The Great White Exmo

[_beastie]

In point of fact, you do not speak like a scholar, write like a scholar, or behave like a scholar. You quite clearly, whatever you might think of secular critics of your ideas, consider Mormons who disagree with you to be your personal enemies whom you are free to ridicule, insult, and bait.

Oh. My. God.

Coggins, I think you have dethroned the former queen of self-unawareness.

[_Coggins7]

You know, what's so hilarious about this (aside from the fact that Loran cannot properly spell "Dartagnan") is that not terribly long ago he showed up on Kevin's board in order to try and suck up to him. Loran was behaving in a very obsequious and ass-kissy way towards one of Kevin's analyses of Islam, but my! how the tides have shifted! You can practically smell the stink of desperation oozing out of Coggins like some stale effluvium. This poor bastard just wants a teensy tiny modicum of acceptance, but nobody---not Kevin, not the MADites, and certainly nobody here---will give it to him! So, his only recourse is to label everyone else a "poseur." Magically, he is the only "intellectually serious" person in the whole online Mormon universe!

Really, we need to get Larry Flynt to publish an anthology of Scratch's posts here with some hot babes in odd and provocative positions so we can have some visual pornography to supplement the literary kind Scratch supplies in substantial quantities in this forum.

Then at least I can say that I only visit Mormondiscussions.com for the articles...

[_the road to hana]

Time is the great equalizer in these things.

We can only hope.

[_Coggins7]

Oh. My. God.

Coggins, I think you have dethroned the former queen of self-unawareness.

I'd post the reams of smarmy put downs, insults, and ad hominems that comprise the bulk of most of Dartagnan's "debates" with his detractors here, but why bother.

When he chooses to comport himself according to his pretensions, then we will see...

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
And for you Zoid, I'd recommend anything by Dr. Suess.

Let's see... We now know that Coggins is not familiar with the works of Marx, Solzhenitsyn, Bukharin, Dumas, and, apparently, Dr. Seuss. Not to mention the authors whose books are relevant to Mormonism.

Based upon our previous discussions, I'm apparently far more conversant with Marx than thou.

I figured that you aren't likely to come up with anything original. by the way, this might break your americacentric heart, but in order to be considered culturally literate worldwide, it is not necessary to be familiar with every American rock musician from the sixties who shares your political views. But it helps if you are familiar with Dumas.

I don't know much about Nugen'ts views, accept that he's very stongly in favor of the Second Amendment.

Now, what is your familiarity with John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Frederic Bastiat, David Hume, The Federalist Papers, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Heyek, Russel Kirk, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, John Burnham, Willaim F. Buckley, Henry Hazlitt, Harvey Mansfield, Thomas Sowell, Michael Novak, Robert Bork etc.



_________________

[_beastie]

Quote:
Oh. My. God.

Coggins, I think you have dethroned the former queen of self-unawareness.




I'd post the reams of smarmy put downs, insults, and ad hominems that comprise the bulk of most of Dartagnan's "debates" with his detractors here, but why bother.

When he chooses to comport himself according to his pretensions, then we will see...

Have you picked up the evil bottle again perchance?

I don't need examples of Dart's tendency to insult, I know he engages in it regularly. I've also stated before that I think he would be far more effective without it, although I do understand the frustration building to a popping point.

You missed the entire point of my reply, Coggins. You lack self-awareness to a remarkable extent. In other words, the paragraph you used to describe Dart actually described yourself, to a T.

In point of fact, you do not speak like a scholar, write like a scholar, or behave like a scholar. You quite clearly, whatever you might think of fellow LDS critics of your ideas, consider exMormons who disagree with you to be your personal enemies whom you are free to ridicule, insult, and bait.

[_Coggins7]

Care to try again, Coggins?

Are your claims that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be and that God does not exist purely rhetorical in nature or do the statements you make asserting these propositions have existential import?

[_beastie]

Are your claims that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be and that God does not exist purely rhetorical in nature or do the statements you make asserting these propositions have existential import?

My claim is I was, by your own definition, responding to a rhetorical question, just as you were.

[_dartagnan]

The more you talk the talk and walk the walk of Mr. Scratch, the more of an intellectual hack you appear to be.

