Stendahl's Rules

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:You have revealed yourself to be a gross hypocrite.

LOL.

Didn't I do that years ago, according to Scratchist dogma?

Old news.

Mister Scratch wrote:You argue in the essay/presentation that Europe and the American liberal media "have it in" for Mormons. Would you care to deny this yet again?

Sure!

I deny it yet again.

Most Europeans and most in the American liberal media care little and know less about Mormons and Mormonism. But they're not disposed to view it positively when they come across it. (This is scarcely controversial, I should think.)

Mister Scratch wrote:Or should I pull up the quote for everyone to read?

Whatever floats your malevolent little skiff, Scratch.

I don't believe what you're ascribing to me, and I didn't say it. You might be able to spin a quote in an attempt to portray me as having said it. I've seen your methods. You're clever, in that way.

Mister Scratch wrote:Or, better yet: should I provide a link to Bob McCue's stunningly fair-minded evisceration of your utterly illogical, mean-spirited, "drama queen" whine-fest?

Yes. It would be much better for your purposes, if you're going to falsely ascribe things to me, to use a critic's alleged summary of my position than to quote me myself.

Mister Scratch wrote:Which ones aren't funny?

#2301, #3476, #4569, and #7532 are very poor.

As for the rest of your bizarre screed -- especially your weird paragraph-rant ridiculing me, because I purportedly engage in un-Christian ridicule, as a devotee of the Flintstones [???] who was supposedly forbidden by my mommy and daddy to watch Saturday Night Live and Milton Berle [!] -- well, I genuinely think you're unhinged. You should try to go a day or two without obsessing about me. Baby steps.

And get help.
_Joey
_Emeritus
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _Joey »

Peterson wrote:You should try to go a day or two without obsessing about me. Baby steps.


Incidentally, my comments about Harmony's propensity toward violence weren't really aimed at Harmony. They were, of course, aimed at Scratch.


Kettle, the, black, pot, calling, that's, if, the, not.

Something applicable in the above I believe.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:I'll tell you what is really, *REALLY* funny, from this thread:
1. Peterson's Rule. I guess it must have escaped your notice that this is really just a re-worded version of argumentum ad populum. Or, have you been taking even more lessons from Droopy, thus coming to the conclusion that logic is pointless and useless when applied to religion? In either case: D'oh! And thanks for the laugh! Hopefully, your massively evolved, utterly sharp sense of humor will allow you to see the fundamental funniness behind this astonishingly boneheaded error on your part.

2. This is the real humdinger: here I have a hardcore, TBM Mormon apologist trying to tell me that I am somehow "humorless." Oh really? Isn't the LDS Church the same organization that teaches its members to treat modern humor in a comprehensively uptight and Victorian way? "Oh my heck! He just said the 's' word!" That's what really funny, Dan. It's transparently obvious that your sense of humor is so Flintstonian and quaint that the notion of you trying to accuse pretty much anyone of being "humorless" is, well....hilarious. (Really---the Marx Brothers? That is your touchstone for what's funny? Did your mommy and daddy forbid you from watching the naughty, raunchy stuff like Milton Berle, or Saturday Night Live?)

In any case: carry on. Your wit is just so modern! So charming! So intelligent! You are so *kind* and Christlike in your ridicule! I'm in awe of it! Let us offer up a prayer in thanks!

Great stuff.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Great stuff.


Not anywhere near as great as this:

DCP wrote:This is not merely disagreement; you are bearing false witness against me, and you will, I believe, someday have to account for it. You have the temporary advantage of what, in this context, strikes me as a rather cowardly anonymity. But that will not save you from the accounting.



But I will deny as false, and slanderously so, your depiction of my attitude and behavior toward Mike Quinn as “venomous,” “sick,” and the like. This is not only untrue, but libelous. Nor did I ever suggest that it was Quinn’s homosexuality that has kept him from getting a job, or that it ought to do so. You traduce me when you publicly say such things, and you will someday be obliged to acknowledge the falsehood and injustice of your public accusations.


I do not take this lightly. I’m not joking, and this is not a game. As God is my witness, what you are saying is false, and I will so testify.


I will have no further dealings with you, so far as I can avoid them. In my eyes, whatever claim you may once have had to the moral high ground -- and I was more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- has now been forfeited. Your behavior is contemptible and unwarranted.



Don't answer. At this point, I don't care. You are beneath notice.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

I stand by those statements, of course. You've sought to defame me for three years, and you'll someday account for it. I believe that all of us are ultimately accountable for our actions.

Unfortunately, I've found you a bit too bizarre to ignore completely. One of these days, though, I'll have had enough -- I've come very close several times -- and your weirdness just won't be enough to overcome my weariness.
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Stendahl's Rules

Post by _solomarineris »

Daniel Peterson wrote:solomarineris, Joseph Smith had very positive things to say about Catholics, Methodists, etc. I know too much about him to be able to swallow your attempt to depict him as a religious bigot. (I gave a speech on his attitude toward other religions a few years back, at National Taiwan University. Maybe I'll publish it sometime.)


I didn't use "religious bigot" for Joseph Smith. I'm not depicting him as anything.
What are you gonna do? Change Book of Mormon to suit your analysis of Joseph?
What is written is written, w'out going detail even the core of Temple Ceremony depends from that precept Joseph Smith put forth when he laid out Mormon Doctrine.
As Art Bulla aptly says your mission is watering down true Mormon Doctrine.
This Church quit teaching main elements of core principles long ago.
Van Hale puts it best "Work in Progress".
Post Reply