For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Well, there you have it, folks. As usual with Simon (and his doppelganger predecessor "oxygenadam"), all Mopologetics boils down to is an extended attempt to get critics to shut up.

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Yet you view none of these things as important at all. You view the FARMS publications as inside jobs with no standardized peer review process. You view Hamblin is "The Clumsy Lieutenant."

So, how "important" is Metcalfe really that he deserves all of this worship?

Uh huh. Sure.

I am telling you that I did not know who was a moderator or not outside of ZLMBModerator, whom I actually say moderating.

You can play the "uh huh, Sure" childish game all you want, Scratch. I am perfectly content to let the readers view who is being mature here.

He posted as "exegete."

Okay... I don't remember him. Are you going to now tell me that I do?

Riiiiiiight.

Scratch, are you really going to play this child's arguing game, or are you going to look at the actual evidence at hand and admit that there was no ulterior motive.

You cannot read my mind.

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

No. I examined the available evidence and came to that conclusion. You, on the other hand, continually imagine that you can read my mind with multiple aspects of the very short conversation I had with Metcalfe.

That's not what was said.

He insisted that I PM him with my in real life information and my interest in Mormon studies. He is allowed to ask such questions, but when I ask about his interest or background in Mormon studies it is a sin of the worst kind. It is typical of critics and anti-Mormons to abide by this double standard, so I guess I should not be surprised. But for you to back him up, that was just unbecoming of someone who is seemingly aware the apologetics world.

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.

Okay, Scratch. Cough up your in real life information. Are you too afraid?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Yet you view none of these things as important at all. You view the FARMS publications as inside jobs with no standardized [sic] peer review process. You view Hamblin is [sic] "The Clumsy Lieutenant."

So, how "important" is Metcalfe really that he deserves all of this worship?

What, from the FARMS crowd? Beyond what I've already cited, I don't know. You'll have to ask them.

He posted as "exegete."

Okay... I don't remember him. Are you going to now tell me that I do?

Look: if you want to keep on claiming that (a) you lurked "a lot" on ZLMB, (b) that you're an "expert" on Joseph Smith, (c) that you've been "lurking" in various Mopologetic-related arenas for close to a decade, (d) that you're familiar with the work of FARMS and SHIELDS, and yet, in spite all of this, you know next to nothing about Metcalfe's background.... Well, as I've said, that's your prerogative. I guess it's theoretically possible that someone out there is naïve enough to swallow that.

[quoteScratch, are you really going to play this child's arguing game, or are you going to look at the actual evidence at hand and admit that there was no ulterior motive.

The "actual evidence at hand" overwhelmingly indicates that you are a dissembler of the first order.

That's not what was said.

He insisted that I PM him with my in real life information and my interest in Mormon studies. He is allowed to ask such questions, but when I ask about his interest or background in Mormon studies it is a sin of the worst kind.

It's not an equivalent request, Simon. Metcalfe was right: all you had to do was Google his name or read through the reams of FARMS material devoted to attacking him. Now can you honestly say that the same thing is possible after Googling "Simon Belmont"?

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.

Okay, Scratch. Cough up your in real life information. Are you too afraid?

No, not at all. As I told you back when you were posting as "oxygenadam," I'll post my in real life information to the board as soon as you post your own verifiable identity. Heck, you can just send it to me via PM if you want.

[_Simon Belmont]

What, from the FARMS crowd? Beyond what I've already cited, I don't know. You'll have to ask them.

No. You said he was important. I asked you why, and you cited the "FARMS crowd," which holds no importance to you.

So I ask you again, why do you imagine that he is so important that must demand that, to even speak with him, one must follow his exact protocol?

The "actual evidence at hand" overwhelmingly indicates that you are a dissembler of the first order.

Well then, if you are as honest as you claim to be, I will expect you to provide this "overwhelming evidence."

It's not an equivalent request, Simon.

Yes, it is. There is nothing on the Internet regarding my real life identity. When I am published, that may change, but as of now Googling me comes up with several people who aren't me.

The double standard that Critics use to trap apologists is apparent. Brent can demand that I give him in real life information, but I cannot ask the same of him.

Metcalfe was right: all you had to do was Google his name or read through the reams of FARMS material devoted to attacking him. Now can you honestly say that the same thing is possible after Googling "Simon Belmont"?

Simon Belmont is a fictional character from the Castlevania series. There is plenty of information on him, but he is not me, and I am not him. Just like your name is not really "Doctor Scratch."

No, not at all. As I told you back when you were posting as "oxygenadam," I'll post my in real life information to the board as soon as you post your own verifiable identity. Heck, you can just send it to me via PM if you want.

I believe that you are, in fact, too scared. Imposing Schryveresque conditions on the original request is another example of critics and their double standards.

Your need to compare me to another member who only posted on one or two threads shows how dishonest you actually are. You have no evidence to back up your assertion that I am someone else (I'm not, by the way), yet you continue to proclaim it as if everyone should simply take your word.

I am amazed, simply amazed at the dishonesty.

[_honorentheos]

This has gone way off course from Hades' and Paul's discussion of Facs 2.

Simon, I would hope you would find it understandable that your quick move to question Metcalfe on his education level was suspicious now that you have been made aware of some of the history. If you are still baffled by it, please read through some of the reviews here, especially Midgley's, and maybe we can all move on. It really did come across as a reductionary move based on other Mormon defenders past attacks.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1

If you are truly a unique poster not playing the sockpuppet game, and this was oddly the first thing that popped into your head to ask Metcalfe without any prior information guiding that line of questioning, then so be it.

