Is rcrocket a coward?

[_Trevor]

'Course, my only interaction with English degree holders is in publishing and writing, so I admit my exposure to critical theory is limited. One of my kids has a degree in English.

You have (gulp) kids?

Save me, Jebus!

[_Blixa]

I know this is all in "good" "fun" Bob, but its always so odd to see this idea that "English professors" spend their time thinking about spelling and sentence structure. The discipline has changed a lot in the last hundred years or so.... ; )

'Course, my only interaction with English degree holders is in publishing and writing, so I admit my exposure to critical theory is limited. One of my kids has a degree in English.

Its never too late to learn, Bob. Why the resources of this board alone could provide you with a very suitable reading list, possibly even an annotated bibliography...

[_cacheman]

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone in acedemia can find the time for the amount of participation that I'm seeing on these boards.

cacheman

[_the road to hana]

I know this is all in "good" "fun" Bob, but its always so odd to see this idea that "English professors" spend their time thinking about spelling and sentence structure. The discipline has changed a lot in the last hundred years or so.... ; )

'Course, my only interaction with English degree holders is in publishing and writing, so I admit my exposure to critical theory is limited. One of my kids has a degree in English.

Its never too late to learn, Bob. Why the resources of this board alone could provide you with a very suitable reading list, possibly even an annotated bibliography...

Bob graduated summa. . .er, magna cum laude, don't you know.

[_Blixa]

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone in acedemia can find the time for the amount of participation that I'm seeing on these boards.

cacheman

I'm on sabbatical.

[Guest]

He will engage you in a debate, or, at least, have the courtesy to tell you why he is choosing not to.

When the hell does Bob debate anything? I’m not sure he knows how. Just look at his response to me…

I suppose it is just a subjective matter, but you are obtuse and unfocused. Do you publish?

Not yet, but what does that matter? I usually don't bother to correct grammatical errors on forums because, well, it's just a forum. You're the first person who has tried to make an issue of this, but I guess you need to since you cannot deal with the arguments.

These are examples of silly breast-beating.

Hey, you’re the one who said I could not go toe to toe with an academian. How can I prove otherwise without you using my response as an example of “silly breast-beating”? If you can’t handle the truth, then don’t invoke it.

I don't know a good academic, who writes and publishes, who does this sort of thing.

I am not writing and publishing am I? This ia a message forum for Pete's sake. Lighten up. When and I fi decide to publish, I can assure you the tone would be quite different. The same way Bokovoy's arrogance takes a nose dive in his publications.

At least with the silly regulatory you do. You might influence the silly folks who post here, but you won't who read and think with some clarity.

On the contrary, as an apologist, virtually everyone who emailed me with accolades were people still in college, including a few high school drop outs. What I have noticed since switching teams is that I am receiving more emails from people who are or were professors.

Obviously, you feel that your arguments can't stand on their own merits. Am I wrong?

I do and they do, so yes, you’re wrong. Calling my writing silly doesn’t mean anything coming from you. You’re a bishop who is only interested in defending the faith at all costs. You don’t do it through debate. Instead you make pithy and annoying comments on this forum in a attempt to divert attention away from compelling arguments against your cohorts at FARMS. In this case you’re just pissed off because Dan Peterson wrote a crappy Ensign article for the Church, which used the sub-standard methods you guys always complain about whey anti-Mormons do it. John Gee does this more that anyone. You’re not willing to defend their arguments. You’re only willing to defend them by attacking me.

And, this isn't about me. This is post is about you.

I started this post so I will decide who it is about. The post is about your inability to debate the issue. You want to howl at the moon when critics make compelling arguments, but you never address the arguments.

My weaknesses in writing and research, if there are any, have absolutely nothing to do with your inability to articulate.

I am not talking about your weakness in writing now am I? Nor am I talking about your manifest weakness in comprehension.

I think that everybody with whom you disagree is a liar.

Sarcasm isn’t going to help you squirm your way out of this one. I provided a clear-cut example whereby William Hamblin flat out lied and then ran off whimpering, accusing me of misrepresenting him. These kinds of incidents create the myth that Kevin Graham is all about misrepresentation and attacking.

Are you willing to investigate this to determine if what I say is true? Of course not. Why? Because that would be counter-productive for you, acting as Bishop. You’re supposed to be figuring out ways to make the Church and its defenders look good, not stupid.

So my point here is that if you are too lazy or too disinterested to verify what I say is true, then just shut the hell up. We have nothing left to say if you’re not willing to back up your accusations against me.

