The Many Faces of William J. Hamblin

[Physics Guy]

On another thread, a great deal of speculation has taken place concerning Bill Hamblin's role in Mopologetics---both online and in print. Indeed, the more I have thought about this matter, the more I find that Hamblin's role is both mercurial and compelling. Despite the praise that has been heaped on "Number 2" by his friends and accomplices, I have come to the conclusions that Hamblin is a deeply flawed, arguably tragic figure in the world of Mopologetics. Forever aiming to achieve the heights of his best friend, Hamblin inevitably found himself playing second fiddle, perpetually relegated to "second chair," as another poster eloquently put it.

Unlike DCP, Hamblin has been more difficult to get a handle on. Partly this is due to his relatively subdued participation on the messageboards. But, I believe there is another reason. After having perused "The Angry Professor"'s articles, posts, and diatribes, and thanks to an invaluable "tip" I received from an "informant," I believe at last that we can take a deep and incisive look at Dr. William Hamblin.

In recent days, we have examined (and exhumed) such classic Hamblin material as his epithet-laced RfM diatribe, his FARMS Review smear piece on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview, and his "idiotic" Book of Mormon challenges. But, it turns out there is something even more interesting, buried very deep in the ZLMB archives.

It turns out that in the early days, Prof. Hamblin freely engaged in the role of the "anonymous coward," taunting posters and engaging in stereotypical Mopologetic arrogance and condescension under the protection of a variety of pseudonyms. I am not sure if this list is exhaustive, but I believe I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Bill Hamblin posted using the following false names:

Christodoulus
MorgbotX

Now, I could be wrong--perhaps Prof. Hamblin will materialize in order to explain about these pseudonyms--but it is interesting to observe that one of the "Lieutenants" of the Mopologetic movement would stoop to a tactic which is so frequently dismissed and criticized by high-ranking Mopologists. Many apologists, such as Pahoran, Rcrocket, Smac, and DCP lambaste critics for posting via aliases, and yet here was Professor Hamblin, engaging in some pretty rotten behavior under the guise of a nom de guerre.

I wanted to discuss one ZLMB thread in particular, though, because I believe it is especially illuminating in terms of the way it demonstrates Mopologetic feelings, motives, and tactics. The Z thread can be read in its entirety here:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/58 ... tml?page=1

You'll notice that the names of the posters have been deleted, thanks to an upgrade to that messageboard. However, you can usually decipher who said what by reading the quotations in the individual posts.

Anyhow, let's proceed. This thread began with an intriguing inquiry from our very own Gadianton. He asks:

Has anyone ever tried to translate the Book of Abraham into the relevant version of Egyptian from the time of Abraham?

Just curious if the concepts and narrative are even expressible in the Egyptian writting of that era. Hey, I'm not saying they arn't, it's just a question.

Hamblin, using the "Christodoulos" sockpuppet, responds with this:

Try Betz, Greek Magical Papyri. (Hellensitic-Roman period Egypt)
There the Egyptians invoke the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc. There is also a lioncouch scene associated with the name of Abraham. One of the papyrus Amherst collection has a Jewish Psalm transliterated into Egyptian.

Of course, it is possible that the original Abraham text was in a Canaanite dialect and was translated into Egyptian only in the syncretistic Hellenistic period. We need not posit a Middle Kingdom Egyptian text.

This all no doubt would have been fine and good save for the appearance of Hamblin's long-time nemesis, Brent "Butthead" Metcalfe.

Hi friends,

It seems to me that the locus for evaluating the linguistic origins of the BoAbr should be its onomasticon. The BoAbr identifies both the meaning and origin of several terms. For example, the Chaldean word "Rahleenos" ("Kahleenos" has the best manuscript support) is said to signify "hieroglyphics" (Abr. 1:14), and "Egyptus" supposedly signifies "Egypt" (which in turn signifies "that which is forbidden"; Abr. 1:23). Then there are the Egyptian words such as "Enish-go-on-dosh," which is said to mean the sun (Fac. 2:5), and "Jah-oh-eh," a name for the planet earth (Fac. 2:1).

On another front, we may even want to ask ourselves whether there are any good reasons for positing the existence of a historical Abraham at all. William Dever's latest tome seriously challenges the notion of a pre-Iron–Age Israel and disputes the complete historicity of biblical stories covering the Iron Age.

