Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In another installment of the peckerhead vs. the peckerhead:

“... would you right now provide the demonstration, but without question begging, or merely a series of bald assertions? Please keep in mind that in 8005 comments you have yet to provide evidence to support any of your dogma.”

vs.

“ gemli: If you are mocking the Book of Mormon, then you should know that there evidence that it is an authentic history of real people.”

Slam. damned. Dunk.

BYU professor. Political ‘Scientism’ dogmatist. Peckerhead.

- Doc

[_Gadianton]

" So I am not the only one who thinks that political science is a science."

When he meets Bill Hamblin again in the next life, good luck trying to explain that to him.

And re: the comment about "having a good time making fun of the beliefs of certain people"

Yeah, we know about that, and we know that you're hypocrites on this whole "anti" thing.

[_moksha]

Much better to change the name to Political Studies. The Home Economics program at BYU was absorbed into the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences along with this so-called "Political Science", where they can both share classes on The Eternal Family and Textiles.

The BYU Political Studies department did gain notoriety back in 1972 when a Ph.D. candidate taped open the doors to the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. Do you suspect Louis Midgley was on his committee?

[_Physics Guy]

Hey, there’s also the sweet science of pugilism. And Christian Science is called that by non-members as well as by Christian Scientists themselves. A modern set of conventions for Contract Bridge is called “scientific bidding”. These all say “science” on the tin. I guess they must all be the same.

[_Lemmie]

Midgley continues to propogate a known lie:

Louis Midgley Glen Danielsen a day ago

... Professor Ritner has his own personal reasons for his hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ and also to Professor Gee, which got Ritner removed from Gee's dissertation committee at Yale.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 5056935313

[_Lemmie]

And Peterson, who knows it’s a lie, covers for the liar:

Mol Snod Louis Midgley • 4 hours ago • edited

Dr. Midgley, why do you assume that Dr. Ritner was removed from Dr. Gee’s dissertation because of an interpersonal conflict?


—-
DanielPeterson Mod Mol Snod • 3 hours ago

Professor Midgley, don't get into this. The newly arrived "Mol Snod" is hoping to stir something up and even, if possible, to provoke some litigation. Don't take the bait.

Mol Snod, drop the subject. If you bring it up again, that will be your last comment here -- and it will be deleted.

I know what happened. I heard about it as it was happening. Others know what happened, too.


—-
Mol Snod DanielPeterson • 3 hours ago

What could my question possibly do to cause litigation? You think way to highly of me.


−—
DanielPeterson Mod Mol Snod • 3 hours ago

There's history behind this, as, I'm confident, you know full well.

Don't raise the subject again.

http://disq.us/p/2bnq1rc

What litigation is Peterson worried about? Is he concerned that Midgley’s remarks —that he allows to stand on his blog, uncorrected—-can be considered libelous? One would think that Peterson would use his mod powers to delete libel. So far, he has let it stand.

[_Gadianton]

Letting it stand is a pretty good ploy for a tried-and-true strategy of maligning the enemy by insider knowledge that can't be revealed. The apologists always seem to have insider knowledge about people who own them, information that if people knew about it, would ruin the critic's credibility, but for whatever reasons, isn't going to be revealed. And so we can go ahead and update our analysis as if it were revealed.

"I know something about that guy over there who just raised a point that I don't have a good answer to. I'm not going to say what it is, but if you knew about it, you'd greatly consider taking his opinions with a grain of salt."

[_moksha]

What litigation is Peterson worried about? Is he concerned that Midgley’s remarks —that he allows to stand on his blog, uncorrected—-can be considered libelous? One would think that Peterson would use his mod powers to delete libel. So far, he has let it stand.

Or it could be different than Gadianton proposes: What if, being the loose cannon, Dr. Midgley were to blab a totally erroneous story that had been concocted by the apologists and which contained provable slander? Enough that BYU would regard the Interpreter crew as liabilities? If so, it is understandable why Dr. Peterson immediately cautioned Midgley not to answer.

[_Lemmie]

What litigation is Peterson worried about? Is he concerned that Midgley’s remarks —that he allows to stand on his blog, uncorrected—-can be considered libelous? One would think that Peterson would use his mod powers to delete libel. So far, he has let it stand.

Or it could be different than Gadianton proposes: What if, being the loose cannon, Dr. Midgley were to blab a totally erroneous story that had been concocted by the apologists and which contained provable slander? Enough that BYU would regard the Interpreter crew as liabilities? If so, it is understandable why Dr. Peterson immediately cautioned Midgley not to answer.

The problem is, Midgley already answered, and, as Gad pointed out, “letting it stand” actually does leave Midgley’s post in place that maligns and libels Ritner. Peterson’s only out at this point is to insist that Midgley is a senile fool who is not responsible for the libel he posts. Otherwise, Peterson is as guilty as Midgley of libeling Ritner.

[_Lemmie]

Louis Midgley Mol Snod • 30 minutes ago

Dan: I have no intention of saying more about this.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 5058704940

Midgley will say “no more.” But will Peterson remove Midgley’s libel of Ritner that triggered his warning?