Off-topic comments from ''The LGT is Dead''

[_Doctor Scratch]

You. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Clark wants to say, too.

Well, it's very kind of you to focus on me. To answer your line of questioning, I would say that a) contra Gadianton, I don't believe the Mesoamerican model to be dead now or in the future or that Clark is saying that it is dead.

Oh! Great, J Green! Thank you for sharing your beliefs with us!

And b) if the Mesoamerican model were to die, then no, I don't think it would be any kind of threat to the overarching idea of LGT. (Exhibit A would be Clark's article.)

Yep. Thanks for acknowledging that I was right.

There is no real and/or meaningful difference, J Green.

Based on Clark's comments, do you think there is a meaningful difference to him?

I don't think it matters.

And do you agree with Dean Robbers that Clark is distancing himself from the low lying fields of the specific model and reatreating to the high ground of a generic template?

Yes, I think it's a reasonable assumption. The same could be said for all kinds of Mopologetic positions on orthodox LDS subjects.

The only thing even remotely resembling a difference is the theory proposed by Meldrum, but you're content to allow your "good friends" at the M.I. to label him a "charlatan," a mountebank, etc.

I guess I haven't seen where my "good friends" have called Meldrum a "charlatan."

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=793

The Book of Mormon, the Latter-day Saints, and the Church of Jesus Christ deserve far better than Meldrum's pseudoscientific snake oil and strained proof-texting.

But now that I've been alerted, I can assure you, good citizen, that I will pick up the red phone on my night stand and call it in. Stand by for action.

Uh, no. You won't do anything. You're not going to lift a finger. You're a stereotypically earnest Latter-day Saint with an authority complex--hence why you've idolized Dr. Peterson. You're not going to do squat. I bet if you took several steps back to evaluate what your "good friend Dan Peterson" has done over the past three decades, it would make you sick to your stomach. I mean, honestly, Joey: Can you imagine him calling your daughter a "malevolent stalker," merely because she objects to his Mopologetics? You sit there and do nothing while these apologists work very hard to ruin people's reputations.

So, no: you're not going to do a damn thing. You probably think it's "funny" that Hamblin et al. do things like "Metcalfe is Butthead." You probably shrug your shoulders over Gee's "two inks" business. You just don't care. It's all about preservation of faith.

I suppose there is that bizarre model that proposes a Book of Mormon geography in southeast Asia. Would you like to count that as well?

Actually, I'm rather partial to Darth J's Italian model. And I'm even more partial to Andrea Bocelli singing "La Habitudine" with Helena.

Yuk yuk yuk. What a funny guy you are. How funny it is to joke about your "sacred" beliefs.

But now it's your turn. Where do you stand on the whole James Blunt thing? Disturbing, isn't it?

It's not as disturbing as a military intelligence man who's friends with a man who's devoted his life to hurting other people.

[_J Green]

Scratch,

All joking aside, you need help. A discussion about Clark turns into yet another hate-filled rant about Dan? Really? Trust me, I've seen kids in combat come back with real anger issues, so I know what it looks like. You have it. Get help.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I don't see the MI calling Meldrum a charlatan. I don't see the LGT "dead" by any means and your post doesn't demonstrate that.

What is this fascination with Dr. Peterson? He's really a wonderful guy, a superb speaker and a very good writer.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

All joking aside, you need help. A discussion about Clark turns into yet another hate-filled rant about Dan? Really? Trust me, I've seen kids in combat come back with real anger issues, so I know what it looks like. You have it. Get help.

Lol! Yeah: can you see the steam actually coming out of my ears? What a funny guy you are, Joey. Why don't you toss in another Wallace Stevens reference to ice the cake? Regardless, it was clear from the get-go that, for you, this was never a "discussion about Clark." You were on an apologetic mission. This was about you trying to protect your "passion" for the Book of Mormon. And if you want to chalk up my criticism--which I think is legitimate--to me having something akin to post-combat "anger issues," I guess that's your call. What I think is really going on here, though, is that you know on some level that I'm right. Your reaction here is a result of the Holy Ghost telling you that you can no longer sit there, doing nothing, while your "good friends" ruthlessly attack people.

[_Gadianton]

(full reasons for mod request now that thread has been split regarding Yahoo Bot's probably unintentional ambiguity over the content of my thesis removed)

[_J Green]

And if you want to chalk up my criticism--which I think is legitimate--to me having something akin to post-combat "anger issues," I guess that's your call.

I do think this, and I doubt I'm alone, even on this board. I could post a comment about the merits of smoked gouda and you would change the subject to Dan. I could remark on the apparent demise of Magical Realism among current Latino authors and you would immediately bring up that one time when the FARMS Review allegedly outed Alejo Carpentier and ruined his career. You have a clear obsession, and it's unhealthy. Get help. Perhaps then we could discuss Wallace Stevens. Or better yet, Mark Strand, who I suspect is a Stevens disciple.

Regards

[_Doctor Scratch]

Calm down, J Green. You're allowing yourself to succumb to the dark allure of the Mopologetic method. Plus, you're blind to your own issues. On the companion thread to this one, you've suggested that Greg Smith was fully within his right, based on the evidence, to label believing Latter-day Saint Rod Meldrum a "charlatan," and yet if anyone does the same with your "good friend," you start shaking your fist in anger.

It's interesting that, although you've said many times in the past that you are "uncomfortable" with the rhetoric that you observe on the board, you nonetheless come charging in, champing at the bit, ready to play at being Captain Mopologist. It's been terrifically amusing. I hope that you carry on with your Droopy-esque stream of literary references, too. I know that the more you do that, the smarter I think you must be. You're already approaching Droopy levels of erudition, in fact.

[_J Green]

Champing at the bit, huh?

Have a nice night, Scratch.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Champing at the bit, huh?

Have a nice night, Scratch.

Yes--champing at the bit.

You have a nice night, too, J Green.

[_Dr. Shades]

Champing at the bit, huh?

Um, it's actually chomping, the way a bridled horse will do when it really wants to get moving. You know, the way it, uh, chomps at the bit.