For someone who admits to not being a published academic, it seems odd to also wish to pursue this with Metcalfe.

I support Dr Scratch in this regards - your actions were suspicious and your claims of innocence reek. But I have to take you at your word that you had no prior knowledge that led you to act as you did.

If you are innocent, the let's all move on.

[_honorentheos]

So I ask you again, why do you imagine that he is so important that must demand that, to even speak with him, one must follow his exact protocol?

Frankly, Simon, it is because the line you chose is a favorite apologetic strawman argument. You chose the path that led to this particular gate and then refused to change course. You could have either changed direction and brought up a matter regarding Mormon studies unrelated to Metcalfe himself, or chose to pursue that in private via PM. Instead, you still choose to make a spectacle of it unrelated to anything mormon-issues related.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No. You said he was important. I asked you why, and you cited the "FARMS crowd," which holds no importance to you.

What are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to argue that B. Metcalfe is somehow "not important" in the larger landscape of Mopologetics?

So I ask you again, why do you imagine that he is so important that must demand that, to even speak with him, one must follow his exact protocol?

In rhetoric, we call this sort of this a "complex question." It's a logical fallacy. (But you would know that, right? What with your MA in Philosophy? So I guess you're just playing dumb again? Or did you lie about the philosophy degree?)

The "actual evidence at hand" overwhelmingly indicates that you are a dissembler of the first order.

Well then, if you are as honest as you claim to be, I will expect you to provide this "overwhelming evidence."

I already did, right here on this thread.

It's not an equivalent request, Simon.

Yes, it is. There is nothing on the Internet regarding my real life identity. When I am published, that may change, but as of now Googling me comes up with several people who aren't me.

The double standard that Critics use to trap apologists is apparent. Brent can demand that I give him in real life information, but I cannot ask the same of him.

That's not correct. If you were both operating on the same level playing field of in real life information, you might have a point. But you post with a pseudonym and he doesn't, so you have no case.

Metcalfe was right: all you had to do was Google his name or read through the reams of FARMS material devoted to attacking him. Now can you honestly say that the same thing is possible after Googling "Simon Belmont"?

Simon Belmont is a fictional character from the Castlevania series. There is plenty of information on him, but he is not me, and I am not him.

Yeah, no kidding. Hence why your motives were/are suspect.

No, not at all. As I told you back when you were posting as "oxygenadam," I'll post my in real life information to the board as soon as you post your own verifiable identity. Heck, you can just send it to me via PM if you want.

I believe that you are, in fact, too scared.

Well, then, put your beliefs to the test. I'll be waiting for your PM.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So I ask you again, why do you imagine that he is so important that must demand that, to even speak with him, one must follow his exact protocol?

Frankly, Simon, it is because the line you chose is a favorite apologetic strawman argument. You chose the path that led to this particular gate and then refused to change course. You could have either changed direction and brought up a matter regarding Mormon studies unrelated to Metcalfe himself, or chose to pursue that in private via PM. Instead, you still choose to make a spectacle of it unrelated to anything Mormon-issues related.

Great points, honorentheos. The fact that you, one of the nicest and most fair-minded posters on the board, are having a hard time swallowing Simon's little tale is extremely telling, I think.

[_Simon Belmont]

you seriously trying to argue that B. Metcalfe is somehow "not important" in the larger landscape of Mopologetics?

Precisely!

So I ask you again, why do you imagine that he is so important that must demand that, to even speak with him, one must follow his exact protocol?

In rhetoric, we call this sort of this a "complex question." It's a logical fallacy. (But you would know that, right? What with your MA in Philosophy? So I guess you're just playing dumb again? Or did you lie about the philosophy degree?)

You should read up on your philosophy if you intend to ever discuss it intelligently with me. Complex to you is entirely different from the logical fallacy of "complex question."

Let me break it down for you:
Metcalfe would not talk to me unless I followed his very specific rules.

• PM him with my in real life Identity.
• Include in my PM my interest in Mormon Studies.

And you agree with him. So, I ask, for the fourth time, why do you imagine that Metcalfe is so important as to warrant this type of behavior? I mean, seriously who does that?

I already did, right here on this thread.

I am afraid that statement is highly dishonest and wholly untrue. Care to try again? Or are you going to "tuck tail?"

That's not correct. If you were both operating on the same level playing field of in real life information, you might have a point. But you post with a pseudonym and he doesn't, so you have no case.

That was his choice -- not my problem. He could have used exgete or another pseudonym, but he chose not to.

Simon Belmont is a fictional character from the Castlevania series. There is plenty of information on him, but he is not me, and I am not him.
Yeah, no kidding. Hence why your motives were/are suspect.

This might be the strangest thing you've ever said. Are you honestly suggesting that anyone who posts with a pseudonym has "suspect motives," Doctor Scratch? LOL!

Well, then, put your beliefs to the test. I'll be waiting for your PM.

The critic's double standard comes through again. I posed a question, you said you would be willing to answer it (your in real life identity), but then in a stunning turn of events you Schyvered me! You imposed these other conditions.

The truth, I believe, is that you are, in fact too scared to reveal yourself.

[_Doctor Scratch]

you seriously trying to argue that B. Metcalfe is somehow "not important" in the larger landscape of Mopologetics?

Precisely!

That's what I (and pretty much everyone else here) has been thinking all along. That was the underlying, "ulterior motive" behind your initial question-asking. At least you're now willing to admit it.