You'll never amount to a credible participant in debate on religion when you call virtually every person with whom you disagree a liar.
As I proved over and over, you're lying on this point and you know it. The number of folks I have called liars can be counted on one hand, and that is very few compared to the number of people I've debated over the years. I can name at least a dozen apologists off the top of my head who I do not regard as liars, nor have i ever implied that they were. But I guess in Robert Crockett's world, Dan Peterson, John Gee and William Schryver are virtually the only people who exist.
We've had this discussion before.
There was no discussion. There was you making the stupid remark, then there was me correcting you and challenging you to back it up, and then there was you disappearing into the night. We know the drill.
In addition to being an unfocussed and scatered rhetorician, you're posts are just mean-spirited. Time to get a life outside of Mormonism . I recommend
There is nothing mean about calling someone dishonest, if in fact they are dishonest. But even if this were true this would mean FAIR and the entire Mormon corporation is the most mean spirited entity on the planet. Anyone who dares to say anything critical of it or its leaders, are simply agents of Satan who know the truth, but fight against it anyway. They're liars. Right Bob?
I think any neutral observer reading Kevin's posts, seeing the volume of his posts, understanding the history of his evacuation from multiple forums
There have been very few neutral observers, and none of whom agree with you. My "evacuation" from "multiple" forums? I threw down this challenge to you in the recent past and you fled the scene, so I'll give you a chance once again to salvage your dignity Mr. Robert Crockett. Please provide examples of the "multiple forums" from which I have been "evacuated." There has been only one, and that is the MAD board. It "evacuates" people on a regular basis, but few are invited to return as I have been. That would seem to set me apart from the majority of those who have been banned without exception. Further, the circumstances in which I was "evacuated," fly in the face of your deceptive caricature. I was "evacuated" for calling our Brian Hauglid on a point he refused to answer at the time. I was extremely cordial and polite, so much so that numerous apologists felt the moderators were singling me out unjustifiably and protested when I was "evacuated." But you weren't around for any of that, so you're ignorant of it all. But hey, don't let that stop you from doing what Mormon apologists do best, which is recreating history to suit their agenda.
his penchant for using sock puppets to evade bannings
This is a flat out lie and you know it. I was banned from MAD five years ago in August, and since that time I probably entered that forum on three different occasions using different monikers. But in each case, I made it perfectly clear who i was. The first time I did this I rentered the forum as dartagnan, which was my moniker while posting at ZLMB. So no, I was hardly trying to shield my identity. Also, my only interest in returning to that forum has almost always been in response to a number of people dragging my name through the mud. It got so bad that the moderators had to implement a rule forbidding anyone to mention my name ever again. So you need to get yrou facts straight counselor. I'm tired of educating you.
his odd practice of discussing at time his personal and family issues
Excuse me? As far as I am concerned, I am among friends with a few pestering enemies. I find nothing "odd" about discussing personal matters with people I consider friends. That you would complain about something so innocuous as this is telling. It shows just how badly you need to complain about me.
the way he bullies and treats opponents
It is impossible to bully anyone on a forum. What bothers you most is the fact that I don't let LDS scholars get away with murder. I hold them accountable, and I am relentless in calling them to the carpet. That upsets you because you know they have no defense and you'd wish I'd just stop drawing attention to their deceptive tactics. Well, too bad.
and such, could only conclude that the fellow has issues and needs help.
Ah, and here we go with the usual slime tactic employed by so many apologists. I must need mental help, right? I mean that must be it. Setting aside the fact that your beloved Daniel Peterson, whose has posted obssessively on these forums, more than I could ever hope to do, it is I who you think has a problem. Well, when I do post, at least I have an argument and at least I back it up with evidence. Dan never debates anything. His arguments are scarce, and whenever he is challenged on any given point, suddenly he dishes out his schedule for the next three months, which conveniently includes all sorts of trips across the country. At least I respond to challenges, and I provide arguments backed with references. You and Dan do neither. All you do is engage in smear tactics. Case in point, your only pur[pose for participating on this thread. You have nothing to say about the topic because you just don't know anything about it. So you have to take up for the home team the only way you know how, which is to throw mud pies at the guy pointing towards your naked emperor.
I think I am qualified to speak to such given that one of my children is pursuing a degree in abnormal psychology.
Oh my, I think I discovered a new sig line. Thanks. by the way, my wife
is a psychologist, which by your logic, makes me more qualified than you.