Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay. I need to weigh in on this one and will just as soon as someone tells me why they think Daniel is obese?

No really. Go ahead.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Okay. I need to weigh in on this one and will just as soon as someone tells me why they think Daniel is obese?

No really. Go ahead.

Perhaps "they" have something like this in mind (page 3 & 4 for a quick reference)?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... oklet2.pdf

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Some Schmo]

Okay. I need to weigh in on this one and will just as soon as someone tells me why they think Daniel is obese?

No really. Go ahead.

Well admittedly, I don't know DCP's exact BMI.

However, it doesn't take that much extra weight to be considered obese, and from the pictures I've seen, he looks like he's got enough extra poundage to qualify. It's an educated guess.

If you'd like to dispute it on the grounds that I don't know his exact BMI, I'll just concede that's true and save you the hassle.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I want to go on the record that even though DCP likes to brag about the place names and conferences he gets to go to (and it bothers me, mainly out of jealousy), it is hardly the worst character trait in the world. It's not like he's tattling on anybody here on the board to people that could make their lives difficult. That would be beyond contemptibale.

ROFL!!!!

[_JohnStuartMill]

I tell you, sitting behind Dan at the last FAIR conference was a bit of a challenge

Dan wears pink?

AND has birthing hips, apparently.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Okay. I need to weigh in on this one and will just as soon as someone tells me why they think Daniel is obese?

No really. Go ahead.

Well admittedly, I don't know DCP's exact BMI.

Nor do I. But I think it's still on file with the Richter Scale people at Caltech, if you really want to find out.

I have to confess that one of the things that made me hesitate, at first, about participating on this board was the knowledge that I would be entering a virtual society of Apollos and Aphrodites, the only person here manifestly unqualified to appear on the cover of either Cosmopolitan or Men's Fitness. Perhaps I should have listened more closely to that warning voice.

[_JohnStuartMill]

One of the guys in my old ward was on the cover of Men's Fitness, actually. Make of that what you will.

[_Joey]

1. Why do you spend so time here if, as you have stated too many times to count, you beleieve the levels of intellect, objectivity civility etc.... Is so lacking?

I find the place psychologically and sociologically intriguing.

And yet you announce or threaten, on a fairly regular basis, that you are "quitting, leaving the board, done, etc.." That sounds even more psychologically and sociologically intriguing in a "personality disorder" way!

But I don't spend that much time here. It only takes a few seconds to dash off a post here. I write rapidly.

But one has to read all the responses in order to reply. I read and write rapidly as well and barely have time for 100 posts in a year. You obviously have way more time than most. Obviously the difference between working "for profit" as compared to "for prophet".

Believe me, I get a lot of things done each day. And, over the past month and a half or so, I've led tour groups to Israel and Egypt, participated in a conference in California, sent a book off to press, attended a family wedding and spoken at a fireside in Arizona, vacationed on Maui and O'ahu, finalized plans for a conference in Kuwait and a speech in Jordan, edited an issue of the FARMS Review, edited a volume in the Islamic Translation Series, begun the study of the philosopher John McTaggart, commenced an article on "Muhammad and the Jahiliyya," etc., etc.

I could also go into great detail of why I am so busy outside of this board if I needed to defend thousands of posts in two years, but it would also look pretty (and petty) self serving. Yet I can assure you that running several "for profit" ventures precludes me spending thousand of posts here and any of my employees who had the time to do would not have the time to be employed by me.

If you really imagine that my life revolves around this board, let alone around waiting for your latest "only in Provo" nonsense, you're deluding yourself.

I really do. And your demonstrating my point.

2.In all real seriousness, if Clark and Sorenson are as well respected as you want all to beleieve (accepting your claim here), why is their works on Book of Mormon archaeology/historicity are totally ignored by their professional peers and the "history" academic community at large???

I can assure you that Clark, in particular, is highly regarded among Mesoamericanists.

Not relevant to the question.

And I don't know that his very limited work on the Book of Mormon has been "totally ignored."

Well in 2004, as my tag-line states, this was your position and answer. If it has changed, or his peer group has paid attention to his works on Book of Mormon historicity, can you give us specifics???? Otherwise it would be equally accurate for you to say "I don't know if his works haven't been totally ignored!! No?

But he's a powerful figure in his field, and, so far as I can tell, well liked,

Again, not relevant to the question.

and I doubt that too many people in his small academic area really want to go out of their way to insult his faith. (Why should they? They're normal people with real names, not anonymous denizens of anti-Mormon message boards.)

What the hell does this mean other than some non-sense straw man you are attempting to set up??? If his peer group were to question works on the existence of a supposed history, they are being critical of his faith???!!! You can't be serious. This is a page right out of Mormon persecution complex 101! You do justify the "only in Provo" caption!

