Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So can you provide us links to where the reasonably well known apologist confronted dart when he was on the side of the believers?

That apologist vowed that he would not engage dart in conversation any more, on any topic, long prior to dart's announcement that dart had renounced Mormonism. It is a vow that that apologist has kept reasonably well -- and, for quite a while now, perfectly.

[_beastie]

That apologist vowed that he would not engage dart in conversation any more, on any topic, long prior to dart's announcement that dart had renounced Mormonism. It is a vow that that apologist has kept reasonably well -- and, for quite a while now, perfectly.

You have a link to this avowal? And has the same apologist made a similar avowal in regards to other, equally offensive believers, like Pahoran?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You have a link to this avowal?

No, I don't. You can find one of the many instances of it every bit as easily as I can.

I see no reason to spend any time attempting to prove something that nobody has ever denied.

And has the same apologist made a similar avowal in regards to other, equally offensive believers, like Pahoran?

That apologist may not share the assumption that undergirds your question. (Fancy that! The nerve of the fellow!)

[_beastie]

Of course I know that dart's attitude towards Islam has influenced your willingness to interact with him in the past. I don't recall any public, over-all disavowals of him, but I'll take your word for it. As I recall, your main objection was his attitude towards Islam in particular. Am I correct?

My opinion - developed by watching other believers, including you, react to Pahoran - is that if Dart had not targeted a group near to your own heart, and had only pointed his disdain and insults towards exmormons, you wouldn't have objected.

That apologist may not share the assumption that undergirds your question. (Fancy that! The nerve of the fellow!)

Of course you don't. The fact that Pahoran, in the past, openly linked "anti-mormons" (which was a very wide net for him, including folks such as analytics) would approve of murdering Mormons apparently doesn't make him a bigot to you, or to the majority of other apologists. I know one or two who objected to his behavior, but would only do it in private chats, never publicly on the board.

[Guest]

This is not true, you logged onto the site yesterday, and this morning before I mentioned it. You know the site has a "last visited" section?

I haven't visited it - what's there to "visit" anyway? I log in to see my own picture every day? That's the extent of what's there.

If it says I was logged in, then it logs me in whenever I reject spammers who try to add me as a "friend." I get these requests occassionally via email and I have to click on it to reject them. It asks for my password, so I suppose it temporarily logs me in.

Again not true. You opened the account on the 3rd of May 2008, again according to the site. Why lie about all of this?

That just goes to show how irrelevant this site is to me. It seemed like something I did in December when I first came back to Atlanta. As you saw, it was not used for much of anything. Three of the four people in my "friends" list, I don't even know. I was accepting friend requests via email before realizing they were just spammers. I intended to use the site to store photos and videos because I was stopping service for kevingraham.org.

Again not true, you accessed the site several times in the past few days

And you know this because you were visiting this page over the past few days? I always knew you were creepy Tradd.

opened it a little over three months ago, claimed you had left Brazil, and claimed you were single.

No, I didn't "claim" I was single. Anyone who goes through the sign up process for myspace.com will note that there are eight pages of categories to be edited for any given profile. I wrote two sentences in only one area which means the section referring to marital status just sticks to the default "single." If you don't believe me, then go try it yourself. Fill out the only section I cared to bother with, and see what happens. It will say you're single too.

This webspace is so unimportant to me I just deleted it. What purpose did it serve? For you to maintain that I was using it to "pimp" myself as single, is just the kind of thing I would expect of you. After all these years you're still stalking me and you're still talking about my wife. Does your own wife know of your fascination with me and my wife?

That page consisted of nothing more than a photo and the following statement: "I am new in town. I've been in Brazil the past few years. I live in Marietta and just getting used to the area."

That's it.

In the section that asks who I am "looking to meet," I put nothing. Myspace isn't a dating site. Yet, you suggest this page's existence is evidence that I have been "pimping" myself out.

Get a life Tradd.

Now apparently you have deleted all of the information, odd at that.

Why odd? If it were such an important website that occupied my time day in and day out, as you strongly imply, then why would I delete it at all? Because contrary to your nonsense, it means nothing to me.

I simply assumed you were getting divorced over your apostasy.

You assumed wrongly.

What is really going on?

As if that's really any of your business.

Why would you delete the information now?

I just told you. You just brought this to my attention. While I get occassional email requests by unknown spammers wishing to add themselves to my friends list, I haven't bothered to really do much with it since I opened it.

[_dartagnan]

That's flatly and demonstrably not true in the case of at least one reasonably well-known apologist.

Give me a break Dan. You were 98% the reason the mods got rid of me, so naturally you're going to say that. Brian Hauglid represented the other 2%. Do you have any idea how many other faithful FAIR members disagreed with the treatment I was getting? At the time I opened my own forum, which attracted more than a few other apologists from FAIR. Those who pretty much agree with what we are saying. Bcspace was just one of several. Dale was another. Others, I'm not sure if they still post at MADB.

That apologist vowed that he would not engage dart in conversation any more, on any topic, long prior to dart's announcement that dart had renounced Mormonism.

Whatever Dan. You sent me private emails out of the blue and after our last conversation via email, you told me you wouldn't talk to me anymore. You got upset because I was sharing with you, unflattering information about your "close friends" - your words. Up until that time, you would occassionally converse with me.

The fact is you cannot make a case for ignoring me on the basis of "unpleasant" views to which I hold. Remember, I once said Islam was the most intolerant religion in the world and that pissed you off to the point you refused to engage me on the subject again. Yet, when Robert Spencer says and argues the same exact thing, somehow he isn't a bigot and you act friendly towards him. You didn't call him a bigot did you? You're being a hypocrite unless you do. Spencer has argued more forcefully on this point, than I ever could.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As I recall, your main objection was his attitude towards Islam in particular. Am I correct?

Not entirely. There were other issues. (You can find any links, if you want them, as easily as I can.)

Besides, with regard to Islam, as dartagnan himself has noticed twice now, I've been willing to debate Robert Spencer twice -- on national radio and then before a large live audience in Las Vegas -- whereas, while dartagnan's views on Islam are essentially identical to Spencer's, I'm unwilling to interact with dartagnan. Dartagnan finds that puzzling.

[Guest]

I've been willing to debate Robert Spencer twice -- on national radio and then before a large live audience in Las Vegas -- whereas, while dartagnan's views on Islam are essentially identical to Spencer's, I'm unwilling to interact with dartagnan. Dartagnan finds that puzzling.

Not entirely. I understand the general Mormon attitude towards apostates. I'm the scum of the earth and not worth your time. You knew the path I was on as well as I did, but you also knew there was no apologetic remedy to steer me away. So you gave up.

Spencer on the other hand, hell, he might actually come around and join the gospel if you're nice enough to him. Gotta keep up appearances for the Church and all that jazz. Everyone knows you as the "Mormon" expert, after all.

Otherwise, how do you explain your willingness to converse with Spencer on the same topic? Remember, you were turned off by me when I merely relayed historic information about Muhammed. You asked for references and I provided numerous. You then informed the audience in dramatic fashion, that you would no longer be responding to me because you felt I was spiritually defective - among other things.

That was our very first engagement on the subject, so you cannot pretend to have had enough time to know my "attitude," and use that as a valid excuse.

[_beastie]

Not entirely. There were other issues. (You can find any links, if you want them, as easily as I can.)

No, I can't, because I don't know what other issues there were.

No comment on Pahoran's behavior, eh? Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to share some of his "Best Of"....

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, I can't, because I don't know what other issues there were.

Oh well.

No comment on Pahoran's behavior, eh? Maybe tomorrow I'll have time to share some of his "Best Of"....

Whatever floats your boat.