Daniel Peterson wrote:As a matter of fact, though, the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy, on whose small board I sit...
You sit on a board whose main task has something to do with diplomacy? OMG, that's the funniest thing I've heard in a month!
Danna wrote:I ask this in light of your previous comments on secular 'critics', which misrepresent non-theist logic and argument somewhat.
That could be debated, though I won't debate it here.
Of course you won't. You've rarely if ever contributed anything that could be remotely construed to be debate here. You specialize in comic relief.
(I will not be drawn back to this place. Though I reserve the right to post whatever and whenever I choose, my extensive participation here is finished.)
As if anyone here was drawing you in? We function without you, Daniel, even while we may miss your comic relief.
Authors, directors, and composers whose works are reviewed negatively typically claim that the critic didn't understand the book, must have seen a different movie, or misunderstood the symphony. Once in a while, they've got a point.
Once in a while, so do we.
There is, though, no link to my notes.
Are there notes? Or is this another example of a phantom transcript? If there is no link, what proof is there that there was a presentation? You're making fun of Gad's "presentation", yet we have no proof of your own, only the word of a few who may have been under the same influence the witnesses were. Anything less than a link to the presentation is totally unreliable, as Juliann made abundantly clear.