Cheers,

bReNt

With this one post, Metcalfe essentially throws down the gauntlet in the face of all the TBM defenders on the thread. This posed a problem in particular for Hamblin.

Technically speaking, it is impossible to prove that a given word in the Book of Abraham is not ancient. All you can say is that there is no known ancient equivalent; that is, there is no evidence that a particular word or name is ancient. Ancient languages are imperfectly known. Many ancient languages are attested in a single text. It is certain that there are many ancient languages which existed, but which have no surviving texts. (This is known because of foreign names found in texts of a different language.) Some scripts and languages remain undeciphered. In known languages it is certain that there are many words and names which have not survived. (We know this because nearly every new text find in archaeology produces new words and names.) Furthermore, many words and names survive in a single example.

Thus, if we do not find an ancient parallel to a word in the Book of Abraham, it may simply be that that term is as yet unattested. Technically that does not demonstrate that it is not an ancient. Remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If, on the other hand, we do find a word or name from the Book of Abraham attested in ancient texts, it does have positive evidentiary value, does it not Brent? There are only so many times you can say that Joseph just guessed right.

If there was any doubt that "Christodoulos" was Hamblin, this post ought to dispel them. Here one can see his characteristic "PoMo" logic and argumentative strategies, and one can also detect what appears to be a bit of insecurity pulsing beneath the polemics. The last sentence, in particular, hints at a rather deep frustration which is about to boil over.

Sadly for Hamblin, Metcalfe neatly demolishes his argument by way of specific, utterly logical example:

Hi CD,

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree on a few critical points.

[Christodoulos:] If, on the other hand, we do find a word or name from the Book of Abraham attested in ancient texts, it does have positive evidentiary value, does it not Brent?

No. Olishem, for example, didn't emerge in a vacuum. Its evidentiary value is tempered by the broader BoAbr onomasticon.

In the case of the name Olishem (Abr. 1:10), it doesn't take an internationally renowned Semiticist to see biblical phonetic elements, such as shem (cf. Noah's son Shem in Gen. 5:32 and passim). Unfortunately, the BoAbr doesn't tell readers what Olishem means or whether it's Egyptian, Chaldean, Hebrew, or something else, so interpreters can only speculate.

We have a very different situation with the word Enish-go-on-dosh (Fac. 2:5)—readers are told what the word means ("the Sun"), its language of origin (Egyptian), and are treated to a hyphenated presentation that assists in proper pronunciation. Egyptologists and Semiticists (both LDS and non-LDS) that I've spoken with not only say that such a word is unattested in Egyptian, but also that it doesn't resemble the phonemics of the linguistic families to which Egyptian belongs. In other words, Enish-go-on-dosh doesn't belong to any recognizable ancient linguistic family much less mean "the Sun" in Egyptian. This is just one of the multiple contexts for Olishem that require explanation.[/quote]

Later, after insisting that Metcalfe accept one of Hamblin's purported examples in favor of the Book of Abraham's historicity, Hamblin's frustration is amped up a notch:

without a proper accounting for the linguistic and other contexts in which it appears, no, I don't believe that it adds plausibility to BoAbr historicity.

CD
It is a remarkably revealing statement. A precise match with an ancient Semitic place-name from the proper linguistic context, region and time, and it still is unacceptable as evidence supporting the historicity Book of Abraham. I'm not saying proof. I'm not saying probability. I'm not even saying plausibility. I'm merely saying it is evidence in favor of historicity.

It would be hard to find a more clearcut example of presuppositions and conclusions controlling the data. It is really rather shocking.

Later, Hamblin attempted to pin Metcalfe into conceding that a bit of evidence would allow for the slim possibility that the Book of Abraham was "plausibly" an ancient text:

You misunderstand. I begin with asking if you think this evidence creates "some level of plausibility to the historicity of the Book of Abraham." You said no.

I then lowered the ante, so to speak, and asked if it is even "is evidence in favor of historicity."

Well, is it? Given the fact that the Book of Abraham contains a name that is precisely from the correct linguistic, geographical and chronological context--a name unknown in Joseph's day--does it allow us to say it is POSSIBLE that the Book of Abraham may be a translation of an ancient text?

Note the flaming of the word "possible."

Metcalfe responds with his usual calmness:

For the sake of argument, assuming that Olishem poses no conflict for the location of ancient Ur, and assuming that the "plain of Olishem" is a justifiable leap from a city or town, and assuming that etymology poses no problems (including for pronunciation), and assuming that John Gee knows what a Canaanite shift is, and assuming a coherent model of translation, and assuming a coherent model of revelation, and so on; still, your question is remarkably simplistic given the breadth and complexity of the data.

