Will S wrote:At any rate, I wasn't precisely correct. Paul is the director of the FARMS subsidiary of the Maxwell Institute. Gerry Bradford is the Executive Director of the MI.
You weren't in the room, it was someone else and one way or another, you and DCP will let the cat out of the bag. Oh, I'm sorry, I need to take a moment to clarify. You have no knowledge of the meeting and probably think this means no such meeting ever happened but don't forget, you're still a mid-tier apologist. You're not in the inner circle yet, friend. So at this juncture, no, you can't let the cat out of the bag because you're not in the know. But I suspect you'll put your feelers out and pump your colleagues for information in hopes that you'll either be let in on the secret or get some assurance that the meeting never happened. You probably won't buy the denials that are sure to come though, and given the propensity for apologists to engage in gossip, with a little effort you'll learn enough to satisfy your curiosity. Desperate to look in the know and connected, you'll reveal enough about the incident to help us along. DCP will then flesh out the rest as he won't be able to tolerate you looking like you have more inroads and connections than he does. Now, of course, none of this will come out in a straightforward way and you won't see yourselves as giving up any information of importance because you'll have convinced yourselves that Scratch's "spin doctoring" is so severe that what he's describing is outright fiction while what you eventually will give us constitutes an entirely unrelated event (in your minds). This has all happened before -- in the end, you apologists have a bizarre way of coming clean.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Nimrod wrote:Yeah, right. Critics here are the ones gullible enough to believe an angel with flaming swords threatened Joseph Smith with his life to have sex with women other than his wife that results in no children, when Smith's own magnum opus (Book of Mormon) specifies that God will only command such things when necessary to raise up a seed.
Oh, wait, Agent X might be giving information about a meeting that there was seed from Joseph Smith's extramarital affairs. The NAMIRS crowd might be hankering to prove that Joseph Smith's philandering produced a seed and therefore is consistent with Book of Mormon.
Gullible indeed. Okay, apologists, now it's time to jump on this gullible bandwagon.
I find it hilarious that when I call you out on your insane theorizing the only defense offered is that I'm insane. I guess this means that you all really realize how tenuous and weak your reasoning is if your only defense is an ad hominem. Thanks for the confirmation. At least it means you're all desperate to think anything LDS is sinister instead of meaning you're all really that stupid.
Oh, The Nehor, you poor victim of ad hominem. You take a swipe at critics calling us gullible. I counter that apologists are the ones gullible in the first place. You know, pointing out that your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Now you cry ad hominem foul? If my post was an ad hominem on you, then yours was an ad hominem. Take a step back, take a look, then look in the mirror--that red letter H on your forehead is for hypocrite.
The Nehor wrote: I find it hilarious that when I call you out on your insane theorizing the only defense offered is that I'm insane. I guess this means that you all really realize how tenuous and weak your reasoning is if your only defense is an ad hominem. Thanks for the confirmation. At least it means you're all desperate to think anything LDS is sinister instead of meaning you're all really that stupid.
Oh, The Nehor, you poor victim of ad hominem. You take a swipe at critics calling us gullible. I counter that apologists are the ones gullible in the first place. You know, pointing out that your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Now you cry ad hominem foul? If my post was an ad hominem on you, then yours was an ad hominem. Take a step back, take a look, then look in the mirror--that red letter H on your forehead is for hypocrite.
I think it's hilarious that Nehor thinks we're calling him insane in order to discredit him (ad hominem fallacy). The only reason I've ever called him insane is because the guy is clearly insane.
As for the charge of hypocrisy... well, that's what religion is all about, isn't it? A vehicle for hypocrisy? Nobody does up hypocrisy as well as a religious nut.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
William Schryver wrote:On the serious side though, I can only assume that finding out as an adult that one was adopted would be a somewhat life-altering experience. WW
Don't misunderstand. I had known I was adopted. I simply had not known the nature of my "pedigree" until just recently. I had been led to believe one thing, when, in fact, the truth was something completely different. I may never learn how it was a 17-year-old Ohio girl managed to get impregnated by a soldier in France; how she got there; how she got back. The tangled webs of our grandparents can often be as convoluted as anything seen on "reality TV" today. . . .
