Apologetic Opportunity for Pahoran
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:56 pm
FROM THE MAD BOARD
I really hate to do this, but Pahoran posted some nonsense on a thread and I cannot respond there because I was blocked after Selek became unhinged and prompted the mods to ban everyone involved in the exchange.
Pahoran,
This is the second or third time that you've thrown in pot shots against me on a thread which you know I cannot respond to.
On the contrary, I've had heated debate with all the three of them. Just ask them. And yet we remain friends. Funny how that works. Common sense tells me that the problem here is with the minority extremists like you, Selek, Loran, DCP and Hamblin who all hate my guts for reasons that can only be explained as your inability to accept being wrong. After all, the consensus among critics is pretty much the same when it comes to this little club of haters on the LDS side. That thread was a perfect example. I kept my composure the whole time, insulted no one, but Selek became unhinged early on and finished by calling me a dirty little pig. It is interesting the way refutation brings out the worst in some people. But not everyone on the LDS side. I suspect it has something to do with large egos.
David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid are very reasonable guys. We've had our disagreements, but these guys are willing to consider the possibility that they've gotten things wrong.
This is not true. If I'm not mistaken, that comment was made shortly after he and I had a spat on this forum when he kept telling people that I call everyone I disagree with a liar. He kept repeating that claim in threads that had nothing to do with me and he did so despite my refutation to the contrary - once again demonstrating his contempt for truth. He was only interested in scoring rhetorical points because he knew he could get away with it, which is probably why you love him so much.
Nonsense. I was more than happy to discuss the matter with you but the mods wouldn't allow it, which was good news for you. And so your sig was removed because the rules state that you cannot use citations from other forum members without their permission. You knew you were breaking the rules, so stop whining about the fact that the mods enforced them. Did you really think you were so special that you'd get away with it?
I've made no false accusations against anyone and if you proved that I had, I would apologize. Again, I'm willing to debate that. But as you know, the mods won't allow that debate to take place on this forum because it would mean putting a spotlight on a number of embarrassing statements and claims made by their favorite scholars.
Do you have the context of that citation? No, of course not. I'm pretty sure it was in response to his comments in the Time blog, but that conversation has been erased apparently. In any event, Dan Peterson has lied about me on a number of occasions, as have you. Dan Peterson, in my opinion, is not interested in what's true. I can make an argument for that. Since this is probably impossible to do on a DCP friendly forum, let's see if you have the courage to take up the challenge on the other forum. Are you game?
A problem for a tiny group of people I can count on one hand? To me, that's no "problem" at all. That's just side-show entertainment. The same problem I have with you folks are the same problems most critics have. But for your information the friction between Dan and I began around 2003 when he went after me on an issue and asked me to produce a reference to support my claim. Once I did, using the most reputable sources available, he said he wouldn't respond to his refutation because he felt I was too spiritually deficient at the time. Yes, Dan Peterson actually said that. So he fled the scene and then came over to the FAIR boards to tell everyone how much of a bigot I was. The fact that what I initial said was true didn't matter to Dan. I told him a number of things that were disturbing and true via email, but because they involved his friends at BYU, he decided he wanted to further contact with me. But then he would email me out of the blue over the next three years to remind me that he wants no more contact with me. Yes, I have the emails. So stop pretending that you have the faintest clue about the feud he and I once had.
The fact is I had good reason to say he only pretends to care about truth. If he had done this and was a critic, you and your ilk would gladly support that criticism. And yes, he is a full time propagandist. He debates nothing. He has no courage to stand up and face his critics. He'll dodge and weave for months (even when approached by mild mannered academians who happen to be former LDS) make excuses about how he has no time for specific questions (though he has time to post thousands upon thousands of mean-spirited attacks and spread libelous falsehoods about other scholars like Ritner) and then we find out he publishes yet another long-winded lecture about those evil anti-Mormons, and he does so using the Church funded publication as a pulpit. He is misleading and/or factually inaccurate in a number of talks and interviews, and though he is supposed to be an Islamist, virtually everything he has published as a scholar has been about anti-Mormonism. A leading Islamist at his own Alma Mater had never even heard of him, probably because he spends all his time attacking anti-Mormons.
I really hate to do this, but Pahoran posted some nonsense on a thread and I cannot respond there because I was blocked after Selek became unhinged and prompted the mods to ban everyone involved in the exchange.
Pahoran,
This is the second or third time that you've thrown in pot shots against me on a thread which you know I cannot respond to.
Alternatively, maybe it just means you haven't turned on them yet. They can be nice to you because they haven't become targets of your rage and hatred.
