For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Paul Osborne]

Simon wouldn't last 10 seconds with Brent. Somehow I get the feeling that Simon was playing tag on the school playground when Brent had already mastered the subject.

Now here comes Simon! But we see he doesn't know jack about Facsimile No. 3 or how to defend his prophet's revelation.

Simon, Brent would tear you to pieces in a debate. I promise you that. Don't go up against him. Walk away if you know what's good for you. Just saying.

Paul O

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Sorry, your "gotcha" game doesn't work with me. I never said or implied that I had an ulterior motive. I doubt Metcalfe's importance, of course, but I am entitled to that opinion, just as you are entitled to your fantasy opinion that everyone who posts under a pseudonym has an ulterior motive.

The real question is: can you address my previous points, or are you going to "tuck tail"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Sorry, your "gotcha" game doesn't work with me. I never said or implied that I had an ulterior motive.

You don't have to say that you have "ulterior motive" [sic]. It's obvious.

I doubt Metcalfe's importance, of course, but I am entitled to that opinion, just as you are entitled to your fantasy opinion that everyone who posts under a pseudonym has an ulterior motive.

Now, now, Simon. If you want to have scholarly respectability (and wasn't that the whole point behind your adoption of this new pseudonym?), you're going to have to refrain from misrepresenting others' views.

The real question is: can you address my previous points, or are you going to "tuck tail"?

Asked and answered.

[_Paul Osborne]

I doubt Metcalfe's importance, of course, but I am entitled to that opinion

Simon, since you seem to be a real player in this apologetic strife -- please list the names of those critics whom you feel are important to the KEP debate. I realize you don't feel Brent should be included so you'll need to compensate for that loss.

1.
2.
3.

Thanks,

Paul O

[_Simon Belmont]

You don't have to say that you have "ulterior motive" [sic]. It's obvious.

Wrong. There is no ulterior motive. I politely asked Brent a question, and he very rudely called me a troll and fluttered away. You defended this activity, because you are both critical of Mormonism, and you personally do not like me. I do not think that is honest, or honorable.

Now, now, Simon. If you want to have scholarly respectability (and wasn't that the whole point behind your adoption of this new pseudonym?), you're going to have to refrain from misrepresenting others' views.

Your stated view was that, since Simon Belmont is a pseudonym, my motives were/are suspect. Therefore, we can conclude that it is your opinion that all pseudonym-users have suspect motives.

Asked and answered.

Uh huh... where and when?

Let me refresh your memory. Here are the issues you avoided:

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?

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.

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.

[_Markk]

I doubt Metcalfe's importance, of course, but I am entitled to that opinion

Simon, since you seem to be a real player in this apologetic strife -- please list the names of those critics whom you feel are important to the KEP debate. I realize you don't feel Brent should be included so you'll need to compensate for that loss.

1.
2.
3.

Thanks,

Paul O

I will speak for Simon

1. me

2. myself

3. and I

[_Paul Osborne]

I will speak for Simon

1. me

2. myself

3. and I

Thank God you are here, Markk. I was afraid my question would go unanwered. My questions tend to go unanswered when it comes to Simon. He doesn't know too much about the subject matter on hand and his testimony is certainly being challenged. He doesn't have a testimony that there is a king's name above Isis in Facsimile No. 3. He doesn't have a testimony that the scribe who drew the little black man created a slave rather than a god. Simon is in doubt. That's good.

Come on Simon, defend yourself. I want to destroy your testimony, boy. I rebuke Joseph Smith in the name of Jesus Christ!

Paul O

[_Markk]

I will speak for Simon

1. me

2. myself

3. and I

Thank God you are here, Markk. I was afraid my question would go unanwered. My questions tend to go unanswered when it comes to Simon. He doesn't know too much about the subject matter on hand and his testimony is certainly being challenged. He doesn't have a testimony that there is a king's name above Isis in Facsimile No. 3. He doesn't have a testimony that the scribe who drew the little black man created a slave rather than a god. Simon is in doubt. That's good.

Come on Simon, defend yourself. I want to destroy your testimony, boy. I rebuke Joseph Smith in the name of Jesus Christ!

Paul O

In all honesty, his testimony probably has a large crack in it or he wouldn't be here as a sock puppet. At some point as you have stressed in your own way, he will understand that the only defense he has is posting strongly to the critics...we have all been there?

For you Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNhD0oS5pk&ob=av2n

[_Simon Belmont]

In all honesty, his testimony probably has a large crack in it or he wouldn't be here as a sock puppet. At some point as you have stressed in your own way, he will understand that the only defense he has is posting strongly to the critics...we have all been there?

For you Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNhD0oS5pk&ob=av2n

Do you have any evidence that I am a sock puppet? If not, then please stop saying that I am.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You don't have to say that you have "ulterior motive" [sic]. It's obvious.

Wrong. There is no ulterior motive.

Bull.

Now, now, Simon. If you want to have scholarly respectability (and wasn't that the whole point behind your adoption of this new pseudonym?), you're going to have to refrain from misrepresenting others' views.

Your stated view was that, since Simon Belmont is a pseudonym, my motives were/are suspect.

No, that's not correct. Your motives are suspect based on your posts here on this board. Your screenname and/or pseudonymity have/has nothing to do with it. I've based my judgment entirely on the things you've said in your posts.