For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Paul Osborne]

Simon,

Tell me the name of the king that Joseph Smith said was written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 above the figure of Isis.

If you translate the name of Joseph Smith's king from that writing I will declare you the winner of this whole argument and leave the thread in shame.

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

Simon has said other things indicating that he's been perhaps a decade-long participant/reader of the messageboards. Most of what he's been doing here on MDB is just a little game he's playing---some means of rationalizing in his own mind the criticism of the Church that he's powerless to resolve. He wants to combat it and make it go away, and this is his bizarre means of doing so.

You can gather snippets of my posts out of context in order to construct an untrue picture of me all you want. It does not make it true.

Look, Simon: you can make denials all you want. I'm more than satisfied to let readers evaluate the evidence for themselves. If you think that you can, on the one hand, slip up and admit that you lurked "a lot" on ZLMB---presumably reading the posts of Brent "exegete" Metcalfe---and yet you know virtually nothing about him beyond what's been said here on this MB.... Well, how believable do you think that is?

A "game I'm playing?" That is a lie, because there is no possible way you can know such a thing.

Just reading a dozen or so of your posts is enough to figure it out, Simon. But, hey: if you want to come clean and start over, I know that I, for one, am ready and willing to forgive you.

[_Simon Belmont]

Look, Simon: you can make denials all you want. I'm more than satisfied to let readers evaluate the evidence for themselves. If you think that you can, on the one hand, slip up and admit that you lurked "a lot" on ZLMB---presumably reading the posts of Brent "exegete" Metcalfe---and yet you know virtually nothing about him beyond what's been said here on this MB.... Well, how believable do you think that is?

And what makes you think that I paid attention to one particular poster in the sea of posters that were on ZLMB, knowing that in the future I would be called out to know exactly what this one poster's educational background is.

Look, Scratch: you can lie about me all you want. I'm more than satisfied to let readers evaluate the evidence for themselves.

I politely asked Metcalfe about his background in the subject, he called me a troll and fluttered away.

Then you, in your infinite wisdom, informed me that I "tucked tail." Well, Scratch, that was a bald-faced lie and you know it.

Just reading a dozen or so of your posts is enough to figure it out, Simon. But, hey: if you want to come clean and start over, I know that I, for one, am ready and willing to forgive you.

And what do you imagine my "coming clean" would entail in your imaginary assessment of my purpose here?

[_Themis]

I was discussing the issues (with a little side note in there about poor web design), that is until I was attacked by Scratch.

I suggest you get back to the issue. Paul has given some good information. This is supposedly why you started the thread, so I look forward to you starting to engage him with some substance.

[_Doctor Scratch]

And what makes you think that I paid attention to one particular poster in the sea of posters that were on ZLMB, knowing that in the future I would be called out to know exactly what this one poster's educational background is.

Because, Simon: Metcalfe was every bit as important back then to the Mopologetic landscape as he is now. Plus, he was a moderator. (Are you going to claim that you didn't know that?) It would have been really hard to miss him--as hard as missing, say, DCP. So it strains credulity for you to continue playing innocent like this.

I politely asked Metcalfe about his background in the subject, he called me a troll and fluttered away.

No: you asked him, he suspected ulterior motive on your part, asked for your in real life name, and you chickened out of the discussion.

Just reading a dozen or so of your posts is enough to figure it out, Simon. But, hey: if you want to come clean and start over, I know that I, for one, am ready and willing to forgive you.

And what do you imagine my "coming clean" would entail in your imaginary assessment of my purpose here?

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

[_Simon Belmont]

Because, Simon: Metcalfe was every bit as important back then to the Mopologetic landscape as he is now.

Which is how important? Like I said, Metcalfe is worshiped around here, and I was just trying to figure out why.

Plus, he was a moderator. (Are you going to claim that you didn't know that?)

I honestly didn't know that. The only moderator I knew about had the screenname ZLMBModerator.

It would have been really hard to miss him--as hard as missing, say, DCP. So it strains credulity for you to continue playing innocent like this.

Really? Did he post in the Roundtable, or the one-on-one invite only forum?

No: you asked him, he suspected ulterior motive on your part, asked for your in real life name, and you chickened out of the discussion.

