It's really about Kevin, of course. Come on, counselor. Come to the party.
It must be. I come back to the forum after a day's absence, only to see that you've created a hate-fest by invoking my name again. I've seen something like a dozen posts referencing my name by a half dozen people who are only too eager to swallow your misrepresentations.
Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite. This is completely predictable.
I see you're back to the usual falsehoods Dan. Do I need to list all the people I have disagreed with, whom I have not accused of being a "liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite"? Go ahead and back up your statement that "everybody" I have disagreed with is eventually attacked in such a way. We both know you're just trying to poison the well, because that is the only way you know how to deal with arguments you cannot refute. Attacking me is the only thing you're left with. You're also trying to derail this discussion, which you seemed to have accomplished rather easily since no one is talking about John Taylor's deception anymore. You have everyone talking about me. And of course, the moderators over there won't do anything about it because, well, you know why.
Kevin just exposed me as a hypocrite this morning, over on a board that is more ideologically congenial to him.
Yes, and the reason you ran over there to complain about it is because that board is more "ideologically congenial" to you.
(I'm not sure whether this is the first time that he's revealed me to be a hypocrite or not. He outed me as an incompetent many years ago, of course.)
Call for references. When have I called you incompetent? If you cannot provide any evidence that I have done this to "everybody" you should at least be able to demonstrate where I have said this of you. Right?
And, extending his judgments from religion into his (I think relatively new) leftist political ideology, our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar.
Yes, and I proved that he is. He doesn't just make a mistakes, but he keeps propagating his mistakes in light of numerous corrections by those in the know. He is only interested in getting paid for feeding ammunition to Right Wing bigots like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and the FOX News propaganda machine in general.
Hence, Kevin says, it is unnecessary to read what Sowell has written prior to condemning it.
Not exactly. Once you've read enough of an author to know he is not trustworthy, there is nothing wrong with condemning future mantra when you already known what it is about. After all, isn't that what FARMS has been doing for years with respect to critics of the Church? It expects faithful members not to purchase or borrow or read any of the numerous anti-Mormon books it "reviews." And that is the whole point. It reads them so we won't have to! Just knowing the author is anti-Mormon is all an LDS member needs to know before condemning it. And you know this is true. So again, thanks for unwittingly proving my point about your hypocrisy.
If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!
Oh really? Tell that to the numerous atheists I have knocked heads with over on the other forum. Or the numerous Evangelicals or the numerous ex-Mormons who have never been called a liar or a moron. For that matter, tell that to the numerous LDS members I have debated through the years. David Bokovoy would probably be surprised to hear I think he is an idiot or a liar. This would probably be news to Brian Hauglid or Don Bradley or Blair Hodges or a number of LDS members on both forums. So why don't you back up your claims with evidence. Until you do, you have no business with your eternal whining about how you're such a victim of unjust persecution by the likes of Scratch. The fact is I have very friendly relationships with a number of LDS intellectuals. If you can't make it into that group then maybe, just maybe, the deficiency is on your part? But no, of course not. You're innocent. I'm just a rabid anti-Mormon seething with hatred. That about complete's the picture, right? Isn't that faith-promoting enough for ya?
Know this. I have never called anyone a liar without proving it first. I can appreciate the fact that this goes for some people you call dear friends, and it also goes for some of your favorite political commentators and obviously some of your religious icons. But that hardly encapsulates "everyone" I have ever disagreed with. All you're doing now is trying to offer some kind of defense for your favorite people, without refuting the evidence I have provided against them. For example, you're not prepared to make an intellectual argument regarding the CRA, as Thomas Sowell lied about. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument defending the misogynistic remarks by William Schryver. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument with respect to the numerous lies your friends have told. No, you're not, and you know you're not, which is why you're left with these school yard antics of running to your safe corner of your favorite sandbox, where you can play all the petulant games you want, knowing perfectly well your supporters will fawn over every word you say, no matter how fallacious they may be.
You must care nothing about your credibility anymore.