I would answer your question this way: assuming that all that you've claimed for Olishem is correct, for those unfamiliar with the data (including historical, linguistic, and text-critical) surrounding the production of the BoAbr, they may find temporary affirmation for the BoAbr as a translation of ancient text—however, for those who have immersed themselves in the data, Olishem is one of numerous elements that require contextualization and explanation. Put differently, does the presence of Olishem (and all that word implies for you) suddenly make Pharaoh's name appear above the head of Figure 2 in Facsimile 3, rendering Joseph Smith's "translation" correct? Absolutely not.

Thus, one can observe a mounting frustration in Bill "Christodoulos" Hamblin:

Of course I didn't claim that it did. You have a remarkable penchant for evading the question. I didn't ask you about your evaluation of the entire scope of the question of the Book of Abraham. Of course Olishem is one piece of data among many. I simply asked if it can be considered as evidence in favor of the historicity. you're still hedging. You almost make a real reply when you state those unfamiliar with the data m[a]y find temporary affirmation. Is a that a yes or a no?

Let me put it another way: is it a favorable piece of evidence that should be considered when evaluating the historicity of the Book of Abraham?

It is as if Hamblin is pitching cream puffs to Metcalfe, who simply bats them over the fence:

If you didn't gather it from my previous response, I'm saying that your question is far too simplistic given the complexity of the data. What's more, you expect an equally simplistic unqualified "Yes" or "No" answer. A rigorous analysis of Olishem demands that it be evaluated within "the entire scope" of the BoAbr question.

Hamblin responds with an attack on Metcalfe's intellectual integrity:

But before one can do that, one must first collect and evaluate the evidence. You see, proper methodology requires that collection of evidence must precede the formulation of theory and conclusion. If you always interpret all evidence only in light of your preconceptions and conclusions (i.e. atheism and Joseph as non-prophet), then no evidence will ever be found that might modify your presuppositions and conclusions. Of course all evidence is ultimately understandable and meaningful only in light of assumptions that give that evidence meaning. But if you are unable to temporarily suspend your presuppositions, and consider evidence in light of other extreme possibilities (to quote Muldar of the X-Files) based on alternative presuppositions, then your theory is controlling the data, not merely rendering it meaningful.

It seems apparent to me that your atheistic presuppositions are precluding considering the full range of possible interpretative meaning for the evidence. Eliminate the impossible Sherlock Holmes once said, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. For you, a Joseph-as-prophet model is impossible since God does not exist. Hence the Joseph-not-prophet model must be true, however improbable. Many will strain at all sorts of immense improbable camels because they are unwilling to swallow the gnat that God might exist.

At any rate, I suspect Ill never get a non-evasive answer from you.

And Metcalfe stings him right back:

Certainly not to the type of simplistic, black-and-white question that you've posed. My point is uncomplicated and uncontroversial: in any rigorous analysis the explanatory force of a given piece of evidence must be evaluated from the broader context in which that evidence is situated. That I don't embrace your brand of supernaturalism has little to do with the discussion at hand.

by the way, your appeal to a fictitious Agent Mulder (from the X-Files) to explain your sense of reality is especially telling. ;^)

On page 3 of the thread, Hamblin's frustration spilled over into anger:

Lets see if I can summarize the state of the debate.

1- Brent refuses to accept any evidentiary value for the fact that the toponym Olishem has been discovered from recently found ancient documents from the proper time, place and language related to Abraham.

2- Brent chokes on a view of God whose revelation is fallible. You see, the God I believe inthe one who can deliver fallible revelations and often leaves the prophet to study things out in his mind--is different from the God Brent doesn't believe in. Face it Brent, since you don't believe in God, all of this is purest nonsensical speculation from your perspective. Why do you care what are the characteristics of the God you don't believe in? After all, he doesn't exist. You can not believe anything you want about him.

3- Brent claims: Not too infrequently theists want their cake and eat it too, offering arguments whose premises are incompatible. What you should be doing, instead, is creating your own consistent, coherent evidence-based theory to explain all of Josephs revelations on a purely human level. Unfortunately, this you never doand indeed cannot do. The two books you edited contain several inherently inconsistent and incompatible theories on the origin of Joseph Smiths revelation. Notice that Brent never tries to create such a coherent theory of his own, nor does he defend this theory against rival secular or evangelical theories. Rather, he will ignore the inconsistencies and use any theory as long as it is critical of the Church.

