The Many Faces of William J. Hamblin

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks for posting that, Brackite. Paul's posts always made me smile. I wonder what happened to that guy?

[_Runtu]

Thanks for posting that, Brackite. Paul's posts always made me smile. I wonder what happened to that guy?

I've wondered the same thing. Last time I heard from him, he was condemning all of us MDBers to hell. One thing you could say about Paul O: he believed Joseph Smith was right, and he refused to play the games that other apologists do in trying to excuse the Book of Abraham.

[_Dr. Shades]

One thing you could say about Paul O: he believed Joseph Smith was right, and he refused to play the games that other apologists do in trying to excuse the Book of Abraham.

That's absolutely right. Paul Osborne was a Chapel Mormon extraordinaire, all the more rare because you could find him here on the Internet.

You've gotta love a believing Mormon who calls FARMS to repentance. :-)

[_Gadianton]

You are so right, Dr. Robbers. Then again, I have presented a mountain of evidence that FARMS/SHIELDS Mopologists engage in smear tactics, and DCP--and other apologists--will not cop to it. The poster on the Z thread known as "FreeThinker" said that Hamblin/Christodoulos had every right to "feel frustrated." Should I feel the same way? Or, will the Mopologists fess up?

Allow me to shed some light on the smear tactics.

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?

This is a vicious, slanderous slew of nefariously crafted questions. No doubt that Satan enjoyed this post a great deal. Had he been sincere, since Brent is right there on the thread, he would have stopped at "...clarify the record." Then, he could have asked any needed questions afterward. Instead, he offered an insincere apology in advance, and continued on with his patented rapid-fire question-asking, rhetorical question asking that is, and these questions are of course, only relevant in the context of the rumor that he is assuming is true despite his pretended interest in first clarifying that point. We've seen his general "question asking" tactic before, recall from my review of Hamblin's crusade against professor Hauck,

In one place where Hauck makes an archaeological claim Hamblin doesn't think holds water, Hamblin challenges by retorting with a harrassing barrage of rhetorical questions,

But who predicted it? Where is the modern location? What Book of Mormon site is referred to? Who conducted the archaeological dig? What professional journal published the findings? Who reviewed the findings?

When Hamblin is sure he's right, and his opponent screwed, he goes into rapid-fire questioning mode, mimicking a caricature of a prosecuting attorny who's trying to blurt out as many accusations in the form of questions as he can before the inevitable "Objection!" is called.

The fact that he'd use this tactic right after first claiming to want clarification makes his position doubly "dubious".

To his credit, after Brent came back with what appeared to be a very unexpected reply, he immediately backed down and played the "everything's cool" card.

[_harmony]

He's definitely not as sloppy a communicator as you are a reader.

What he also said doesn't excuse what he said and what I quoted.

He said:

1. that Brent had aquired (I can't believe he misspelled this) photos under somewhat dubious circumstances. He offers no proof, no evidence, nothing to substantiate his claim... and you're okay with that?

He went on to say:
2. that he listened to numerous gossipy rumors from several different sources, none of which he ever substantiated. Has he never heard the conference talks about avoiding gossip and rumors? Never read the Ensignarticles on gossip and rumors? He feels comfortable trashing the reputation of another, based only on gossip and rumors, and you're okay with that?

He went on to say:
3. that he feels he is entitled to ask and demand answers to personal questions, the like of which you, Daniel, refuse to answer... like his demand for legal documents establishing ownership of something that Bro Hamblin is not entitled to know, as he had no legal standing at all. I'm surprised you think it's okay for Bro Hamblin to require this information, when you continually refuse to provide similiar information regarding your income while chairman of the board of FARMS.

My reading skills are just fine. It's my understanding of your dismissal of the seriousness of your friend's actions that is lacking. He made an ass of himself, on the record, in print, and you are backing him up. Friendship is one thing; I'm all for supporting one's friends. But when they're obviously wrong, and it's glaringly apparent that Bro Hamblin is seriously wrong in his accusation... personal integrity demands an acknowledgment of that, at the very least.

[_Ray A]

That's absolutely right. Paul Osborne was a Chapel Mormon extraordinaire, all the more rare because you could find him here on the Internet.

So Paul is:

1) A Chapel Mormon.

2) An Internet Mormon.

???

[_Brackite]

Hello,

The Web Site Page of Paul O. is now currently offline.
However, You can access the Web Site Page of Paul O. from February of 2007, By clicking on this Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/200702120705 ... ology.net/

[_Daniel Peterson]

Allow me to shed some light on the smear tactics.

Will you follow it up with some lectures on yeti DNA?

This is a vicious, slanderous slew of nefariously crafted questions.

Nonsense.

he offered an insincere apology. . . his pretended interest

You still don't seem to have received Mister Scratch's memo about pretended mind-reading.

But then, of course, he doesn't either.

We've seen his general "question asking" tactic before, recall from my review of Hamblin's crusade against professor Hauck

Not very memorable, I'm afraid.

When Hamblin is sure he's right, and his opponent screwed, he goes into rapid-fire questioning mode

See the amazing Professor Whimsy reveal the secret motivations of his enemies! Watch as he performs death-defying feats of hostile misreading! Gasp with horrified amazement as he pulls nonsense out of a hat!

[_Daniel Peterson]

So Paul is:

1) A Chapel Mormon.

2) An Internet Mormon.

???

Shades's dichotomy is, and has always been, tendentious and silly.

That's why even the folks at Sunstone rejected it.

[_harmony]

That's why even the folks at Sunstone rejected it.

Somebody died and made Sunstone the only arbitrator of things LDS? I was not aware of that. What did the good people at Sunstone think of Truth Dancer's presentation? Or Addictio's?