Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Trevor]

Someone who is acquainted with FAIR also knew of the comments that Tal had made. (They really are available in several places on the Internet and Tal has been making them for years.) This person knows Randy Keyes and, I believe, brought the comments to his attention.

I know I will rue asking this, but is anyone else wondering whether Daniel Peterson "knows" Randy Keyes? Yes, I am offering the question in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, but he has been known to contact interested parties when claims about them have been made by ex-Mormons on the internet.

[_Trevor]

And yet, it is beginning all over again. I have never met a liberal who knew anything at all about history or economics.

Yawn. Start another thread. I can't promise I'll show up.

[_bcspace]

Yawn. Start another thread. I can't promise I'll show up.

Smokescreen for your avoidance of the fact that Keyes is still an SP despite all his puported doubts.

[_Trevor]

Bachman's response, recently posted at MADB in which Bachman levels a threat against President Keyes if President Keyes continues to correct Bachman's misrepresentations, illuminates the wisdom of President Keyes in avoiding just such a pissing contest. I'm afraid that in this instance, the end result is simply that Bachman ends up with wet shoes.

Interesting way of imagining what is going on here. Tal warned Keyes that if he continued to misrepresent their conversation, he would be more forthcoming about details. I agree that Keyes is wise to avoid a pissing contest. I simply differ with you in the question of who would end up with the wet shoes.

[_Trevor]

Smokescreen for your avoidance of the fact that Keyes is still an SP despite all his puported doubts.

Is that your lame attempt to pretend that you were always on topic? I believe so. And, as I said, if you want to blather on about ideology, feel free to start a thread in the Off-Topic forum. I will not be joining you there.

[_Coggins7]

Marg is correct. When in doubt, look for who benefits the most.

This approach is, as good as it sounds, of little help in discovering, in any specific case, the truth of the matter. Indeed, this attitude is at the root of the preserverence of the long discredited Kennedy assassination theories.

Trevor is also correct. We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

He may be correct that we do this, as an aspect of human nature, but that general principle still tells us nothing regarding this particular case (Harmony even capitalizes the word "other". Oh please, could we leave French philosophy out of this, the discourse is polluted enough as it is).

[_Coggins7]

Leftism is in the dumpster of history .

Then why are you so obssessed with it?

1. I am "obsessed" with nothing.

2. Because all to many people would still rather scavenge for scraps in the dumpster than dine at the table.

[_bcspace]

We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

By this logic, they are equally unbelievable. Which is fine because it is actions that solve this case.

[_Coggins7]

Correct. Problem is, it tastes good to many. We will be fighting the Cold War over and over because of the left.

A fine example of the delusions of shallow ideologues who like to pretend they are real conservatives.

You are, as usual, so very short on principle or detail, and very long on nebulous innuendo.

[_bcspace]

I'm still waiting for evidence that the SP "ditched ethics" in this case as per the OP claim.