<Ahem> So, I guess Coggins is admitting that he knows nothing about the spying and the stakeouts? Care to field this one, Bob? Meanwhile, I'll try to keep from laughing myself to death.
And while your laughing yourself to death, keep in mind that Bob has already eviscerated you and exposed you as a provocateur and a poseur on this issue as others have on so many others. You are fudging your sources, haven't read them thoroughly, and your own knowledge of the issues are completely second hand and fragmentary.
Bob has already pointed out quite clearly, for which you have, again as usual, no answer, that the Church had nothing to do with any of these escapades, and when it found out, did everything it could to set things aright.
You have again committed ritual intellectual suicide in this forum. Thanks again, but no thanks.
Bob did? I do not think so. Did you read the lengthy article Rollo posted? Oh denial is such a lovely thing.
I think Prince's article speaks for itself; I have cited the very pages Rollo cites. I can assess his book, as well as Wilkinson's book and my interviews of professors, and draw my own conclusions about what happened. You are free to disagree. But my posts above set forth my evidence and conclusions.
But, it really isn't necessary to make up arguments I have never made and then claim victory. I support only the arguments I make, not those made for me.
Coggins7 wrote: Bob has already pointed out quite clearly, for which you have, again as usual, no answer, that the Church had nothing to do with any of these escapades, and when it found out, did everything it could to set things aright.
rcrocket wrote:I think Prince's article speaks for itself; I have cited the very pages Rollo cites. I can assess his book, as well as Wilkinson's book and my interviews of professors, and draw my own conclusions about what happened. You are free to disagree. But my posts above set forth my evidence and conclusions.
But, it really isn't necessary to make up arguments I have never made and then claim victory. I support only the arguments I make, not those made for me.
Bob, you very clearly stated that the spy ring was "student instigated." You had best just admit you were wrong, or else this will hound you in much the same way your MMM article omission has.
I stand by my posts. When you get something in your library other than Quinn, and when you desist from citing sources you don't have and have never read, then we'll talk. Rhetorical skills with no foundation only persuade the idiot, and you are preaching to the choir here.
rcrocket wrote:I stand by my posts. When you get something in your library other than Quinn, and when you desist from citing sources you don't have and have never read, then we'll talk. Rhetorical skills with no foundation only persuade the idiot, and you are preaching to the choir here.
'Pot calling the kettle black' alert: you actually have the sources you cite and still get them wrong.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
rcrocket wrote:I stand by my posts. When you get something in your library other than Quinn, and when you desist from citing sources you don't have and have never read, then we'll talk.
Come now, Bob. You don't know anything about what I have in my library beyond what you can intuit from my posts. Further, nothing in the sources I listed was in any way incorrect or falsified. But, then again, I get that you are angry about this latest embarrassment, and that you are just lashing out.
Rhetorical skills with no foundation only persuade the idiot,
I guess so. I mean, did you not catch Coggins7's response to your posts? Boy, it sure didn't take much to persuade him!
Coggins7 wrote: Bob has already pointed out quite clearly, for which you have, again as usual, no answer, that the Church had nothing to do with any of these escapades, and when it found out, did everything it could to set things aright.
Not quite what I've said.
I'm always open to amendment.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote: Bob has already pointed out quite clearly, for which you have, again as usual, no answer, that the Church had nothing to do with any of these escapades, and when it found out, did everything it could to set things aright.
Keep laughing Scratch. Once you are outed--and eventually you will be--for who and what you are, this entire pretense will end and we will all be able to move on, because, as will be so painfully evident at that time, there will be nothing to see here.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.