DiscussMormonism.com

thews wrote:Do they care what you think Wade?

No--which is why I didn't presume to stick my nose in their business.

Have you got Will's cryptic hogwash "figured out" to a point you can make a discernible argument out of it?

Since I have yet to see any "cryptic hogwash" from Will, I have yet to "figure out" what you are talking about.

Are you a "big-name" Wade?

No.

Does your opinion matter more than other opinions because you are a self-professed big-name?

My opinion doesn't matter more than other opinions here even though I have yet to profess that I am a big-name. It is just that I, unlike some here, am disinclined to express my opinion on matters that aren't my business, nor do so in a venue where the expressed opinions are of little or no affect.

If you have the answers to Will's cryptic theories, because it's so simple and makes so much sense, please explain it with data to back up your big-name opinion.

See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

beastie wrote:Thanks for clearing that up, Wade. You're always so helpful.

I think now is the time for Simon Belmont to chime in with that phrase about leaving apologetics to the professionals.

I've got it. We can discuss Will's publications on the other board if we encrypt our communications in some sort of cypher. Wade, since you're the expert in this area, could you get it started and provide the key over here? Maybe we could have a system of degrees for different levels of encryption.

Mortal Man wrote:I've got it. We can discuss Will's publications on the other board if we encrypt our communications in some sort of cypher. Wade, since you're the expert in this area, could you get it started and provide the key over here? Maybe we could have a system of degrees for different levels of encryption.

Here is my encryption key (all five degrees) for discussing things that haven't been published:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

And, here is my encryption key (all five degrees) for discussing things that aren't my business (like the topic of this thread), with people who aren't really in position to say, and on a discussion board that is devoid of standing and credibility:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Take as much time as you need to decipher it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes. Let it stand or fall on its merit.

Interesting. So only 1 out of 20 respondents believes Will should not be published.

At the very least, this should end the delusion that this was some apostate conspiracy to knock Wilbur off his publication path, or that we're here "celebrating" the fact.

Hello,

Who was the Mo-ron that suggested it was a hit piece designed to prevent Mr. Schyver from being published?

V/R
Dr. Cam

Kevin Graham wrote:Interesting. So only 1 out of 20 respondents believes Will should not be published.

At the very least, this should end the delusion that this was some apostate conspiracy to knock Wilbur off his publication path, or that we're here "celebrating" the fact.

Well, Pahoran and Will will probably take this as evidence that there is some conspiracy.

Is there any proof that there is anything to publish?

Will is such a bloviator he is probably only matched by Gov. Blagojevich.

I voted yes. Then let the chips fall as they will.

Will who?