Gadianton:
You weren't in the room, it was someone else and one way or another, you and DCP will let the cat out of the bag. Oh, I'm sorry, I need to take a moment to clarify. You have no knowledge of the meeting and probably think this means no such meeting ever happened but don't forget, you're still a mid-tier apologist. You're not in the inner circle yet, friend. So at this juncture, no, you can't let the cat out of the bag because you're not in the know. But I suspect you'll put your feelers out and pump your colleagues for information in hopes that you'll either be let in on the secret or get some assurance that the meeting never happened. You probably won't buy the denials that are sure to come though, and given the propensity for apologists to engage in gossip, with a little effort you'll learn enough to satisfy your curiosity. Desperate to look in the know and connected, you'll reveal enough about the incident to help us along. DCP will then flesh out the rest as he won't be able to tolerate you looking like you have more inroads and connections than he does. Now, of course, none of this will come out in a straightforward way and you won't see yourselves as giving up any information of importance because you'll have convinced yourselves that Scratch's "spin doctoring" is so severe that what he's describing is outright fiction while what you eventually will give us constitutes an entirely unrelated event (in your minds). This has all happened before -- in the end, you apologists have a bizarre way of coming clean.
There is no cat.
There is no bag.
There is no "coming clean."
There is only rat's feet over broken glass in the dark cellar of Scratch's mind.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Nimrod wrote:Oh, The Nehor, you poor victim of ad hominem. You take a swipe at critics calling us gullible. I counter that apologists are the ones gullible in the first place. You know, pointing out that your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Now you cry ad hominem foul? If my post was an ad hominem on you, then yours was an ad hominem. Take a step back, take a look, then look in the mirror--that red letter H on your forehead is for hypocrite.
I repeat: Why is your only defense of this insane theorizing that I am insane. If you counter some of my reasoning then I promise you my rebuttal will not mention your insanity.
I called you gullible not as an ad hominem. That implies that I'm using the accusation to detract from what is being discussed. I called you gullible as a self-evident conclusion based on what you said. I'm expecting you to have some kind of defense for believing Scratch beyond my own supposed insanity. I guess I can assume you repeating your accusation as an admission that you don't have one. Fair enough.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I have to say that the apologists' behavior on this thread is very odd. The only thing that has been alleged is that a meeting took place, and that Ugo Perego was paid to conduct a paternity test. Honestly, what is so "bizarre" or unbelievable about that? People at the MI have meetings all the time, and last I checked, Perego is essentially *paid* to conduct what might be called "paternity tests."
Sure: there has been some speculation, but I don't see why the apologists are getting so bent out of shape over this.
Incidentally, I've noticed that Dr. Peterson hasn't responded to the allegations. Given his normal pattern of typing up literally dozens of threads and posts in response to things my "informants" have said in the past, this seems especially striking.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:I have to say that the apologists' behavior on this thread is very odd. The only thing that has been alleged is that a meeting took place, and that Ugo Perego was paid to conduct a paternity test. Honestly, what is so "bizarre" or unbelievable about that? People at the MI have meetings all the time, and last I checked, Perego is essentially *paid* to conduct what might be called "paternity tests."
Sure: there has been some speculation, but I don't see why the apologists are getting so bent out of shape over this.
Incidentally, I've noticed that Dr. Peterson hasn't responded to the allegations. Given his normal pattern of typing up literally dozens of threads and posts in response to things my "informants" have said in the past, this seems especially striking.
It's not nearly as striking when you consider that Dan is (again) "out of town." He's taking a tour through the Confederacy.
And what of this alleged "meeting?" It sounds to me like you've read a whole lot into what was probably an innocuous affair--assuming it's not entirely a figment of your fecund imagination.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
I've been in the NAMIRS offices several times in the past year, and it's been sparkling clean and odor free every time I was there.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
William Schryver wrote:It's not nearly as striking when you consider that Dan is (again) "out of town." He's taking a tour through the Confederacy.
No, it's still striking. If a computer is in reach wherever he is, you can guarantee that he's been keeping tabs on this board.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14