Fine; lump me in with people with whom I have no familiarity. "You guys." I am just an observer on life's plate.

You’re a Mormon Bishop. You have just as much motive and incentive to do what these other guys are doing. You’re on the same team. You share the same methods.

I disagree with the civility of some of FARMS' work and have told at least one editor such.

Oh, how convenient this must be then. It is easy for you to squirm your way out of hypocrisy by saying you implement the same standard on both sides, but the fact is you do not tell the critics, in private email, that you disapprove of their methods. We cannot verify what you’re saying here because you claim to have done it in private email. But we know why you did this. You didn’t want your condemnation of FARMS to be used by critics who often express the same sentiments you claim to hold.

Likewise, you never post at MAD and call all the LDS apologists “cowards” for using pseudonyms, as you do so frequently on this forum. You reserve these moments of righteous indignation for the ones you truly despise.

I guess that justifies your lack of civility, so carry on

You have never demonstrated a lack of civility in my method. Again, I can give as good as I get. If I am uncivil, it is because the line of civility had already been breached by the apologist.

Who gives a flying fig about "Dan?"

You do obviously since you felt the need to detract from my refutation of him. I am simply pointing out that when I think someone is an idiot, I don’t back down just because they are a professor. I’m around too many idiotic professors to know that being a professor doesn’t place someone above reproach. But the talking heads at FARMS seem to think differently, and so do you.

I can see with my own eyes on this board, and others, that just about everybody in the world who doesn't bow to you is an idiot, a moron or a jackass.

Not true at all. These are reserved for a select few, but only after they truly earned the title.

You don't have a clue about the meaning of civility, and until you do, you aren't going to be taken seriously.

This is where you are wrong. I have been taken seriously. But you’re not interested in any of this because you hav your mind already made up. I give you examples and you accuse me of breast-beating.

This isn't about me and what I can "win."[/qute]

You’re the attorney here, so you should be mopping the floors with me. But you’re just like the cowardly pseudo-intellectuals at FARMS.

This is about your lack of professional credibility to engage on the issue.

My credibility, I think, far exceeds that which Gee has created for himself. Earning a doctorate in Egyptology doesn’t give someone credibility to speak on the Book of Abraham controversy. This is the smokescreen John Gee had hoped to accomplish, as if his crazy theories, deceptive tactics, and sloppy apologetics would be overshadowed by his resume. This kind of thing only works with the naïve, which is why you and so many other LDS are so impressed with it.

This is not about "finding out the facts."

It never is with LDS apologists.

This is about you and your lack of professional civility.

You obviously know nothing about what you’re talking about. I can point to scholarly journals where scholars publish attack after attack on one another, in ways you probably wouldn’t believe. By contrast, I am speaking in an open forum where the cordiality is expected to drop.

Why should we believe a poster like you?

You should be interested in the facts, and judge my arguments according to their merits, not according to what kind of incivility you choose to read in them. But are you willing to apply this standard with the Church? For example, why should we believe in a sex maniac who took women for himself who were already married? Because you say this isn’t factual, “This is not about the facts, this is about the kind of person Joseph Smith was… why should I believe anything this loony fraud had to say?”

I would be truly a lunatic to believe anything you say, having read your posts over the past few months.

Rhetoric isn’t going to save you either.

I don't believe I lack courage coming on and enduring your insults.

You lack courage because you never want to engage the issues. Instead you want to sit back and ridicule those who do engage the issues when they reach conclusions you don’t agree with. You never want to defend Gee’s dishonesty, but you want to criticize anyone for noting his dishonesty.

You’re a wimp and a coward.

You owe it to your ward to defend your scriptures.

I like what he writes. I read what Ashment writes. I respect both of them and their abilities.

Suddenly, you respect Ashment now. Just a minute ago he was nothing more than an insurance salesman who didn’t earn a doctorate.

The point is there is a huge difference between Ashment and Gee. Gee is a dishonest apologist who is more interested in conjuring up any kind of “evidence” he can. He depends on the ignorance of the masses to pull stunts like his stupid two ink argument. He then manipulates the coloring in a photo in his book to help persuade his audience he has grounds for it. He is a joke and it is only a matter of time that academia realizes it as well.

But, when we are dealing with Egyptology, it seems to me that one who has defended a dissertation in the area is naturally going to command more respect than one who does not -- or doesn't even work professionally in the area.

