Tvedtnes: Author of "more than 300" articles?

[_JustMe]

Gad

I suggest next time you set out to correct someone with my track record of clear hits and careful research, that you familiarize yourself with the literature first.

I hope you've learned a valuable lesson today.

I not only know the correct literature, I know the author. I learned my lesson real well. I learned that you damn sure don't have the inside track with Tvedtnes that I do. And I don't give a rat's ass how careful your squirrely, biased research is, your mind reading and misinterpretation of Tvedtnes's motifs, beliefs, ideas, and research flat suck.

[_Gadianton]

You can dance around all day and claim you know the auther, the fact of the matter is, the auther stated,

On another occasion, I was agitated by a booklet written by Brenton Yorgason, Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon,

In black and white, he admits to being agitated by Brenton. He was annoyed, or peeved, contrary to what you said in ignorance. He even contrasted this state of agitation with his lack of feelings while reading the Tanners yet still being critical of them.

You can't get out of this one. He admitted it plainly.

[_JustMe]

You can dance around all day and claim you know the auther, the fact of the matter is, the auther stated,

On another occasion, I was agitated by a booklet written by Brenton Yorgason, Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon,

In black and white, he admits to being agitated by Brenton. He was annoyed, or peeved, contrary to what you said in ignorance. He even contrasted this state of agitation with his lack of feelings while reading the Tanners yet still being critical of them.

You can't get out of this one. He admitted it plainly.

There is nothing to get out of. I asked John Himself and gave the response. So being agitated is now something of a crime? You go to such ridiculous lengths to refute something and it merely ends up a little agitation? If that's all you have, you need help. I did not speak in ignorance you moron, I had John's words himself from this morning. Rather unlike you, I know the man and talk to him daily. I find it better to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, rather than straight from the horse's ass. John is the mouth, need you hear who I consider the other end?

[_Ray A]

I find it better to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, rather than straight from the horse's ass.

Which reminds me, you have a PM box. Maybe you should check it once in a while.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I suggest next time you set out to correct someone with my track record of clear hits and careful research, that you familiarize yourself with the literature first.

I hope you've learned a valuable lesson today.

Gad, that's funny.

I'm beginning to think that you're actually better at this than Scartch.

[_Gadianton]

It doesn't matter what he told you or what you're telling me he told you. His thoughts are published in the article I mention, and it proves I'm right. And you're wrong.

Now you're moving the goal posts. Whether or not it's a crime to be "peeved" or "agitated" isn't at issue. At issue is, you got up on your high horse and scolded me for claiming, in your paraphrase of me, that he wasn't "peeved". You tried to spin it as such that he simply gave a harsh review with no emotional response. And I pointed out clearly, that this is not the case, in fact, he contrasted the case of his clear emotional response of "agitation" to Brenton with an example, the Tanners, where he claims he had a critical perspective but sans any "agitation".

[_Gadianton]

I suggest next time you set out to correct someone with my track record of clear hits and careful research, that you familiarize yourself with the literature first.

I hope you've learned a valuable lesson today.

Gad, you're my hero.

lol. No, It is you, Shades, Mister Scratch, Trevor, and Ray that I am in awe of.

[_Daniel Peterson]

lol. No, It is you, Shades, Mister Scratch, Trevor, and Ray that I am in awe of.

Don't take it seriously, Ray and Trevor. He's joking. (Wink wink.)

[_Trevor]

Don't take it seriously, Ray and Trevor. He's joking. (Wink wink.)

I am such a jumbled mixture of emotions right now. ;-)

[_harmony]

In black and white, he admits to being agitated by Brenton. He was annoyed, or peeved, contrary to what you said in ignorance. He even contrasted this state of agitation with his lack of feelings while reading the Tanners yet still being critical of them.

You can't get out of this one. He admitted it plainly.

I'm not sure "agitated" correlates all that well with "annoyed" or "peeved". One can be one without being the other.