4- While demanding we formulate a coherent view of the revelation of the Book of Mormon, Brent fails to tell us why a fictional Book of Mormon is just as inspired as a historical Book of Mormon. Now that's coherence!

5- Brent (wisely) refuses to answer this question: If God can reveal a precise word to Joseph, does that mean that everything Joseph believes is an infallible revelation? He also refuses to deal with its corollary: According to Brents theory, if I say the word Olishem to Brent, not only does that make me infallible but furthermoreGod forbidit makes Brent infallible too. Not only that, but everything that Brent believes or says thereafter is also inerrant! Do you believe that Brent? If not, why should God speaking to Joseph make both that act of revelation infallible, AND all subsequent beliefs and statements infallible as well?

6- Brent seems incapable of understanding that there are alternatives in infallible revelation, that there are many possible ways the word Olishem was revealed and ended up on paper.

7- So far Brent has not told us if he thinks human language is an inherently infallible means of communication. If it is not, how can revelations in human language be infallible?

8- I think it is pretty clear that Brent is not really interested in examining all the alternatives, but in merely attempting to create an inerrantist straw man that he can use in his attacks against the Church.

At this point, a Hamblin fan might have hoped that one of Prof. H.'s friends would have swooped in and advised him to hit the "eject" button. But, he carried on. What followed was an intensely revealing moment in the history of online Mopologetics. Prof. Hamblin had had enough, and he allowed his anger and frustration to get the best of him. Here, he takes an incredible cheap shot at Metcalfe:

Are you going to answer my questions Brent? It is getting rather noisome playing by your rules.

First, you insist on telling me that inerrancy is the only possible model for revelation. You refuse to consider any possible alternative.
Second, you refuse to even consider any evidence that is contrary to your theory.
Third, you refuse to answer most questions related to the issues you raise. Why won't you answer the questions?
Fourth, you insist that a manuscript, which you alone possess, (and which you aquired under somewhat dubious circumstances), proves all your points. But you refuse to publish it or show it to anyone. Will you post full size color photos of the manuscripts on your web page? If not, why should I possibly be interested in discussing the issue with you? You can claim the manuscript says anything you want. Considering the highly fallible nature of your interpretations of evidence in the past, and your tenacious bias and prejudice on the matters of LDS origins, why should I think your interpretation of the manuscript evidence is accurate?

(emphasis added)

"Dubious circumstances"? For those who don't know, Metcalfe was acquainted with Steve Christensen, who was deeply involved with Mormon document trading during the early 1980s. Christensen was later murdered by Mark Hoffman, and part of Mopologetic lore and gossip had to do with the supposed "dubious" rumor that Metcalfe had acquired photos of the Book of Abraham papyri from Christensen's widow. (This was a rumor which, according to Kevin Graham, was being peddled by John Tvedtnes.) One wonders where Hamblin might have heard such a thing. Certainly, it wasn't from Metcalfe himself, who immediately went on to correct Professor H.

In a subsequent post, gtaggart, who is notorious for his smear tactics, tries to back up Christodoulos/Hamblin:

Brent,

Could you please explain how you got the color photos? CD is not the first one to say that you got them less than, maybe, honestly. And I remember reading that Steven Christensen was a little embarrassed about his involvement in the deal, but I'm not sure even that is true--my memory of that, that is. So would you mind giving us the story of the Color KEP?

And Hamblin proceeds to dig himself in even more deeply:

Note I said somewhat dubious circumstances. My understanding is that Steven Christensen was given permission to photograph the manuscripts by the Church. The photographs nonetheless remained the possession of the Church. They were temporarily lent to Christensen. Christensen then lent you one of two copies for research purposes, but not as your private possession. When your friend Mark Hoffman murdered Christensen, the photographs technically reverted to Christensens estate, or perhaps even the Church. You, nonetheless kept possession of them. Thus, as I understand it, you were not given permission to make the photographs. You did not make the photographs. You did not pay for the photography. You were lent the photographs on a temporary basis by your employer Christensen, but were not given possession of the photographs. They happened to be in your possession when Christensen was murdered. You kept them.