That kind of thinking is nothing short of laziness. That is not how you think critically. You know nothing about Ashment’s ability to read and understand Egyptian when compared to Gee’s, so using his degree or lack thereof, as the only measuring stick, is inexcusable. This guy pointed out errors by both Gee and Nibley which neither of them have recovered. If I recall correctly, Nibley actually thanked Ashment for correcting some of his mistakes. And of course, the fact that the Church hired him as the top Egyptian specialist to handle the KEP, should mean at least SOMETHING you would think. But I’m not dealing with a thinking person, apparently.

[_Dr. Shades]

So, I'm pushing the limits? Didn't think there were any here.

Write whatever you want, just do it in black text and don't sign it "-MODS."

[_rcrocket]

I suppose it is just a subjective matter, but you are obtuse and unfocused. Do you publish?

Not yet, but what does that matter?

You are not qualified.

I provided a clear-cut example whereby William Hamblin flat out lied and then ran off whimpering, accusing me of misrepresenting him.

I barely know who he is.

You’re a Mormon Bishop. . . You’re the attorney here

The ultimate canard. To denigate my argument because of who I am, not what I say.

I disagree with the civility of some of FARMS' work and have told at least one editor such.

Oh, how convenient this must be then. It is easy for you to squirm your way out of hypocrisy by saying you implement the same standard on both sides, but the fact is you do not tell the critics, in private email, that you disapprove of their methods.

Umm; I say it here and now. And, I really spend almost no time on MAD; in fact, I condemn its very existence.

Likewise, you never post at MAD and call all the LDS apologists “cowards” for using pseudonyms, as you do so frequently on this forum. You reserve these moments of righteous indignation for the ones you truly despise.

I condemn here and now LDS "apologists," who hide behind an anonymous name to attack and defame a real person. For shame on them. May they burn in hell.

Who gives a flying fig about "Dan?"

You do obviously since you felt the need to detract from my refutation of him.

My ridicule is directed to your style and content, not to the protection of Dr. Peterson.

You don't have a clue about the meaning of civility, and until you do, you aren't going to be taken seriously.

This is where you are wrong. I have been taken seriously.

More breast-beating. I am not convinced.

Rhetoric isn’t going to save you either.

I am at least glad that I can employ it.

[_dartagnan]

The ultimate canard. To denigate my argument because of who I am, not what I say.

I agree absolutely. The problem here is that you don’t say anything of substance. You don’t argue any points. You avoid the issues that this forum was designed to discuss. You’d rather talk about me the same way you’d rather talk about Ashment’s livelihood.

But I wonder how you can say “denigate my argument because of who I am, not what I say” when the fact is this is precisely what you are doing when you dismiss Ashment because he isn’t a professor, or you dismiss me because I’m not published. You don’t care what we say, you only care about credentials.

Is this how Mormonism intends to push its way to credibility? By encouraging everyone to get a PhD so they can all turn around when they’re done and say, “Look at us, we’re smart, so our religion must be credible too.”

My ridicule is directed to your style and content, not to the protection of Dr. Peterson.

Ah but of course. It is just a coincidence you only bring this up when I am in the process of refuting one of the Church’s apologists.

More breast-beating. I am not convinced.

This is only because you are not interested in being convinced. Old dogs, new tricks, and all that jazz. Have you even read the thread I brought to your attention? Of course not, because you want to keep your head in the sand while telling yourself I am never taken seriously. Maybe I could bring up emails that were sent to me from out of the blue, by noted scholars like David Bitton, who asked me for help on his FARMS review? That wouldn’t matter to you either because you could just call it breast-beating and leave it at that.

[_rcrocket]

Well, obviously my choice of words has everything to do with the fact that Bob calls virtually everyone on this board a coward.

I think the preference of ad hominem over dealing with arguments (I.e. I don't have to deal with that person's arguments because he sells insurance!) is just as cowardly as posting with a pseudonym.

You confuse an ad hominem with a challenge to one's credentials. I question the right of one to engage in a discussion about Egyptology who has never been required to defend a dissertation in the area. I automatically discount his/her qualifications. The reason for this is that in such a technical field, I lack the qualifications.

For that reason, I would trust what a James Charlesworth would have to say automatically over what a James White would say -- principally because the former has defended a dissertation from a credible university and the latter has not.

To not understand the distinction between an ad hominem and a challenge to one's qualifications to speak on a subject is demonstrable weakness, my friend.

rcrocket