Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon ''challenges''

[_Calculus Crusader]

Incidentally, Dr. Peterson, from which federal or state authority did Smith receive his commission as Lieutenant General?

[_Calculus Crusader]

his community of dupes

How old are you, CC? You come across as a rather belligerent adolescent.

You're too bright to behave like poor antishock8 and Some Schmo and collegeterrace/PP. They apparently have no other intellectual tools. You do.

Thank you for appealing to my vanity but this is an instance of calling a spade a spade.

I believe you are too bright to defend Joseph Smith's patent falsehoods.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't share your opinion about Joseph Smith.

And I don't share your apparent conviction that civility is dispensable in religious disagreements.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the SMPT (where I will be presenting shortly)

Really? What's your paper on?

[_Gadianton]

the SMPT (where I will be presenting shortly)

Really? What's your paper on?

I guess you'll find out when you read it, or hear the presentation. ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I guess you'll find out when you read it, or hear the presentation.

LOL. The Scratchite charge that I'm "evasive" is in the process of losing its credibility, or, at least, what little moral force it imagined itself able to claim.

You were going to present an exposé of "Mopologetics" -- a sort of Scratchist creed, I suppose. Perhaps you've thought better of that.

[_Gadianton]

I guess you'll find out when you read it, or hear the presentation.

LOL. The Scratchite charge that I'm "evasive" is in the process of losing its credibility, or, at least, what little moral force it imagined itself able to claim.

You were going to present an exposé of "Mopologetics" -- a sort of Scratchist creed, I suppose. Perhaps you've thought better of that.

Yes you have a point, but that's why I did implement the smiley face. I'll repent for this, but I couldn't help take the opportunity to put you in the "textual mirror". Oh, we have to drop everything and spill our guts when you ask a question, but when we ask a question, you can just blow it off and answer in sarcasm.

I guess as part of my repentance, I can give you this much information. The subject matter of my presentation hasn't changed. You may just have assumed though, that my presentation would be a straightforward list of charges against apologetics. Well, I wouldn't anticipate that such a paper would be accepted since it wouldn't be philosophical, even if the reviewers were impressed as I think they would be. My paper is philosophical, and delves into the deep structure of Mopologetics, though I don't use that term, as I explore my subject in philosophical language.

[_Mister Scratch]

You were going to present an exposé of "Mopologetics" -- a sort of Scratchist creed, I suppose. Perhaps you've thought better of that.

Yes you have a point, but that's why I did implement the smiley face. I'll repent for this, but I couldn't help take the opportunity to put you in the "textual mirror". Oh, we have to drop everything and spill our guts when you ask a question, but when we ask a question, you can just blow it off and answer in sarcasm.

I guess as part of my repentance, I can give you this much information. The subject matter of my presentation hasn't changed. You may just have assumed though, that my presentation would be a straightforward list of charges against apologetics. Well, I wouldn't anticipate that such a paper would be accepted since it wouldn't be philosophical, even if the reviewers were impressed as I think they would be. My paper is philosophical, and delves into the deep structure of Mopologetics, though I don't use that term, as I explore my subject in philosophical language.

I admire Dr. Robbers's Christ-like humility here, and his willingness to go forth with a contrite spirit.

Also, I have to extend major congratulations to him for getting his paper accepted for the upcoming conference. I can tell you that it will be a real doozy. Those who hear it will no doubt be very impressed. The congratulations will make the congratulations of the Yale conference seem staid and calm by comparison

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, we have to drop everything and spill our guts when you ask a question

I very seldom ask questions about posters. And, when I do, it's about whether or not they've read something, or something of that sort. You said that you're presenting a paper at SMPT, which is a public meeting. I see nothing problematic about asking what your paper is about.

I'm the one who's been subjected to a ridiculous three-year-long Scratchoscopy that incessantly seeks information on my income, my employment contract, who my friends are, how much I travel, how I pay for my travel, my teaching schedule, etc., etc., etc.

I guess as part of my repentance, I can give you this much information. The subject matter of my presentation hasn't changed. You may just have assumed though, that my presentation would be a straightforward list of charges against apologetics. Well, I wouldn't anticipate that such a paper would be accepted since it wouldn't be philosophical, even if the reviewers were impressed as I think they would be. My paper is philosophical, and delves into the deep structure of Mopologetics, though I don't use that term, as I explore my subject in philosophical language.

I take it that your paper has been accepted?

[_EAllusion]

Hmmm. I forgot about that Gad. I don't know where Hamblin is at now, but he used to have a pretty naïve falsificationist view on the nature of science he used to back arguments. His knee-knock inducing skills in reasoned discourse didn't rescue him there.

I can add here that I remember that Hamblin also once tried some naïve presuppositional arguments. I'm sure you remember those.