All of this may be wrong. If so, I apologize. But this is the story that I've heard several times from different sources. If I've got it wrong, Id love to hear the correct story. Perhaps you can clarify the record. Do you have a copy of Christensens will where they are deeded to you? Do you have a letter from Christensen or the Church giving you possession of the photographs? Do you have a receipt indicating you purchased them? Or some other similar evidence of ownership?

If the photographs are clearly and unequivocally your possession, are you going to post photographs of the manuscripts on the web so we can all have a look and evaluate your interpretations?

Clearly, one can see that Hamblin is trying very hard to paint Metcalfe in an unfavorable light, apparently all on the basis of rumor and innuendo. But, Metcalfe goes on to clarify, dispelling all of the vicious rumor-mongering:

Hi Greg and CD,

You should pick your rumor mills more judiciously. I can barely recognize the stories that you spin about my color photos. Steve Christensen, embarrassed? What a ridiculous tale, Greg. Bequeathed in Steve's "will"? CD, please (OK, you did make me smile).

I've already related the events surrounding my acquisition of the color photos of the BoAbr collection multiple times on ZLMB, so let me try again.

In the mid-80's, my friend Steve Christensen commissioned me and Ed Ashment to write a BoAbr commentary. Ed secured permission for LDS archivist Donald Schmidt to have the BoAbr collection professionally photographed. Steve hired the same photographer who had photographed the now infamous "salamander letter" to photograph the collection. Two complete sets of photographs were taken—color and b-&-w. If memory serves, Steve paid approx. $10,000 for the photographs. Steve gave me and Ed Ashment each a set of the color photos. For financial reasons the project was abandoned. Prior to his death, Steve sold the negatives to George Smith for an undisclosed amount.

But none of this has anything to do with the silly apologetic theories of BoAbr origins, now does it? It's simply another smoke screen blown by tabloidesque apologists who have neither a coherent nor an evidence-based argument with which to defend BoAbr historicity.

Cheers,

bReNt

Many apologists claim that they do not engage in "smear tactics," but this would seem to blow that claim to pieces. Indeed, this may be the ugliest attempt at a smear that I have ever seen in all my time surveying Mopologetics---a that is saying quite a lot. And I am not alone in feeling appalled. The highly respected poster called Addictio weighed in:

Just in passing, of course, cd remarks to Brent:

"When your friend Mark Hoffman murdered Christensen ...."

And later:

"They happened to be in your possession when Christensen was murdered. You kept them."

The latter two sentences are at the end of a paragraph in which cd expresses his "understanding" of a complex set of legal relationships, all of which are noted for the purpose of calling into question Brent's legal entitlement to posssess the photographs.

Let me see if I've got it straight. Brent's friend, Mark Hoffman, murdered Christensen. As a result of the murder, Brent was able to maintain possession of some photographs that he had no legal right to. Keeping something one has no legal right to is known as theft. So, through a murder committed by his friend, Brent was able to commit theft.

Is that it, cd? Am I at least getting close, getting warm? Dimly catching your (studiously insouciant) innuendo?

But wait, let's see. What (in the world) does this have to do with the merits, with the historical question of Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham?

Oh, I get it now. Silly me. Take a ticket. Get in line. Long before we can ever get to the merits of mere historical issues, there are these much more pressing, political concerns. Like whether the dark accuser Sarah Pratt is indeed -- hmm, along with cd, I'm really just curious, you understand -- a whore from her mother's breast.

Hamblin rather desperately tries to back out of the situation:

CD
Good grief. I never said any such thing. Perhaps I worded the rumor poorly, but I certainly did not mean to imply that Brent conspired with Hoffman so he could get the photographs! What nonsense.

Ah. It was merely the result of "poor wording." The thread continued, with gtaggart continuing to play Prosecuting Attorney, and trying to pit Richard Turley's account from Victims against Metcalfe's, and with Hamblin attempting a victory dance over Metcalfe alleged "stonewalling." Of course, none of this material had anything whatsoever to do with the basic issue of the Book of Abraham's authenticity. Mopologists frequently complain about lack of "substantive" discussion on the messageboards, but this threat proves that they are every bit as guilty of this problem as critics.

In any event, there is really no way that I could offer concluding remarks that are any more plangent and accurate than the ones which were posted on the original thread. Here, to wrap things up, I give you Beastie (a.k.a. Seven of Niine):

Good grief. I never said any such thing. Perhaps I worded the rumor poorly, but I certainly did not mean to imply that Brent conspired with Hoffman so he could get the photographs! What nonsense.

