DiscussMormonism.com

While that post did sound like William, I can't help but wonder if it was a little too accurate a representation of his posting style. Doesn't he already have an account on this board? Why create a new one to post on this thread? I'm not saying it can't be him, but I can't help but suspect possible sockpuppetry.

Ray A wrote:Most intelligent apologist: David Bokovoy.

A mutual admiration society!

liz3564 wrote:Least substantive apologist - Nehor (I'm actually voting Nehor in this category as a kick in the butt. He actually has a very solid gospel understanding, but instead, is content to drop one-liners. I think that Nehor has more to offer than he is showing.)

Of course I do, I used to try to offer it. Gave up based on the reactions.

The Nehor wrote:

liz3564 wrote:Least substantive apologist - Nehor (I'm actually voting Nehor in this category as a kick in the butt. He actually has a very solid gospel understanding, but instead, is content to drop one-liners. I think that Nehor has more to offer than he is showing.)

Of course I do, I used to try to offer it. Gave up based on the reactions.

I'm going to have to call "BS" on this. Post a link proving that you took a stab at "offering more." I don't think you ever did. Further, what a cry-baby excuse this is. "Boo hoo! People didn't react how I wanted them to, so I'm just going to act like a clown!" Give me a break.

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm going to have to call "BS" on this. Post a link proving that you took a stab at "offering more." I don't think you ever did. Further, what a cry-baby excuse this is. "Boo hoo! People didn't react how I wanted them to, so I'm just going to act like a clown!" Give me a break.

I don't index my previous threads. I don't have time of you and your informants to create a vast quote bank. Those who have been around for a while and are not insane (you fail on the second) will remember when I used to talk about spiritual experience and serious responses to critics. I gave up. It wasn't a crybaby excuse. It was an, "I can't be bothered anymore." excuse. You don't recognize this excuse. This is why you still accuse DCP of 'losing' when he left instead of 'fleeing the looney bin'.

The Nehor wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm going to have to call "BS" on this. Post a link proving that you took a stab at "offering more." I don't think you ever did. Further, what a cry-baby excuse this is. "Boo hoo! People didn't react how I wanted them to, so I'm just going to act like a clown!" Give me a break.

I don't index my previous threads. I don't have time of you and your informants to create a vast quote bank.

Oh, okay. Great explanation, Nehor, since it takes so long to use the Search function. Really, I'm blown away by your persuasiveness here.

Those who have been around for a while and are not insane (you fail on the second) will remember when I used to talk about spiritual experience and serious responses to critics.

You mentioned that you had seen/talked to God(s). Is that what you're referring to? People found that rather wacky, and pointed out that it didn't exactly square with Church doctrine. And so this "reaction" wasn't what you wanted, and so you devolved to your stupid and useless posts?

I gave up. It wasn't a crybaby excuse. It was an, "I can't be bothered anymore." excuse.

A distinction without a difference.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to provide proof---just one little quote! just one little link!---that you ever posted anything of substance and/or seriousness. At this point, it is not even an issue of the definition of "substantive" or "serious." You won't post at all! Come on, man---stand up for yourself. !

Angriest apologist: Lou Midgley, Juliann or Pahoran

Least substantive apologist: The Nehor (said with no ill will), although I have often given him a run for his money (while not being an apologist)

Rube Goldberg award for most convoluted attempt at apologia: Brant Gardner

Lifetime achievement in hubris: Pahoran

Most predictable apologist: Wade England

Most vulgar apologist: Will Schryver

Most embarrassing apologist: JSkains

Most intelligent apologist: Hard to choose.

Apologist whose *writings* you enjoy reading: Hugh Nibley, Daniel Peterson, Kevin Barney

Most honest apologist: Kevin Barney

Mister Scratch wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I don't index my previous threads. I don't have time of you and your informants to create a vast quote bank.

Oh, okay. Great explanation, Nehor, since it takes so long to use the Search function. Really, I'm blown away by your persuasiveness here.

Those who have been around for a while and are not insane (you fail on the second) will remember when I used to talk about spiritual experience and serious responses to critics.

You mentioned that you had seen/talked to God(s). Is that what you're referring to? People found that rather wacky, and pointed out that it didn't exactly square with Church doctrine. And so this "reaction" wasn't what you wanted, and so you devolved to your stupid and useless posts?

I gave up. It wasn't a crybaby excuse. It was an, "I can't be bothered anymore." excuse.

A distinction without a difference.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to provide proof---just one little quote! just one little link!---that you ever posted anything of substance and/or seriousness. At this point, it is not even an issue of the definition of "substantive" or "serious." You won't post at all! Come on, man---stand up for yourself. !

Using the Search Function takes time and is boring. I'm lazy when it comes to defending myself from your inane accusations. Okay, one quote, fair enough. I'll use one we discussed that YOU made. I assume you believed I had substance and/or was substantive when you referred to me as "one of the good ones" when you were saying many apologists were bad. Are you retracting that statement Scratch?

I would find that deeply disturbing. I might even shift the monocle on my nose, sigh deeply, and ponder whether your memory is defective.

The Nehor wrote:Using the Search Function takes time and is boring. I'm lazy when it comes to defending myself from your inane accusations. Okay, one quote, fair enough. I'll use one we discussed that YOU made. I assume you believed I had substance and/or was substantive when you referred to me as "one of the good ones" when you were saying many apologists were bad. Are you retracting that statement Scratch?

No, The Nehor. Sadly, you misread it back then, and you are misreading it now. I said that to you either in jest, or to manipulate you (or even more likely: both). I have never thought you were "one of the good ones." I have always thought that you were a substance-free dweeb. Sorry, but that's just my honest .02. Please don't let that stop you from (finally!) attempting to contribute something of sincerity, intelligence, and substance.

"The Nehor" has NEVER attempted serious apologia. He is lying. His response to this post will be more of the same.

I challenge "The Nehor" to a substantive debate on any topic in the Celestial forum in order for him to back up his claims of being a serious apologist at one time or another. He can pick the topic.