Page 1 of 2
Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:38 pm
by _Everybody Wang Chung
Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.
DCP lectures a poster named Chris about the importance of deferring to scientific consensus:
DanielPeterson Mod Chris365 • 13 hours ago
I'll defer to the overwhelming consensus of epidemiologist on the matter.
I have no political stake to defend. But I do have some very elderly and/or ill friends and relatives to defend.
I also believe in vaccination. Call me a conformist, call me weird, but I do.
http://disq.us/p/2b0mrxj
While I applaud Dan for following the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, why won't DCP follow the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the Book of Mormon?
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:51 pm
by _Philo Sofee
And the Book of Abraham......... GOOD find Wang Chung!!!
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:57 pm
by _Shulem
Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:51 pm
And the Book of Abraham......... GOOD find Wang Chung!!!
I was just about to say that. You stole the words right out of my mouth!
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:29 pm
by _Philo Sofee
Shulem wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:57 pm
Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:51 pm
And the Book of Abraham......... GOOD find Wang Chung!!!
I was just about to say that. You stole the words right out of my mouth!
Great minds think alike.......
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:57 pm
by _Tator
Dupe Copy Pasterson has an "ID-10-T" problem.
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:43 pm
by _Lemmie
Speaking of, a paraphrastic note from the ongoing files:
It’s always weirdly fascinating to see how how [gemli is] currently being attacked on [my blog that doesn’t like to be called a] message board that has been significantly devoted to attacking [gemli] for [Midgley’s] roughly entire [posting] history.
(To an astonishing degree, [gemli is our] raison d’être. If [gemli] didn’t exist, [we] would have been obliged to invent [him]. Which, in a very real sense, [we] actually have [based on Midgley’s stick-figure imaginations of his entire life history, all the way back to grammar school].).
The question each morning isn’t whether [gemli will] be attacked as both a ludicrous [atheist, dogmatic meat-wad (my creation-you’re welcome] and a vicious, angry, unprincipled, and hateful [cockroach and scientism follower (Midgley’s inventions], but, rather, what purported justifications will be chosen (or invented [almost always by Midgley but I happily take my turn when he doesn’t beat me to it]) for the new day’s attacks and exactly what form those attacks will take.
Well what do you know, my files contain sources! How odd for paraphrasisms. At least, according to some blog owners.
Here is the one for the above:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ities.html
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:01 pm
by _Doctor CamNC4Me
I thought he said he was going to ignore the board? Hasn’t he encouraged others like his lap dog Lyin’ Lounatic Midgley to ignore the board? Yet he obsessively follows every jot and tittle that’s posted here, even after the disastrous mismanagement of the board’s continuing technical issues which has resulted in a decline of user participation, he still gobbles up content as if he were noshing at Sizzler.
- Doc
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:38 pm
by _Shulem
Leave us alone Peterson.
We're having a discussion here on our board and we don't need your snide or snappy remarks on your stupid blog!
Pour me another drink . . . .
Have a blow for ur nose.
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 7:12 pm
by _consiglieri
I think the answer to the OP's original question is contained in Professor Peterson's response… He has no stake in the matter.
Re: Another Blatant Example of DCP's Hypocrisy.
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:04 am
by _Themis
consiglieri wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 7:12 pm
I think the answer to the OP's original question is contained in Professor Peterson's response… He has no stake in the matter.
It's interesting he said he had no political stake in the matter. He ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus where he has a lot of religious stake in the matter. I suppose it is good that he doesn't have as much political stakes in idiotic areas as so many on the extremes do.