A 'Historic' General Conference?

[_Mister Scratch]

They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.

So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?

Was my post inaccurate in any respect?

I'm just wondering which part applied to Pres Benson.

You've got me. But neither you, nor Scratch, nor Sajer obviously have read much; otherwise you would have seen the point Coggins was raising about classic liberalism. Go back to your Harry Potter books.

You obviously haven't read much yourself, Bob. Also, you appear to be a moron. Otherwise, why would you even remotely view Coggins as a legit source? Have you not been reading this guy's posts, or what? Go back to your manipulation of MMM documents.

[_rcrocket]

You obviously haven't read much yourself, Bob. Also, you appear to be a moron. Otherwise, why would you even remotely view Coggins as a legit source? Have you not been reading this guy's posts, or what? Go back to your manipulation of MMM documents.

Well, I may be a moron, but I don't have to be Tom Brady to be a football critique. But, your intellectual failings were pretty apparent with your guffaws about classic liberalism. I take it you never studied the French revolution or Thomas Jefferson.

As far as "manipulation of MMM documents," I will remark that the one document I have shared on this board to which you reference, Will Bagley agreed with me that he should have discussed it in his book when I pointed out to him it was problematic to his theories.

But, you refer to documents. What other documents?

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

You obviously haven't read much yourself, Bob. Also, you appear to be a moron. Otherwise, why would you even remotely view Coggins as a legit source? Have you not been reading this guy's posts, or what? Go back to your manipulation of MMM documents.

Well, I may be a moron, but I don't have to be Tom Brady to be a football critique. But, your intellectual failings were pretty apparent with your guffaws about classic liberalism. I take it you never studied the French revolution or Thomas Jefferson.

No "guffaws about classic liberalism" here. Rather, the "guffaws" were directed towards the completely idiotic labelling of ETB---perhaps the most paranoid, rightwing nutjob GA there ever was---as a "classic liberal." If you'd care to explain how ETB is a shining example of classical liberalism on a par with Jefferson, then I'm all ears.

As far as "manipulation of MMM documents," I will remark that the one document I have shared on this board to which you reference, Will Bagley agreed with me that he should have discussed it in his book when I pointed out to him it was problematic to his theories.

So what? This does not change the fact that you omitted stuff in your FROB article. Did Bagley "agree" that the omission was totally kosher, too?

But, you refer to documents. What other documents?

rcrocket

You tell me, Bob!

[_rcrocket]

But, you refer to documents. What other documents?

rcrocket

You tell me, Bob!

The "documents" to which you refer in your email. It was your post, not mine.

As far as my FROB review is concerned, it was only a review. I did not attempt to cover the waterfront.

But, I did discuss things Bagley totally omitted:

1. Lee's lawyer's letter suggesting that he was going to add things to Bagley's confessions.

2. The Presidential amnesty.

3. Justice Department correspondence which completely shot down the theory that the Church struck a deal with the Justice Department to obstruct justice.

And, I did point out that Bagley cited primary sources through secondary sources without attribution. And it goes on.

So, I'm awaiting your identification of "documents" so I can address your point.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

But, you refer to documents. What other documents?

rcrocket

You tell me, Bob!

The "documents" to which you refer in your email. It was your post, not mine.

As far as my FROB review is concerned, it was only a review. I did not attempt to cover the waterfront.

But, I did discuss things Bagley totally omitted:

1. Lee's lawyer's letter suggesting that he was going to add things to Bagley's confessions.

2. The Presidential amnesty.

3. Justice Department correspondence which completely shot down the theory that the Church struck a deal with the Justice Department to obstruct justice.

And, I did point out that Bagley cited primary sources through secondary sources without attribution. And it goes on.

So, I'm awaiting your identification of "documents" so I can address your point.

rcrocket

Hmmm. Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I made a mistake in putting an "s" on the end of the word? Gee, do you think that's what happened, Brother Crocket?

[_rcrocket]

Hmmm. Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I made a mistake in putting an "s" on the end of the word? Gee, do you think that's what happened, Brother Crocket?

And, as to that "document," you have no clue as to its historic signficance. It is a bombshell.

rcrocket

[_harmony]

---perhaps the most paranoid, rightwing nutjob GA there ever was---

Ah, now there's the ETB I've known for years.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmmm. Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I made a mistake in putting an "s" on the end of the word? Gee, do you think that's what happened, Brother Crocket?

And, as to that "document," you have no clue as to its historic signficance. It is a bombshell.

rcrocket

If that MMM letter was such a historical "bombshell," why did you feel the need to edit out portions of it?

[_rcrocket]

Hmmm. Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I made a mistake in putting an "s" on the end of the word? Gee, do you think that's what happened, Brother Crocket?

And, as to that "document," you have no clue as to its historic signficance. It is a bombshell.

rcrocket

If that MMM letter was such a historical "bombshell," why did you feel the need to edit out portions of it?

The letter was long. I didn't include the entire contents of any other of the original letters I cited. Nor have I ever in any piece I've published.

Have you ever published? Your ignorance of the peer review process suggests that you haven't.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmmm. Don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps I made a mistake in putting an "s" on the end of the word? Gee, do you think that's what happened, Brother Crocket?

And, as to that "document," you have no clue as to its historic signficance. It is a bombshell.

rcrocket

If that MMM letter was such a historical "bombshell," why did you feel the need to edit out portions of it?

The letter was long.

Okay. Fair enough.

I didn't include the entire contents of any other of the original letters I cited.

Did you edit out key portions of them, to support your biased views?

Nor have I ever in any piece I've published.

Okay. Are you going to tell us why it is a "bombshell"?

Have you ever published?

Yup.

Your ignorance of the peer review process suggests that you haven't.

rcrocket

Your support of the jerry-rigged peer review process at FROB suggests that you are intellectually dishonest.