Kerry Shirts and the "Impossible Sit-Up"

[_Doctor Scratch]

That said, you might find it ironic that our little chats serve as diverting entertainment for some people who you probably wouldn't even think inclined to follow the goings on here. And yet they do. In fact, in conversation this past weekend with a certain prominent individual in this group, he asked me how I managed to remain so patient and self-deprecating in the face of such abject ignorance and vicious attacks.

Who, Will? Prof. Daniel Peterson has claimed repeatedly that he is the only one, among Mopologetic notables, who follows the goings-on here. Is he wrong? Uninformed? Lying? Please feel free to enlighten us.

[_Kishkumen]

I certainly don't deny that, in the view of the denizens of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™ I am a fountain of "braggadocio, crapola, empty promises" and "mindless insults". And most certainly an "ignorant lightweight." Indeed, I glory in your denigration.

There is an apt saying that covers it all: put up or shut up. Somehow, you never got the message. Instead, you waltz in here with declarations about how you are about to be vindicated by some great group of mighty academic authorities for the important work you have done. I think it is fair to say that you come off as someone prone to exaggerate the importance of his meager contribution to one of the byways of an apologetic struggle that is essentially a lost cause. The only question that remains is how lost it is.

Exhibit A of your M.O.:

That said, you might find it ironic that our little chats serve as diverting entertainment for some people who you probably wouldn't even think inclined to follow the goings on here. And yet they do. In fact, in conversation this past weekend with a certain prominent individual in this group, he asked me how I managed to remain so patient and self-deprecating in the face of such abject ignorance and vicious attacks. I told him that it's quite easy: "I know that most of the arguments I've made [the ones related to Book of Abraham questions] are about to be vindicated in ways and in places where they will not be subject to facile contradiction. I know what's going on. They don't. And the more they commit themselves to the posture that I am the blithering idiot in this picture, the more painful it's going to be for them when it becomes undeniably apparent to reasonable people that I'm not."

Why would I find it ironic? Do you even know what the word means? Is it ironic that an LDS apologist would derive entertainment by following the criticisms of people he deems to be almost beneath his contempt? I think it is a relatively well established fact, especially given the collection of materials on SHIELDS, that LDS apologists positively salivate over the opportunity to do just that. Again, where's the irony here? Certainly not in your lack of command of the English language.

Again, I am open to being proven wrong, or to seeing Kevin and Chris proven wrong, but your endless parade of triumphalism concerning achievements and events that have yet to come about is not only tedious, it is also pathetic. Do come back when you have been exonerated by the experts. I will only be too happy to read it and admit my error. You are surely responsible for the generally negative impression of you around here and elsewhere because of the way you behave. Don't pretend it's our fault that you act like an idiot. Why you should glory in the fact that your infantile behavior attracts criticism is beyond me. Truly some people have no dignity or shame.

So, Kissassman, you and your bum-buddies Nurse Scrotchet and Cracker Graham can rant all you want for the present. Wax eloquent in your seemingly endless denunciations of Schryver the Imbecile. I'm cool with it. Really. Fill your cup to overflowing. One day you'll have to drain it and wring the dregs.

LOL. Whatever. Your delusions of grandeur are hilarious.

[_Dr. Shades]

"I know that most of the arguments I've made [the ones related to Book of Abraham questions] are about to be vindicated in ways and in places where they will not be subject to facile contradiction. I know what's going on. They don't.

Are you aware that we've heard all that before?

Before Brian Hauglid made his much-hyped FAIR presentation, the apologists were positively giddy about it, saying pretty much the exact same things regarding it that you are saying.

Yet when push came to shove, he revealed little if anything new, and Brent Metcalfe proceeded to mop the floors with him in much the same way that he mopped the floors with John Gee.

So forgive us if we're not as enthusiastic about your upcoming unveiling as you are. It's just that, like I said, we've seen it all before.

[_William Schryver]

Kissassman:

Do come back when you have been exonerated by the experts. I will only be too happy to read it and admit my error.

Not likely.

Of course, I’ve never come here with the intention of persuading you people with my arguments. I consider that an exercise in futility. That said, I will credit some of the critics here with assisting greatly in helping me and others to refine our arguments. The most recent episode with Chap and the length of the scroll of Horos is just the latest example. And, if you were paying attention, you will have noticed how sincerely I thanked Chap for his help. Without the motivation he provided, I wouldn’t have come to realize that there was confirmation of the Hoffmann formula (and Gee’s application of it) hiding in plain sight in the form of professional measurements of papyrus thicknesses. You see, I’m sure Chap instantly recognized that knowing the thickness of papyrus, in conjunction with his calculations, serves to confirm Gee’s arguments concerning a considerable quantity of missing scroll. But will you now acknowledge this and admit your dismissiveness was not only premature, but wrong? Of course not!

And it matters not in the least. It will be demonstrated in the places that matter most, the naysayers in this little corner of cyberspace notwithstanding.

You are surely responsible for the generally negative impression of you around here and elsewhere because of the way you behave.

Elsewhere? Are you aware of my having created a “generally negative impression” anywhere but here? I know I’m not. In fact, I know pretty well the reputation I have among people whose opinions actually matter.

Truly some people have no dignity or shame.

Truly.

Your delusions of grandeur are hilarious.

Not so much as your delusions of relevance.
.
.
.
Shades:

… Brent Metcalfe proceeded to mop the floors …

Speaking of delusions …

[_Kishkumen]

Not likely.

