SMPT in Claremont in Less Than Two Weeks

[_Trevor]

I AM Stephen Colbert, though!

This sort of humor where I just claim things can just keep growing!

I'll leave it to you to figure out why this is actually less funny than your first outing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

OK. So he can't con you twice.

He never conned me the first time.

I knew, and pointed out, that he was lying from the start.

[_Joey]

He never conned me the first time.

I knew, and pointed out, that he was lying from the start.

An equally appropriate response to the "John Clark......it could really cost him" statement of years ago. Sensationalism at its best!!!

[_harmony]

I have found those who I thought were the most unreasonable folks online wound up being very nice in person.

Obviously you've never been on the receiving end of a rant about Brent and Dan, or maybe Juliann doesn't qualify as "very nice" ever.

[_Dr. Shades]

The methods and motives of Gadianton and his presentation--actual or otherwise--finally became clear to me a number of days ago.

Now, I realize that I am one of the very last people to finally "get it," but just in case there are any lingering souls who haven't figured it out quite yet, this is the straight dope:

Gadianton's presentation "delve[d] into the deep structure of Mopologetics." It laid the apologetic substance bare for all to see. Since Gadianton's presentation didn't actually exist, we thereby learned that Mopologetic substance likewise does not exist. The impact that Gadianton's presentation had upon the intellectual community was precisely reflective of the impact upon the intellectual community that Mopologetics has, which is exactly 0. In this manner, Gadianton's presentation quite literally demonstrated "the deep structure of Mopologetics."

So, much the same way that an abstract concept of a non-existent thing (like the vacuum of space, for example) exists even though the thing it describes does not, so it also goes with both Gadianton's presentation and the substance of Mopologetics, just like he planned and executed.

Now that we all finally get it, can we now move beyond the irritation and the hard feelings?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Maybe that's what it was. Maybe not. He hasn't said.

But he definitely lied.

If I had lied like that, I would be branded forever by Gadianton's defenders as a liar. (I don't lie, and I'm branded by Gadianton's defenders here as a liar. Most recently, so far as I'm aware, about 36 hours ago.)

Ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum ta dum . . .

[_Dr. Shades]

Maybe that's what it was. Maybe not. He hasn't said.

But he definitely lied.

Was it an actual, literal "lie," or did his "presentation" (in the strictest sense of the word) in fact exist much the same way that an abstract concept of a non-literal thing (like the vacuum of space, for example) exists?

Let's face it: Throughout this whole process he has indeed literally presented something, has he not?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Was it an actual, literal "lie," or did his "presentation" (in the strictest sense of the word) in fact exist much the same way that an abstract concept of a non-literal thing (like the vacuum of space, for example) exists?

Let's face it: Throughout this whole process he has indeed literally presented something, has he not?

If I had pulled a stunt like Gadianton's -- for months -- there would be no defending me here. Let alone the kind of rather desperate reaching exemplified above.

[_Dr. Shades]

If I had pulled a stunt like Gadianton's -- for months -- there would be no defending me here. Let alone the kind of rather desperate reaching exemplified above.

I thought you'd say that. Not that I blame you, of course, but here's another take:

If you (or anyone else) had done something like that and tried to get away with it, by, say, covering your tracks, we'd have evidence of attempted deception. In Gadianton's case, he knew from the very beginning that he wouldn't "get away with it" and never expected to do so. Ergo, in his case, it's a form of running satire, not strict deception.

[_Yoda]

Now that we all finally get it, can we now move beyond the irritation and the hard feelings?

Thanks, Shades, for the explanation.

I don't really have hard feelings toward Gad....However, I will admit that from this point forward, I will basically not take ANYTHING he has to say seriously. It seems that he has completely immersed himself in this Cassius professor persona.

What was confusing for some of us...at least those of us who are, perhaps, stupid enough to be somewhat trusting of folks here....is that prior to Gad's bringing up the subject of speaking at Claremont, he had expressed thoughts and feelings through his posts that were indicative of being, for lack of a better phrase, "a real person".

We all have senses of humor here. We all have silly running gags, which some think are funny, and others don't.

It's just that the lines were very blurred with this little ruse.

I realize that Gad did this to prove a point.....His point being that he obviously feels that apologetics is all complete BS. OK...point taken.

As someone who was a victim of the viciousness of how some apologists on MAD can behave, I really don't have a great love for apologetics, either. I think that the attitude of many who participate in apologetics seem to be consistently on the defensive, to the point where they are rude and belittling to people who are genuine in asking questions.

However, behavior such as the type of behavior that Gad and Scratch behave in, only further perpetuate that type of rudeness. It really is a vicious cycle, which is too bad.

For what it's worth, Daniel Peterson is one of the few apologists who has consistently treated me with respect, even when we have disagreed, and has always been very willing to answer my questions.