I ask you again: who behaves like that? There was no ulterior motive -- none. He got scared, and ran away. Imagine how unsuccessful this forum would be if everyone acted like that. (i.e. "I will not talk to you unless it is via PM, and I have your in real life information). Why have a message board at all? All communication could just be done through e-mail.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

I am afraid I do not.

[_beastie]

I ask you again: who behaves like that? There was no ulterior motive -- none. He got scared, and ran away. Imagine how unsuccessful this forum would be if everyone acted like that. (i.e. "I will not talk to you unless it is via PM, and I have your in real life information). Why have a message board at all? All communication could just be done through e-mail.

While this has been repeatedly explained to you, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're running a little slow on this topic, so need extra help. Otherwise, I'd have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse.

Internet Defenders of the Faith and apologists have made a long history out of attacking Brent Metcalfe's lack of academic qualifications, often instead of engaging his points. I do not blame Brent one iota for having a zero tolerance policy when it comes to such attacks, particularly when the attacks originate from obvious hypocrites who applaud computer programmer Will Schryver's work while insisting Brent isn't qualified due to his lack of academic qualifications.

Of course, having at least lurked in these boards/discussions since ZLMB, it would be reasonable to assume that there's a good chance you were well aware of that history. But again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were as slow there on this point as you have been here.

[_honorentheos]

Internet Defenders of the Faith and apologists have made a long history out of attacking Brent Metcalfe's lack of academic qualifications, often instead of engaging his points. I do not blame Brent one iota for having a zero tolerance policy when it comes to such attacks, particularly when the attacks originate from obvious hypocrites who applaud computer programmer Will Schryver's work while insisting Brent isn't qualified due to his lack of academic qualifications.

Of course, having at least lurked in these boards/discussions since ZLMB, it would be reasonable to assume that there's a good chance you were well aware of that history. But again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were as slow there on this point as you have been here.

I was just thinking a similar post was in order. Beastie, well summarized.

Like you, I am willing to take Simon at his word that he did not know this in advance of pressing this point with Brent. Unlike Simon, I do not read his exchange as innocent nor did I see Brent's response as unreasonable given the history. If it is an honest mistake on Simon's part, then no harm, no foul - there's plenty of time still left on the clock to keep playing.

[_Simon Belmont]

Internet Defenders of the Faith and apologists have made a long history out of attacking Brent Metcalfe's lack of academic qualifications, often instead of engaging his points. I do not blame Brent one iota for having a zero tolerance policy when it comes to such attacks, particularly when the attacks originate from obvious hypocrites who applaud computer programmer Will Schryver's work while insisting Brent isn't qualified due to his lack of academic qualifications.

The problem with your theory is that I do not have the opinion on Metcalfe that you and he imagine that I have, and I wanted to know a little bit about him. Is that a crime? How would you have approached it?

If Brent didn't want to be questioned by any "Internet Defenders of the Faith" then perhaps he should not engage in discussion on the Internet at all.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Because, Simon: Metcalfe was every bit as important back then to the Mopologetic landscape as he is now.

Which is how important?

Important enough that entire issues of the FARMS Review have been devoted to attacking his work. Important enough that Dr. Bill Hamblin is willing to risk his professional credibility in an effort to fling a juvenile insult at him. Important enough that John Tvedtnes was on a personal gossipmongering crusade to soil Metcalfe's reputation.

Plus, he was a moderator. (Are you going to claim that you didn't know that?)

I honestly didn't know that. The only moderator I knew about had the screenname ZLMBModerator.

Uh huh. Sure.

It would have been really hard to miss him--as hard as missing, say, DCP. So it strains credulity for you to continue playing innocent like this.

Really? Did he post in the Roundtable, or the one-on-one invite only forum?

He posted as "exegete."

No: you asked him, he suspected ulterior motive on your part, asked for your in real life name, and you chickened out of the discussion.

I ask you again: who behaves like that? There was no ulterior motive -- none.

Riiiiiiight.

He got scared, and ran away.

"Scared"? Is "mind reading" somehow kosher when you're the one doing it?

Imagine how unsuccessful this forum would be if everyone acted like that. (i.e. "I will not talk to you unless it is via PM, and I have your in real life information).

That's not what was said. Presumably the discussion would have taken place here on the board. All you had to do was cough up your in real life information, but you were too afraid to do that, apparently.