Perhaps this is an appropriate level of confidence, given the likelihood that your work will mean much of anything. Still, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

The most recent episode with Chap and the length of the scroll of Horos is just the latest example. And, if you were paying attention, you will have noticed how sincerely I thanked Chap for his help. Without the motivation he provided, I wouldn’t have come to realize that there was confirmation of the Hoffmann formula (and Gee’s application of it) hiding in plain sight in the form of professional measurements of papyrus thicknesses. You see, I’m sure Chap instantly recognized that knowing the thickness of papyrus, in conjunction with his calculations, serves to confirm Gee’s arguments concerning a considerable quantity of missing scroll. But will you now acknowledge this and admit your dismissiveness was not only premature, but wrong? Of course not!

What is the actual thickness of the JSP? In the end, however, the fact that the papyri could have been cut, and that a fellow touring around to sell bits of aegyptiaca is exactly the kind of person one would expect to do so, suggests to me that the debate is far from over. I would be glad to admit that the celebration over Gee's failure was perhaps premature, but we are still some way off from proving that Gee was, in fact, right all along. I have noticed that the question of the thickness of the umbilicus has completely dropped from the discussion. I would think that could make a difference too.

And it matters not in the least. It will be demonstrated in the places that matter most, the naysayers in this little corner of cyberspace notwithstanding.

There goes Schryver, taking himself oh so seriously yet again. We will see whether his self-adulation is justified in the end. Why he imagines that a group of people who discuss Mormonism for the fun of it should be wounded by his pronouncements concerning our insignificance remains mysterious. It must be that ego of his again.

What matters most? I'll tell you what. The Egyptological significance of the JSP as perhaps the earliest example of that genre of Egyptian funereal text. That is significant. Joseph Smith's authorship of scripture as a 19th century religious genius is a significant field of study. How to rescue the religious belief in Joseph Smith's having possessed an actual papyrus with an ancient Book of Abraham on it minus our possession of the physical document to examine is about the least significant academic endeavor I can imagine. Not to say that there aren't plenty of scholars who pontificate about absent evidence. Heck, some people try to recreate entire inscriptions based on a few surviving letters. I and many others are always happy to shake our heads in amusement every time we witness such things.

Not so much as your delusions of relevance.

Make that your illusion of my delusion of relevance. I have never aspired to relevance when it comes to my participation on this board. I am here for entertainment purposes alone. I'll leave it to you to take your farcical nonsense seriously. You obviously excel at it.

[_Gadianton]

I have to admit that professor H. was a bit harsh in his "ribbing". I hope that Kerry's feelings weren't hurt to badly in this.

As to Doctor Scratch's question, Cassius does not discriminate, so if Kerry were interested in a position, he'd have a fair chance. Of course, he needs to have a graduate degree to apply for faculty positions, but he can also study here to get that if he needs it.

I side with Reverand Kishkumen and his assessment of Kerry. I think Kishkumen is holding back, however. I think Kerry most definitely would be questioned by a large percentage of the church membership for his interest in the occult, and I think he likes that, likes having esoteric knowledge that common LDS people wouldn't understand. I think Kerry's interest in the occult goes beyond just tracing ideas through history to confirm the antiquity of Mormon thinking. I think that is a starting point, and from there he sees the connection as license to find gospel meaning within the occult. This is exactly parallel to other apologists/Internet Mormons who say, are huge fans of Martin Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, or Kuhn, think that the gospel somehow contains similar broad ideas, and then dig deeper into these philosophers in order to find further gospel knowledge.

Will was out of line, way out of line, to concoct a strawman position that involved child abuse to pin on Kishkumen. And I take the apologists' lack of repudiation as tacit approval of this kind of disgusting apologetic engagement of critics.

[_Kishkumen]

I side with Reverand Kishkumen and his assessment of Kerry. I think Kishkumen is holding back, however. I think Kerry most definitely would be questioned by a large percentage of the church membership for his interest in the occult, and I think he likes that, likes having esoteric knowledge that common LDS people wouldn't understand. I think Kerry's interest in the occult goes beyond just tracing ideas through history to confirm the antiquity of Mormon thinking. I think that is a starting point, and from there he sees the connection as license to find gospel meaning within the occult. This is exactly parallel to other apologists/Internet Mormons who say, are huge fans of Martin Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, or Kuhn, think that the gospel somehow contains similar broad ideas, and then dig deeper into these philosophers in order to find further gospel knowledge.

Thank you, Dean Robbers. I think you are right. The learned apologist finds all kinds of interesting extensions of the Mormon gospel that the average member, or even General Authority, would deem rank heresy.

Will was out of line, way out of line, to concoct a strawman position that involved child abuse to pin on Kishkumen. And I take the apologists' lack of repudiation as tacit approval of this kind of disgusting apologetic engagement of critics.

Perhaps Will's antics will get picked up by SHIELDS. Maybe we should start collecting a dossier on him to send along to his ecclesiastical leaders. Well, no, we wouldn't do such a thing. Only the SCMC stoops that low.

[_Paul Osborne]

Gee wizz, William, I think you have gone downhill in the way you relate to your opponents. Of course, that's my opinion, mind you. I don't think you are in a healthy situation. Eventually you will need to take a long break from all this. It's the only way to stay sane. Trust me, I know.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

Gee wizz, William, I think you have gone downhill in the way you relate to your opponents. Of course, that's my opinion, mind you. I don't think you are in a healthy situation. Eventually you will need to take a long break from all this. It's the only way to stay sane. Trust me, I know.

Paul,

If these Book of Abraham apologists weren't aspiring to be patron saints of the already lost cause, they would have joined you a long, long time ago in your sane approach to the question.

[_Paul Osborne]

Dr,

Well, I see your point. A prominent player in LDS apologetics told me that Kerry has caused some embarrassment in the upper circles of BYU academia but they just tolerate it in brotherly love.

I like Kerry. I think he is a nice guy – he is quite strange, but so am I!

Paul O