Every LDS MDB and MAD poster going against the prophets...

[_Runtu]

And, lest there be any doubts, I am neither ashamed of nor do I regret anything I have written on this message board. I stand by it all, and would say it the same way again tomorrow.

The foolish are always proud of their foolishness.

[_cksalmon]

But quote me directly.

I'm sorry you don't know how editorial insertions work. You were quoted directly.

And, lest there be any doubts, I am neither ashamed of nor do I regret anything I have written on this message board. I stand by it all, and would say it the same way again tomorrow.

I realize that. That's why you make the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look ridiculous.

[_beastie]

I've said (and I think it should be obvious) that it's not even remotely my style, and that I know of nobody at FARMS who follows this board. In fact, I'm not absolutely sure that anybody at FARMS even knows that it exists -- though I'm aware of at least one person who has written for FARMS in the past who has heard of it (and, I'm confident, doesn't follow it at all).

What else do you want me to say? I assume that you're not among the apparent majority here who seem to imagine that lying comes as naturally to me as breathing does.

So are you saying that it is misleading to pick the "worst of the worst" of a group, and then focus on the comments of the "worst of the worst" in a way that makes it appear that the "worst of the worst" is a fair generalization?

[_Runtu]

I've said (and I think it should be obvious) that it's not even remotely my style, and that I know of nobody at FARMS who follows this board. In fact, I'm not absolutely sure that anybody at FARMS even knows that it exists -- though I'm aware of at least one person who has written for FARMS in the past who has heard of it (and, I'm confident, doesn't follow it at all).

What else do you want me to say? I assume that you're not among the apparent majority here who seem to imagine that lying comes as naturally to me as breathing does.

I don't think it's your style, but it would suffice to say that you know no one at FARMS who enjoys this kind of crudeness. I certainly don't know anyone who publicly approves of Will's "hey, look at me, I'm vile!" shtick, but for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised if he's right that some FARMS folks (and his wife and SP) find his self-congratulation "delightful."

[_cksalmon]

If, having surveyed the writings and speeches of a representative sample of defenders of the faith (e.g., Louis Midgley, Brant Gardner, yours truly, William Hamblin, David Paulsen, Davis Bitton, Matthew Roper, John Welch, Blake Ostler, etc.), you find that tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors are typical of them, or even publicly approved by them -- if, say, FARMS and FAIR provide a receptive venue for such discourse in the manner in which this board is receptive to the discourse of boaz & lidia, infymus, TAK, Mercury, Chap, poor antishock8, Some Schmo, Polygamy Porter, and the like -- you'll have a secure basis for your generalization.

Dan, Will is the one suggesting that you guys privately enjoy this kind of crudeness, so appealing to the idea that Mercury et al. are worse in public doesn't help.

You, too, are a shameless and cowardly liar.

Par for the course here in the GSTP™.

Don't tell what I've said. Quote me.

cksalmon:

But, according to Will, some FARMS associates are following this running exchange and are privately delighting in his "tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors."

Again, you are a shameless and cowardly liar.

Don't tell what I've said. Quote me.

Au contraire, mon ami. In point of fact, the things I have said have been poetry to the ears of many. At least that has been the general tenor of my private conversations with some who have followed this running exchange, including certain FARMS friends who, strangely enough, have not been able to perceive the same shame in the broad strokes of my “vulgar” posts as have more pious people like the righteous CK Salmon.

Nevertheless, I do know a couple people associated with FARMS who occasionally pay attention to what goes on here – for the entertainment value alone. And … well … let’s just say that they are amused by some of the things they read.

Of course, after Dr. Peterson essentially busted your claim that certain FARMS friends were monitoring the exchange and found it poetry to their ears, you backtracked to a more generic claim about two people associated with FARMS who are amused by "the things they read." That means you know at least one more FARMS associate who pays attention to what goes on here than does Dr. Peterson. He's not in the same loop, I suppose.

Or, pray tell, what do you mean by "certain FARMS friends" and "a couple people associated with FARMS?" Are they the same group?

[_Runtu]

Of course, after Dr. Peterson essentially busted your claim that certain FARMS friends were monitoring the exchange and found it poetry to your ears, you backtracked to a more generic claim about two people associated with FARMS who are amused by "the things they read." That means you know at least one more FARMS associate who pays attention to what goes on here than does Dr. Peterson. He's not in the same loop, I suppose.

Or, pray tell, what do you mean by "certain FARMS friends" and "a couple people associated with FARMS?" Are they the same group?

Why bother, Chris? The more I listen to Will, the more I'm reminded of Wade Englund's ill-fated "mirroring" technique. It's like he's trying to outdo the worst of the exmos in vulgarity and inanity. I'm afraid he's descended way below those guys.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's why you make the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look ridiculous.

Good grief.

With a very few exceptions (e.g., Nazism), I would never dream of holding evangelical Protestantism (or any other substantial faith or non-faith) responsible for even the most extreme actions of any single person.

So are you saying that it is misleading to pick the "worst of the worst" of a group, and then focus on the comments of the "worst of the worst" in a way that makes it appear that the "worst of the worst" is a fair generalization?

Of course I'm saying that. And don't pretend that I've ever said otherwise. (Sigh. I'm pretty sure that precisely that is coming, of course, but it will be a gross distortion of anything I've ever said or written. Just more time-wasting nonsense while I deny your charge and attempt, vainly, to correct your misrepresentations while an echo-chamber chorus piles helpfully on. I hope you'll prove my prophecy mistaken.)

I don't think it's your style, but it would suffice to say that you know no one at FARMS who enjoys this kind of crudeness.

I don't know of anybody at FARMS who revels in crudeness.

Moreover, I don't know exactly what Will has written here in every case, but I almost certainly know far more about it than anybody at FARMS does.

I certainly don't know anyone who publicly approves of Will's "hey, look at me, I'm vile!" shtick, but for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised if he's right that some FARMS folks (and his wife and SP) find his self-congratulation "delightful."

Well, what can I say? You and others here probably know the FARMS folks much better than I do. So perhaps I should defer to your superior judgment.

[_Runtu]

Well, what can I say? You and others here probably know the FARMS folks much better than I do. So perhaps I should defer to your superior judgment.

I'm not claiming superior judgment, and I don't know anyone from FARMS other than through the boards. I just don't think Will would have made up something like that from whole cloth.

[_William Schryver]

The friends to whom I referred (who happen to be associated with FARMS) ”have not been able to perceive the same shame in the broad strokes of my “vulgar” posts as have more pious people like the righteous CK Salmon.”

They have been able to discern between cksalmon’s (and several others') numerous lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, and the things that I have actually written -- things which they have found somewhat amusing. As well they ought to have.

Of course, you make a claim that radically misrepresents my above statements. You wrote:

But, according to Will, some FARMS associates are following this running exchange and are privately delighting in his "tawdry, base ridiculousness and crude sexual metaphors."

You are a shameless, cowardly liar.

[_cksalmon]

That's why you make the purported "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ look ridiculous.

Good grief.

With a very few exceptions (e.g., Nazism), I would never dream of holding evangelical Protestantism (or any other substantial faith or non-faith) responsible for even the most extreme actions of any single person.

Emphasis on the you(=Schryver) and the look, Dr. Peterson. My criticism is of Schryver's purporting to represent the "Restored Gospel" of Jesus Christ (in light of his manifestly unChrist-like behavior-- behavior of which he is completely unashamed).

Well, what can I say? You and others here probably know the FARMS folks much better than I do. So perhaps I should defer to your superior judgment.

Will does, I guess. Or, at least certain of them.