His professional field of study is focused on Semitic history, ancient and medieval.

More importantly, I've known Bill Hamblin for roughly twenty-five years. He's no anti-Semite. The charge would be laughable if it weren't so patently evil and irresponsible. If, in other words, it weren't vintage Scratch. Hiding securely behind his cowardly pseudonym, Scratch spews slander the way Linda Blair spewed projectile vomit. What a repulsive piece of work.

I have to agree that using the text he did that I saw no evidence of anti-Semitism. It was very much an analogy and obviously not his personal feelings.

[_beastie]

Daniel,

No comment about Pahoran, Wade, and Ray, eh?

Here's the deal. All of us are human beings, and being human beings we experience tribal instincts. We all tend to notice the bad behavior of the "other" tribe more than we notice the bad behavior of our tribe. Yet all groups have members that engage in bad behavior. So when you use this as an excuse to not engage in real topics that arise, critics, skeptics, or even doubting believers notice that you're fixated on the bad behavior of the other tribe while seemingly oblivious to your own. And then make pronouncements about the other side's credibility.

Let me tell you - when I first arrived at Z, I made good effort not to offend believers. I wasn't going to soften the facts - such as Joseph Smith' polyandry, which was the first topic I discussed after having been invited to Z by Josh Skains so the Big Whigs could whup me on the topic (poor Josh didn't know, at that point, that the Big Whigs weren't going to be able to refute what I was telling him because it was true) - but I was trying hard not to offend. Even with that attitude, Juliann and Pahoran immediately started attacking me. I was shocked. And they never let up. If Z had been dominated by people with that attitude - shoot first and ask questions later - I would have left Z. But fortunately, Z wasn't organized that way. Later, FAIR/MAD was. This is part of the reason that exmormons, or doubters who became exmormons after confronting FAIR, are angry at internet apologists. I don't mean to say that all critics or skeptics do what I did initially - try hard not to offend. Obviously, some try to offend from the get-go, I'm not talking about those folks. I'm talking about the people who wanted NOT to offend, but still wanted to address difficult topics. There is a number of vocal FAIRites or MADdites who seem to believe that any poster who comes to the board and immediately brings up a very difficult topic is a troll, a nonbeliever just trying to humiliate Mormons. So they attack. I've seen it time after time. So have you. I just don't know if you've noticed. I kind of doubt it.

These people are angry about the way they were treated by the folks that are so vocal and seem to control FAIR/MAD. They were already going through a very difficult period due to doubting the belief system that fed their entire world view - that is never an easy experience - and they know that the issues they're struggling with are important. So being told, on top of that already existing internal struggle, that something is wrong with THEM, and being treated like a troll - is so hurtful that it creates an extremely jaundiced attitude towards internet apologists. This is part of the seed of their later behavior.

I remember being told years ago, privately, why Pahoran was the way he was. I was told that when he first participated on ARM, he was actually very nice and didn't attack people. In fact, Pahoran himself alluded to the "old Pahoran" at times. But then he was mistreated by some critics, and decided to start attacking instead. Did it ever occur to you that some of the exmormon "Pahorans" were created in the very same way?

If you really are simply interested in bad behavior over religious issues, and not just accumulating bad behavior on the "other" side in order to discredit them, then you would study the bad behavior of your own tribe, too. But I've never seen you do that.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You should have cited the back-up for the "consensus" statement in your 1988 Sunstone review.

What part of the concept of two-page book review on multiple topics in a popular magazine is it that so completely eludes your comprehension?

Such a sweeping statement as "consensus" merits a footnote regardless of the length of the article (plenty of very short Sunstone articles have just one or two footnotes). Moreover, the largest section in your review dealt with Quinn's use of the word "magic," to which your sweeping "consensus" statement applied. Face it, you blew it in 1988 on this issue, and you're blowing it today.

Now, 19 years later, you still refuse to cite the sources for your "consensus" statement. Ergo, you don't have squat, my dear bishop.

I've cited them.

No, you haven't.

You're welcome, if you can, to read what I and my Borg-like associates have written on the subject.

I just want the back-up for your sweeping "consensus" statement in the 1988 Sunstone review.

Or, as a labor-saving device, you're welcome to continue to recite your mantra over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

More time would be saved if you would either (i) provide the back-up for your "consensus" statement, or (ii) fess up that you have no such back-up.

In fact, why don't you give your refrain a number?

Here's a number for you: 1, as in give me just one citation that backs up your "consensus" statement. Since 1988 you've been at zero.

... those might be more directly relevant to your problem.

The only "problem" here is your refusal (apparently for the past 19 years) to give even one citation that backs up your "consensus" statement. Again, my dear man, the issue is your statement in your review.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So has Rollo now officially passed the baton to Scratch, with Some Schmo serving as waterboy?

Rollo, Scratch, and Schmo. They're the team.

Amazing. Bishop Dan is blaming everyone but himself for his inability to back up a sweeping statement he wrote in his article. How very 'Mormon' of him.