Crockett Challenges Scratch to a Debate

[_rcrocket]

Hmm. Seems that Scratch isn't going to give me his favorite example; instead, claims victory.

I am not impressed with your self-citation to prior posts. Remember, the essential claim of my argument is that you are long on rhetoric and abuse, and short on substance. Let's deal with a clean page and see how strong you are with substance. What is your single best example of Church suppression of authority? [Gee, I have lots you could supposedly cite from, but let's test you. Have you nothing to say on the subject you selected?]

Bob

[_Coggins7]

adv. - Used to describe a situation that has existed up to this point or up to the present time.

And you're the one correcting my typos eh?

[_Coggins7]

Give me your very best single example of suppression of Church history; cites would help.

I tend not to think of it in terms of "single examples," but rather more of an aggregate "picture painting", as it were. I guess while we're at it we may as well point out that "history" and "suppression" are likely to be contested terms. My opinion is that the Church "suppresses" its history chiefly by omission. E.g., failure to tell investigators about Joseph Smith's troubles with the law, or polygamy, or MMM, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Suppression also occurs by denying access to sensitive archives. And by keeping the financial records closed, etc.

Well, I deal in evidence, not speculation. And, financial records is a different question. Why don't you pick your very best example of suppression and we'll move on from there? After all, the proposition (the Church suppresses its history) should be supported by at least one good example, no?

Several examples have of Church "suppression" have already been listed, Bob. Feel free to deal with any of them.

See Chameleon, lying there in the sun, all things to everyone, run run away HEY!

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmm. Seems that Scratch isn't going to give me his favorite example; instead, claims victory.

I've given you several examples, Bob. Why won't you deal with any of them?

I am not impressed with your self-citation to prior posts.

Why not? In some cases they contain the "cites" you so desperately crave.

Remember, the essential claim of my argument is that you are long on rhetoric and abuse, and short on substance. Let's deal with a clean page and see how strong you are with substance. What is your single best example of Church suppression of authority? [Gee, I have lots you could supposedly cite from, but let's test you. Have you nothing to say on the subject you selected?]

Bob

I'll just note en passant, by the way, that you are changing the subject. Why might that be, I wonder? Why don't you deal with any of the examples of Church suppression of history? You wanted a "debate," and yet now that some examples have been listed, you are trying to change the subject.

[_harmony]

Hmm. Seems that Scratch isn't going to give me his favorite example; instead, claims victory.

I am not impressed with your self-citation to prior posts. Remember, the essential claim of my argument is that you are long on rhetoric and abuse, and short on substance. Let's deal with a clean page and see how strong you are with substance. What is your single best example of Church suppression of authority? [Gee, I have lots you could supposedly cite from, but let's test you. Have you nothing to say on the subject you selected?]

Bob

I thought this thread was about suppression of church history, not the church's suppression of authority. I'm not even sure what the church's suppression of authority even is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmm. Seems that Scratch isn't going to give me his favorite example; instead, claims victory.

I am not impressed with your self-citation to prior posts. Remember, the essential claim of my argument is that you are long on rhetoric and abuse, and short on substance. Let's deal with a clean page and see how strong you are with substance. What is your single best example of Church suppression of authority? [Gee, I have lots you could supposedly cite from, but let's test you. Have you nothing to say on the subject you selected?]

Bob

I thought this thread was about suppression of church history, not the church's suppression of authority. I'm not even sure what the church's suppression of authority even is.

Bob isn't really interested in actual debate. This thread was more intended to attack me for not having as large a library of Church books as he does. Now, that's a fact I'll readily admit to. Indeed, sometimes books I've read about the Church were checked out from the library!!! So, in any case: Bob can go ahead and pat himself on the back for amassing such a large and extensive collection of Church books. All praise Baal!

[_Coggins7]

Bob isn't really interested in actual debate.

Yes, he's not really interested. He's only been something near imploring you to come to the table and actually engage in that endangered species of discourse for this entire thread, which you conspicously refuse to do.

Let's be clear here: Bob has repeatedly challenged you, and you have been, at all events, cowering under a blanket the entire time, refusing so much as to agree on a single topic.

Who have great chutzpa Scratch, but little substance it seems.

This thread was more intended to attack me for not having as large a library of Church books as he does.

Or as I do, or as others have. The problem here is that your pretense to the contrary, not a battle over who has the most books.

Ante up Scratch.

[_Mister Scratch]

Bob isn't really interested in actual debate.

Yes, he's not really interested. He's only been something near imploring you to come to the table and actually engage in that endangered species of discourse for this entire thread, which you conspicously refuse to do.

Let's be clear here: Bob has repeatedly challenged you, and you have been, at all events, cowering under a blanket the entire time, refusing so much as to agree on a single topic.

Who have great chutzpa Scratch, but little substance it seems.

Bob first listed a series of items on which he was interested in debating. Now, I'd much prefer to debate him on peer review at FARMS, or whether the BYU "spy ring" really was "student-instigate" as he (falsely) claimed. But, after consideration, I stated that I'd go ahead and engage him on Church suppression of history, and I (and others) listed some examples of this. Did Bob respond to any of those? No. Instead, he tried to insist that I select a "favorite" or a "best" among them. Any of them will do, of course. There is something deeply suspect about his refusal to deal with any of them.

Now, he is changing the subject altogether. Rather than dealing with Church history, he now wants to deal with "suppression of Church authority", whatever that means. It seems obvious that he is just lashing out in anger, and that he's still sore at getting caught in the web of his own sophistry.

This thread was more intended to attack me for not having as large a library of Church books as he does.

Or as I do, or as others have. The problem here is that your pretense to the contrary, not a battle over who has the most books.

Ante up Scratch.

Where have I ever claimed to own a large library of Church books? I'd be very interested to see somebody prove that.

[_Coggins7]

Bob first listed a series of items on which he was interested in debating. Now, I'd much prefer to debate him on peer review at FARMS, or whether the BYU "spy ring" really was "student-instigate" as he (falsely) claimed. But, after consideration, I stated that I'd go ahead and engage him on Church suppression of history, and I (and others) listed some examples of this. Did Bob respond to any of those? No. Instead, he tried to insist that I select a "favorite" or a "best" among them. Any of them will do, of course. There is something deeply suspect about his refusal to deal with any of them.

Yes, pick one and only one subject and go to the mat with him on it. Work through one subject or topic, and only after no more working through is possible, move on to another.

Pick one Scratch, just one. No scattergun cornucopia, just one.

[_Mister Scratch]

Bob first listed a series of items on which he was interested in debating. Now, I'd much prefer to debate him on peer review at FARMS, or whether the BYU "spy ring" really was "student-instigate" as he (falsely) claimed. But, after consideration, I stated that I'd go ahead and engage him on Church suppression of history, and I (and others) listed some examples of this. Did Bob respond to any of those? No. Instead, he tried to insist that I select a "favorite" or a "best" among them. Any of them will do, of course. There is something deeply suspect about his refusal to deal with any of them.

Yes, pick one and only one subject and go to the mat with him on it. Work through one subject or topic, and only after no more working through is possible, move on to another.

Pick one Scratch, just one. No scattergun cornucopia, just one.

Very well. History of Church finances.