On the contrary, I've had heated debate with all the three of them. Just ask them. And yet we remain friends. Funny how that works. Common sense tells me that the problem here is with the minority extremists like you, Selek, Loran, DCP and Hamblin who all hate my guts for reasons that can only be explained as your inability to accept being wrong. After all, the consensus among critics is pretty much the same when it comes to this little club of haters on the LDS side. That thread was a perfect example. I kept my composure the whole time, insulted no one, but Selek became unhinged early on and finished by calling me a dirty little pig. It is interesting the way refutation brings out the worst in some people. But not everyone on the LDS side. I suspect it has something to do with large egos.
David Bokovoy and Brian Hauglid are very reasonable guys. We've had our disagreements, but these guys are willing to consider the possibility that they've gotten things wrong.
Not so long ago, you made an absoIutely gratuitous personal attack on Dan Peterson in another forum. He had not said anything to or about you in that forum, and your attack was utterly unprovoked
This is not true. If I'm not mistaken, that comment was made shortly after he and I had a spat on this forum when he kept telling people that I call everyone I disagree with a liar. He kept repeating that claim in threads that had nothing to do with me and he did so despite my refutation to the contrary - once again demonstrating his contempt for truth. He was only interested in scoring rhetorical points because he knew he could get away with it, which is probably why you love him so much.
I quoted it in my sig to show that what some tried to explain away as your "history" with LDS defenders was very much history "in the making." You couldn't deal with that, so you ran whining to the mods to get it removed.
Nonsense. I was more than happy to discuss the matter with you but the mods wouldn't allow it, which was good news for you. And so your sig was removed because the rules state that you cannot use citations from other forum members without their permission. You knew you were breaking the rules, so stop whining about the fact that the mods enforced them. Did you really think you were so special that you'd get away with it?
So next time you want to bleat about how unkind people are to you, I suggest that you leave out of the list those people you have accused of being "proven liars." Or those against whom you have made proven false accusations.
I've made no false accusations against anyone and if you proved that I had, I would apologize. Again, I'm willing to debate that. But as you know, the mods won't allow that debate to take place on this forum because it would mean putting a spotlight on a number of embarrassing statements and claims made by their favorite scholars.
Because, as you perfectly well know and have always known, Dan Peterson is not now and never has been, a "full-time professional anti-truth propagandist."
Do you have the context of that citation? No, of course not. I'm pretty sure it was in response to his comments in the Time blog, but that conversation has been erased apparently. In any event, Dan Peterson has lied about me on a number of occasions, as have you. Dan Peterson, in my opinion, is not interested in what's true. I can make an argument for that. Since this is probably impossible to do on a DCP friendly forum, let's see if you have the courage to take up the challenge on the other forum. Are you game?
Since Dan has never said anything remotely as bad as that about you, the fact is that you are the problem.
A problem for a tiny group of people I can count on one hand? To me, that's no "problem" at all. That's just side-show entertainment. The same problem I have with you folks are the same problems most critics have. But for your information the friction between Dan and I began around 2003 when he went after me on an issue and asked me to produce a reference to support my claim. Once I did, using the most reputable sources available, he said he wouldn't respond to his refutation because he felt I was too spiritually deficient at the time. Yes, Dan Peterson actually said that. So he fled the scene and then came over to the FAIR boards to tell everyone how much of a bigot I was. The fact that what I initial said was true didn't matter to Dan. I told him a number of things that were disturbing and true via email, but because they involved his friends at BYU, he decided he wanted to further contact with me. But then he would email me out of the blue over the next three years to remind me that he wants no more contact with me. Yes, I have the emails. So stop pretending that you have the faintest clue about the feud he and I once had.
The fact is I had good reason to say he only pretends to care about truth. If he had done this and was a critic, you and your ilk would gladly support that criticism. And yes, he is a full time propagandist. He debates nothing. He has no courage to stand up and face his critics. He'll dodge and weave for months (even when approached by mild mannered academians who happen to be former LDS) make excuses about how he has no time for specific questions (though he has time to post thousands upon thousands of mean-spirited attacks and spread libelous falsehoods about other scholars like Ritner) and then we find out he publishes yet another long-winded lecture about those evil anti-Mormons, and he does so using the Church funded publication as a pulpit. He is misleading and/or factually inaccurate in a number of talks and interviews, and though he is supposed to be an Islamist, virtually everything he has published as a scholar has been about anti-Mormonism. A leading Islamist at his own Alma Mater had never even heard of him, probably because he spends all his time attacking anti-Mormons.