The nonsense was your insertion of the words "your friend" in front of Mark Hofmann's name. Maybe you fool yourself about such tactics, but I doubt you fool many others, except perhaps those winking in collusion with the tactic in the first place.

This sort of antic, along with repeating rumors and preferring those rumors to the corrections of the one person actually directly involved in the situation, are far more revealing about you than they are about Brent.

(bold emphasis ibid)

[_Nightingale]

Scratch:
"In recent days, we have examined (and exhumed) such classic Hamblin material as his epithet-laced RfM diatribe, his FARMS Review smear piece on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview, and his "idiotic" Book of Mormon challenges. But, it turns out there is something even more interesting, buried very deep in the ZLMB archives."

Could you be so kind as to point me to this thread? I tried a search but there are so many hits on "Hamblin". :)

Thanks.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch:
"In recent days, we have examined (and exhumed) such classic Hamblin material as his epithet-laced RfM diatribe, his FARMS Review smear piece on Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview, and his "idiotic" Book of Mormon challenges. But, it turns out there is something even more interesting, buried very deep in the ZLMB archives."

Could you be so kind as to point me to this thread? I tried a search but there are so many hits on "Hamblin". :)

Thanks.

Sure, Nightingale, but I'm not quite sure which "thread" you're referring to... Do you mean the ZLMB thread? If so, I linked to it in my OP.

[_Nightingale]

Oh. I thought that "examining and exhuming" meant a thread on this board. Or a discussion here about it? I was particularly interested in the "RfM rant", among others, that you mention. I recall one on RfM that I considered very racist, back when I had first started reading there. I remember being shocked by it. Apparently, it was not meant to be racist. However, it came across that way to me and many others. It wasn't just a knee jerk reaction to a Mormon apologist as if we will automatically reject and ridicule everything he would say. It was shock that he would think such blatant comments would be understood as part of civil discussion. If I am thinking of the same post as you I remember saying it would "go down in infamy" or words to that effect, lol. That was my honest reaction to a post he wrote, way back before I understood much about apologetics or even knew who Bill Hamblin was. I remember having to Google him.

So. Is that the one? :)

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh. I thought that "examining and exhuming" meant a thread on this board. Or a discussion here about it?

Yes. We have been discussing Dr. Hamblin on at least one (and perhaps a couple of other) threads on this board. Cf., in particular, the one called "Bill Hamblin's idiotic Book of Mormon challenges."

I was particularly interested in the "RfM rant", among others, that you mention. I recall one on RfM that I considered very racist, back when I had first started reading there. I remember being shocked by it. Apparently, it was not meant to be racist. However, it came across that way to me and many others. It wasn't just a knee jerk reaction to a Mormon apologist as if we will automatically reject and ridicule everything he would say. It was shock that he would think such blatant comments would be understood as part of civil discussion. If I am thinking of the same post as you I remember saying it would "go down in infamy" or words to that effect, lol. That was my honest reaction to a post he wrote, way back before I understood much about apologetics or even knew who Bill Hamblin was. I remember having to Google him.

So. Is that the one? :)

Yes, I was talking about the RfM post in which he repeatedly drops the "k-bomb," if you know what I mean. I, too, found it absolutely distasteful and appalling, and I too felt that it was very "racist". If you read the other thread, you'll see that his good buddy Professor Peterson felt that Hamblin's comments were spot-on; he affirmed that Hamblin's hate speech was "worth saying" and "correct".

Anyways, the disgusting outburst has been memorialized in cyberspace, over at FAIR. The incredibly scholarly poster called "Tom" was kind enough to supply a link:

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/The ... space.html

[_harmony]

His name wasn't Addiction, it was Addictio, and good gosh almighty, but I miss him!

[_EAllusion]

I remember that thread. More of Hamblin's epic debate skills on display there. Lucky for us he isn't around. You can almost hear the theme from Halloween playing in the background as you read.

[_Mister Scratch]

His name wasn't Addiction, it was Addictio, and good gosh almighty, but I miss him!

Ah, yes, of course. Thank you for pointing that out, Harmony. I will amend the post immediately.

[_Dr. Shades]

Remember, in addition to "Christodoulus" and "MorgbotX," Hamblin went by the alias "Taghribardi."

I perceive Hamblin as being an apologist prone to tantrums if he goes too long without getting his way.

[_bcspace]

Enish-go-on-dosh

Out of curiosity, what are the ancient Egyptian words for planet and sun?