Furthermore, and much more importantly, I think you misconstrue the nature of what he's tried to do with his writing on the Book of Mormon.

So what is he trying to do with his Book of Mormon/mesoamerican works.. He's gone out on the limb claiming that archaeology was the only way to prove the Book of Mormon. His very own profession. And that which, as you claim, he is so respected by fellow peers. His publications at FARMS deal with mesoamerica archaeological links or similarities. Please, tell us what he is trying to do that his fellow peer professionals would be afraid of showing interest in without "offending his religion"!

(I've repeatedly attempted to explain what I see as your fundamental misapprehension on this score, but have only received jeering and incomprehension in return, so have no great interest in making any further attempts on that issue.)

If that were the case, you could refer me to a specific post. So please do. BUt all you have ever done is ask me to do what even his own professional peers wont do and read his Book of Mormon historicity works at FARMS.

If I am wrong, please for once "show me" and don't "tell me".

Go Provo, go!!!

And, as a friendly gesture, I wish Dogpatch all the best, too.[/quote]

[_Daniel Peterson]

I find the place psychologically and sociologically intriguing.

And yet you announce or threaten, on a fairly regular basis, that you are "quitting, leaving the board, done, etc.." That sounds even more psychologically and sociologically intriguing in a "personality disorder" way!

Maybe. And you're certainly welcome to employ all of the amateur psychoanalytic skills that you wish.

The simple fact is that the place is both interesting and irritating. The ever-malignant Scratch grows occasionally tiresome, the substantive intellectual content of the place (i.e., of posts like yours) is slight, the audience is pretty small set in its ways, and it's a massive consumer of valuable time.

You obviously have way more time than most. Obviously the difference between working "for profit" as compared to "for prophet".

I'm well aware of your conviction of the moral superiority of your line of work, and I esteem it at its value.

I could also go into great detail of why I am so busy outside of this board if I needed to defend thousands of posts in two years, but it would also look pretty (and petty) self serving.

You attack me, yet I'm petty if I respond.

Got it.

Yet I can assure you that running several "for profit" ventures precludes me spending thousand of posts here and any of my employees who had the time to do would not have the time to be employed by me.

Maybe someday I can be successful like you, and accomplish something with my life.

If you really imagine that my life revolves around this board, let alone around waiting for your latest "only in Provo" nonsense, you're deluding yourself.

I really do. And your demonstrating my point.

You attack me, and, if I respond, I prove your attack justified.

Uh huh.

Well in 2004, as my tag-line states, this was your position and answer. If it has changed, or his peer group has paid attention to his works on Book of Mormon historicity, can you give us specifics???? Otherwise it would be equally accurate for you to say "I don't know if his works haven't been totally ignored!! No?

I know for a fact that they haven't been totally ignored.

What the hell does this mean other than some non-sense straw man you are attempting to set up???

I was clear enough. You can understand it if you want to, or sneer if you would prefer.

If his peer group were to question works on the existence of a supposed history, they are being critical of his faith???!!! You can't be serious. This is a page right out of Mormon persecution complex 101! You do justify the "only in Provo" caption!

Whatever.

Furthermore, and much more importantly, I think you misconstrue the nature of what he's tried to do with his writing on the Book of Mormon.

So what is he trying to do with his Book of Mormon/mesoamerican works.. He's gone out on the limb claiming that archaeology was the only way to prove the Book of Mormon. His very own profession.

Actually, he said that "archaeology [is] the only scientific means of gathering independent evidence of authenticity, and hence authorship."

That's a significantly different statement. You should pause from your insults and put-downs for a minute or two and think about what it means, and about what it doesn't mean.

His publications at FARMS deal with mesoamerica archaeological links or similarities. Please, tell us what he is trying to do that his fellow peer professionals would be afraid of showing interest in without "offending his religion"!

For a brief, shining moment, reading your opening post, I thought you might be about to drop the perpetual sneer and stop dancing your idiotic self-delusional victory jig. Plainly, though, you're not.

I've repeatedly attempted to explain what I see as your fundamental misapprehension on this score, but have only received jeering and incomprehension in return, so have no great interest in making any further attempts on that issue.

If I am wrong, please for once "show me" and don't "tell me".

I don't really care enough to bother.

Sneer some more, and do another little victory jig. You're so cute when you're smugly contemptuous.

[_Joey]

I know for a fact that they haven't been totally ignored

And what "fact" would that be? Specifics?

Since this is the first time I've read a statement from you claiming they (Clark and Sorenson) have not been ignored on their works supporting the Book of Mormon historicity, I am interested to find out exactly what non-mormon peers are paying attention to their works and in what ways. Really, I am.

Come on now, don't Millet me here!!!