I'm not the one who runs to others to save me from myself. You use various monikers to do precisely that. You're a joke.

The fact of the matter is Dartagnon, when the truth regarding the Book of Abraham finally becomes too much for the critics to sustain, and the walls come tumbling down around your ears and the ears of others, like Brent Goldencalf, who have substantially overstated their case regarding the relative merits of their own evidence, there won't be any egg on your face because, like all good anti-Mormon intellectual charlatans, you will have moved on to your next target

This has been my "target" ever since I began to have problems with apologetics. Nobody has since been able to address it adequately. All I get is the promise that one day, if I have faith enough, LDS apologetics will come up with a super duper apologetic to make all the critics flee in embarrassment.

This is an explanation that might work for idiots.

In the meantime, Book of Abraham apologetics is a boil on the butt of Mormon apologetics. It is an embarrassment. And what makes it worse is that few seem to realize it. Idiots like you pretend things have been taken care of "over and over and over" for so many years now, but that last act proved you had no clue about the basics. You're an idiot. You don't know anything about the Book of Abraham or the controversy surrounding it. This is why you had to run to MAD before commenting further. You knew you had flapped off at the lip without first knowing what you were talking about, and you had hoped someone over there could save you from your own stupidity. Nobody could.

Now you're howling at the moon, calling all critics charlatans, anti-Mormons, goldencalves, etc. Anything you can to give you some sense of gratification in light of your reputation's recent train wreck.

I actually got some good feedback from MAD.

You didn't go there for feedback. You went there to find out if there really was evidence that you had been yapping about so confidently. In other words, you went there to find out if anyone could save you from yourself. You have no business debating me or anyone else for that matter. You're a lightweight, even by MAD standards.

critics have substantially overstated and exaggerated the merits of their case

Then prove it.

Oh wait, that requires another trip to MAD. Good luck.

All they gave you was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertion about how weak the critical argument is. Yea, like that's surprising. This is what apologists do best. It is kinda like Pahoran's recent thread whining about Walter Martin. Good grief already, the man has been dead for how many decades now? And you're still relying on his idiocy so you can be a victim in some sense?

an equally good case can be made for the missing documents theory of the Book of Abraham

Then make it. Let's see how well you'd fare. I dare you. I double-dare you. You proved yourself an idiot once on this subject, let's see if you have the courage to do it again.

that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer had little, if anything, to do with the actual translation

You obviously don't understand the critical argument at all. Big surprise.

From a strictly scholarly perspective, both sides are still in play as to the weight of the evidence.

Malarky. Name me some non-LDS scholars who think so.

Yea, I thought so. All you have are a team of desperate apologists avoiding all evidence at all costs, and trying to drum up some kind of miracle theory. They then point to the fact that they are scholars who dispute it and pretend this means squat. They are apologists trying to save their way of life from shambles.

In point of fact, you do not speak like a scholar, write like a scholar, or behave like a scholar.

Coming from an idiot, I'll take that as a compliment. Especially since I never claimed to be a scholar.

consider Mormons who disagree with you to be your personal enemies whom you are free to ridicule, insult, and bait.

I get along with Mormons who don't mouth off like idiots. The fact that you're not one of them isn't my fault.

You don't even hide your demagoguery and personal animosity toward the Church very well within the folds of your serious intellectual work (at least its clear that you take it to be serious).

Demagoguery? Sounds like someone is possessed by Bill O'Reiley.

Time is the great equalizer in these things.

Time has always been the enemy of the Church. The more time goes by, the more learned and sophisticated the population becomes. It has been decades since the Book of Abraham was proven false, and you guys have fumbled over yourselves like the three stooges, coming up with one ridiculous theory after another, often contradicting yourselves and eventually backing down from your original premises. At least the critical argument is consistent; which makes sense since it is the one based on the facts.

[_Coggins7]

Are your claims that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be and that God does not exist purely rhetorical in nature or do the statements you make asserting these propositions have existential import?

My claim is I was, by your own definition, responding to a rhetorical question, just as you were.

Are your claims that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be and that God does not exist purely rhetorical in nature or do the statements you make asserting these propositions have existential import?