Jersey Girl wrote:Hmmm...I have to disagree with a couple of things here. I was banned from MAD and then unbanned my own self. I do not now nor have I ever kissed Juliann's ass or any mod ass.
And welcome, TCM!
That's because you're from Jersey. And we all know how Jersey girls are. ;-)
Jersey Girl wrote:Hmmm...I have to disagree with a couple of things here. I was banned from MAD and then unbanned my own self. I do not now nor have I ever kissed Juliann's ass or any mod ass.
And welcome, TCM!
That's because you're from Jersey. And we all know how Jersey girls are. ;-)
Should you spot me any time kissing any ass whatsoever please report me to myself and I'll deal with it directly.
;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Of course you’ve “criticized” me on many, many occasions. And of course the idiom means to “severely reprimand,” or even "to correct." In the context of the post, I assumed that you/Trashman had employed the idiom in the sense of a “successful” reprimand which is why when I referred back to the idiom I placed it in parenthesis, for I assumed that in the post it carried a specific albeit somewhat non-traditional nuance. I was responding to the way in which I assumed the idiom was intended based upon its context. If I misinterpreted its intended meaning then I apologize and I stand corrected.
I also noticed that I typed the contraction “it’s” when I really meant “its.”
Contrary to your suggestions, I make no claims for perfection. Clearly you've now "taken me to task."
I think those who have been hearing about how my mannerism is so "unpleasant" when compared to Bokovoy's polite nature, ought to get some context before jumping to conclusions. We have crossed paths many times in the past over at FAIR and I can say with confidence that he was by far the aggressive one. Take for example the following extract from an exchange some time ago. I merely suggested that "Joseph Smith knew his Bible." That was it.
Then Bokovoy comes tearing into the discussion with the following insult:
David: Kevin results to a classic Anti-Mormon trick that actually seeks to turn important evidence for authenticity into confirmation against the Book of Mormon….contrary to Kevin’s suggestion, I’m not convinced that Joseph knew the Bible all that well when he translated the Book of Mormon. Joseph’s mother certainly did not share Kevin’s assessment. Lucy Mack Smith described her son as "a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life [who] seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study."
Kevin: David, you overlooked the fact that this comment by his Mother was in reference to Joseph Smith at age 18. There was a seven year gap between this period and the publication of the Book of Mormon. Am I also to understand that during the ten year period between Joseph’s encounter with God and the publication of the Book of Mormon that he never decided to pick up the Bible and read it through? What kind of prophet doesn’t read the scriptures? Of course he read the Bible. If I had seen God and Jesus Christ last night, I can assure you I wouldn’t be online right now. I’d be reading the scriptures day and night.
David: Kevin, it is deceptive to suggest that subtle links between the Book of Mormon and the Bible are not evidence for its authenticity… I suspect that Joseph read the Bible occasionally. However, your argument suggests a familiarity with the Bible that I would highly question.
Kevin: A boy finds out at age 14 that he has encountered God Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ, and for the next ten years he only occasionally picks up God’s word and flips through it? At age 17 he is visited again by an Angel of God who tells him he is to be prophet of a new dispensation, and that his first job is to uncover a record that with represent the fullness of the Gospel. But again, as you say, despite all of this, there is no reason to believe he would have decided to acquire anything more than dilettante’s understanding of the Bible. I only have one thing to say to that. Are you serious?
Who was the aggressive one here? I was deceptive and resorting to "anti-Mormon trickery." I didn't even respond in kind because I knew the mods would have removed it anyway.
This is the kind of crap I had to put up with from Bokovoy and his mentors. I could never respond in kind without immediate warnings and/or castigation from the moderators. So I was always walking on eggshells.
Not anymore.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Kevin: David, you overlooked the fact that this comment by his Mother was in reference to Joseph Smith at age 18. There was a seven year gap between this period and the publication of the Book of Mormon. Am I also to understand that during the ten year period between Joseph’s encounter with God and the publication of the Book of Mormon that he never decided to pick up the Bible and read it through? What kind of prophet doesn’t read the scriptures? Of course he read the Bible. If I had seen God and Jesus Christ last night, I can assure you I wouldn’t be online right now. I’d be reading the scriptures day and night.
[joke]Maybe Joseph had the Bible on Audiobook...and thus had never "read" it.[/joke]
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
why was he reading the Bible in "1820" when he read James 3:5 - if any of you lack widsom......and the book or Mormon has quotes right from Isaiah and (I think) one the gospels. Of course he read the Bible.
Pomeroy Tucker also remembered that the Smith family met for devotions and Bible study twice a day. That Joseph Smith knew the Bible seems almost self-evident from his writings and correspondence; one of his earliest letters, for example, contains several of Bible allusions.
The problem is that your addition of the 'inspiration' element is completely superfluous.
Isn't it a shame that this conversation could not have taken place on MAD? Now there will be many MADdites who will never see your admission that a naturalistic explanation is not only logical but supported by the evidence, and the addition of the inspiration is - well, my term is superfluous, I guess it would be more acceptable to you to call it addendum of some sort.
Will you clarify that point to your MAD audience?
*sigh*. Isn't it a shame that the MAD folks weren't invited here, to view this excellent conversation? Why would we want to move it to MAD, from which so many of us are banned? Then we'd be the ones unable to view it. The MADites are not banned from viewing this conversation; they are welcome here. It behooves us to take this opportunity to show them what a great forum this is, where conversations like this one can take place without the heavy hand of a mod squad, without special dispensation in a Pundit forum, but rather as part of the normal flow of this open-to-all forum.