For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Themis]

No, I asked Brent a simple question.

He didn't want to answer, so he called me a troll and left, taking his ball with him.

You did not engage in the issue. You wanted to make him the issue. If you had tried to ask about the issues he would have engaged. It's not hard for him and the rest of us to see what your biased agenda is.

[_Paul Osborne]

Would you be surprised if the church removed the Facsimiles from the formal canon in the next edition of LDS scriptures?

Simon says:

[ ] Yes
[x] No
---------------------

Interesting, . . . .

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think it's so much that critics "laud" B. Metcalfe so much as that TBMs are terrified of him. One of the reasons FARMS exists is to specifically counter the arguments and evidence presented by Metcalfe. Even you yourself, Simon, tucked tail like a coward when Metcalfe suggested that the two of you engage in substantive conversation. So you are scared of him, too.

Actually, that is not what happened at all. After I attempted to engage in conversation, he called me a "troll" and stopped posting.

No, Simon. Your stereotypical attempts at distortion notwithstanding, my comments are quite accurate. When Mr. Metcalfe presented you with the opportunity to engage in substantive conversation (i.e., by PMing him your real name), you chickened out and continued to make superficial inquiries about his educational background and so on.

Honesty seems to be one of the virtues that you admire in other people, so I would please ask that you embody that virtue for yourself.

I'm not the one who played dumb during the exchange with Metcalfe. Of course, it's richly ironic that the guy who has lied repeatedly on the board and who was flipping out in a white-hot rage over the fact that people claim to have been "duped" by the Church, has himself been trying to "dupe" people with a series of deceptions, including the feigned innocence with Metcalfe. You really just aren't a very honest person, are you, Simon?

[_Simon Belmont]

No, Simon. Your stereotypical attempts at distortion notwithstanding, my comments are quite accurate. When Mr. Metcalfe presented you with the opportunity to engage in substantive conversation (i.e., by PMing him your real name), you chickened out and continued to make superficial inquiries about his educational background and so on.

Tell me, who insists that communication be made only in private message, and only if real life identity is revealed on a public message board where it isn't expected to reveal one's real life identity? I was very kind and respectful to His Highness, yet he fluttered away at the first sign of me questioning his authority to speak on the subject. I didn't even ask if he had a degree, I simply asked what the nature of his studies were.

Be honest, Scratch, why is what I did so offensive?

I'm not the one who played dumb during the exchange with Metcalfe.

I was not playing dumb, and false accusations are not becoming of you.

Of course, it's richly ironic that the guy who has lied repeatedly on the board and who was flipping out in a white-hot rage over the fact that people claim to have been "duped" by the Church, has himself been trying to "dupe" people with a series of deceptions, including the feigned innocence with Metcalfe. You really just aren't a very honest person, are you, Simon?

I have deceived no one. Unless you can show otherwise, this is yet another lie from you.

[_Simon Belmont]

Would you be surprised if the church removed the Facsimiles from the formal canon in the next edition of LDS scriptures?

Simon says:

[ ] Yes
[x] No
---------------------

Interesting, . . . .

Paul O

I change my answer to yes.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, Simon. Your stereotypical attempts at distortion notwithstanding, my comments are quite accurate. When Mr. Metcalfe presented you with the opportunity to engage in substantive conversation (i.e., by PMing him your real name), you chickened out and continued to make superficial inquiries about his educational background and so on.

Tell me, who insists that communication be made only in private message, and only if real life identity is revealed on a public message board where it isn't expected to reveal one's real life identity?

Wow, Simon! Calm down! No need to erupt like this! There's also no need to engage in egregious distortions of this kind. I didn't see Metcalfe tell you that you had to submit your in real life to the whole board. He asked for it via PM, and clearly you chickened out. I have to admit that it's very strange that you have been plugging yourself as of late as someone who easily admits to his own shortcomings and failures. And yet look at you now! Doing semantic backflips in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting to your rancid behavior.

I was very kind and respectful to His Highness, yet he fluttered away at the first sign of me questioning his authority to speak on the subject. I didn't even ask if he had a degree, I simply asked what the nature of his studies were.

That's a mischaracterization of what happened, Simon. You already knew the answers to your questions (as Metcalfe rightly pointed out via his reference to Bing and Google). So it seems to me that you can either admit that you were interested primarily in needling him, or that you were too afraid to PM him your in real life identity. To claim that you were interested only in polite repartee is a bald-faced lie, and it will utterly obliterate your credibility, so for your own sake, I hope you drop the charade.

Be honest, Scratch, why is what I did so offensive?

No one, as far as I know, ever said it was "offensive." Cowardly? Yes, perhaps. Dishonest? Yes, probably. Typical Simon Belmont behavior? Yes, most definitely.

I'm not the one who played dumb during the exchange with Metcalfe.

I was not playing dumb, and false accusations are not becoming of you.

So you were just being lazy, then? You're really starting to run low on poor excuses, Simon.

Of course, it's richly ironic that the guy who has lied repeatedly on the board and who was flipping out in a white-hot rage over the fact that people claim to have been "duped" by the Church, has himself been trying to "dupe" people with a series of deceptions, including the feigned innocence with Metcalfe. You really just aren't a very honest person, are you, Simon?

I have deceived no one. Unless you can show otherwise, this is yet another lie from you.

Oh, I don't really think that you have actually "deceived" anyone. I think that the vast majority of the posters here have seen right through your facade from Day 1.

[_Paul Osborne]

Would you be surprised if the church removed the Facsimiles from the formal canon in the next edition of LDS scriptures?

Simon says:

[ ] Yes
[x] No
---------------------

Interesting, . . . .

Paul O

I change my answer to yes.

Fair enough. Simon says:

[x] Yes
[ ] No

---------------------

Interesting, . . . .

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Simon,

I think if you talk to William you'll learn that the black slave of Facsimile No. 3 is nothing but a cipher.

There, now -- don't you feel better. Now you can breathe easier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-ORlQfHWrQ&feature=related

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

And Simon, you can also rest easier knowing that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve who purchased garbage from Mark Hoffman were also ciphers. President Spencer W. Kimball and his revelations were all ciphers.

There now. All your problems are fixed. Go back to sleep.

Hey William, you want another hit of acid-- for old times sake? Come on bro, we can rock & roll! Wow man, the walls are breathing and I see colors everywhere.

Paul O

[_Hades]

Can we please discuss facsimile #2, God sitting on his throne? Is that the stick of Judah? Please, that's my favorite part.