Mormon Egyptologist Debunks the Book of Abraham

[_consiglieri]

Yup. Small typo there. It seems you were the only one here who was able to see it for what it was and not turn it into a question of my intelligence.

Thanks.

You are welcome.

It is not a question of your intelligence.

It is a question of whether you are as intelligent as you wish others to believe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Runtu]

You are welcome.

It is not a question of your intelligence.

It is a question of whether you are as intelligent as you wish others to believe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Precisely. Overwrought prose screams of someone who desperately needs others to take him seriously, so ironically, it usually has the opposite effect.

[_Buffalo]

You are welcome.

It is not a question of your intelligence.

It is a question of whether you are as intelligent as you wish others to believe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Precisely. Overwrought prose screams of someone who desperately needs others to take him seriously, so ironically, it usually has the opposite effect.

To a certain extent, he's just copying Will Schryver, but isn't able to pull it off as well as Will. Wade does the same thing, almost as poorly as Droopy.

[_Droopy]

It is not a question of your intelligence.

It is a question of whether you are as intelligent as you wish others to believe.

Wanting others to "believe" they are intelligent I will leave to those like Kevin Graham and certain others roaming around loose who quite clearly feel that their words and their articulation do not speak for themselves, and therefore need to make it explicit.

I do not traffic in that, nor will I ever do so. I'm surrounded, here in my rather extensive (and space eating) personal library, with books that use, shall we say, extended, complex, and expressive prose and sentence structure very much of a similar kind to that which I frequently use here, in my many (and, over the years, frequently vain) attempts at stimulating discussion. I've been reading and digesting that kind of writing for many, many years, its rather ingrained, and so...

Move along...there may be something to see here, but you may have missed it.

[_Runtu]

Wanting others to "believe" they are intelligent I will leave to those like Kevin Graham and certain others roaming around loose who quite clearly feel that their words and their articulation do not speak for themselves, and therefore need to make it explicit.

I do not traffic in that, nor will I ever do so. I'm surrounded, here in my rather extensive (and space eating) personal library, with books that use, shall we say, extended, complex, and expressive prose and sentence structure very much of a similar kind to that which I frequently use here, in my many (and, over the years, frequently vain) attempts at stimulating discussion. I've been reading and digesting that kind of writing for many, many years, its rather ingrained, and so...

Move along...there may be something to see here, but you may have missed it.

My efforts to help you with writing style have fallen on deaf ears, and in fact have offended you. You write the way you do for whatever reason, and I suspect you will always write that way. I think you'd stimulate more discussion if you worked on your style. But, that's just me.

[_Droopy]

Precisely. Overwrought prose screams of someone who desperately needs others to take him seriously, so ironically, it usually has the opposite effect.

And now, John partakes of the cheap cartoon psycholgizing that characterizes much of the Trailerpark and its inhabitants; a feature of the cultural Zeitgeist here aim of which, it is not too far a stretch to imagine, is to plaster over the very intellectual insecurities and sense of being "left out" of serious philosophical discourse that drives so much of the intellectual one-upmanship that drives so much discussion in these precincts...in lieu of actual discussion.

[_Runtu]

And now, John partakes of the cheap cartoon psycholgizing that characterizes much of the Trailerpark and its inhabitants; a feature of the cultural Zeitgeist here aim of which, it is not too far a stretch to imagine, is to plaster over the very intellectual insecurities and sense of being "left out" of serious philosophical discourse that drives so much of the intellectual one-upmanship that drives so much discussion in these precincts...in lieu of actual discussion.

Nope, just an observation based on years of writing and editing (and it wasn't directed at you in particular). For example, not too long ago I reviewed a resume that was laden with jargon and secondary diction; when I suggested that the writer use more plain English, he insisted that he had a carefully crafted professional image, and his writing had to uphold it. Somehow, I wasn't surprised that he was unable to get any interviews for writing jobs with that resume.

I wasn't making any psychoanalysis of you, Loran, as I have no idea what motivates you and don't care to speculate. What I said is that people read stuff like yours and read exactly that: a desperate need to be taken seriously. It doesn't matter whether you actually do have that need, as that is how it perceived.

[_Droopy]

My efforts to help you with writing style have fallen on deaf ears, and in fact have offended you.

Let me make this as clear as I can: I hope you wake up one morning in a foreign country, without a stitch of clothing on, in bed with Rosie 'O Donnel.

You write the way you do for whatever reason, and I suspect you will always write that way. I think you'd stimulate more discussion if you worked on your style. But, that's just me.

I've stimulated a substantial amount of discussion in the Celestial room of late, as in times past, with those who are capable and desirous of responding to serious, complex exploration of ideas and issues. I think the fact that I can count probably on one had all those who engage those issues there on a consistent basis, as evidence that belies all the vacuous, self conscious posturing around here regarding my alleged internal mental states and who's smarter than thou.

99% if posters here never go near the Celestial, because they prefer the lower intellectual standards of the other rooms. When people like Buffalo do go there, they behave no differently, 100% of the time taking a thread into derailment and personal wrangling.

When was the last time you, John, or most others here met me in the Celestial room for a discussion/debate on ideas? The answer is the last time Godzilla took first place on Dancing With the Stars.

No, you want to talk about my prose style (you people act as if you've never read a single Buckley essay, or anything by any continental philosopher or serious contemporary American social/political philosopher or theorist) and how much I supposedly use a thesaurus (as if these things were invented to sit on a self and gather dust).

Come out of the seventh/eighth grade reading comprehension and literary realms many of your are apparently plateaued at and join the world of ideas and the possibilities of the English language.

You have nothing to lose but your small talk.

[_Runtu]

I've stimulated a substantial amount of discussion in the Celestial room of late, as in times past, with those who are capable and desirous of responding to serious, complex exploration of ideas and issues. I think the fact that I can count probably on one had all those who engage those issues there on a consistent basis, as evidence that belies all the vacuous, self conscious posturing around here regarding my alleged internal mental states and who's smarter than thou.

99% if posters here never go near the Celestial, because they prefer the lower intellectual standards of the other rooms. When people like Buffalo do go there, they behave no differently, 100% of the time taking a thread into derailment and personal wrangling.

When was the last time you, John, or most others here met me in the Celestial room for a discussion/debate on ideas? The answer is the last time Godzilla took first place on Dancing With the Stars.

No, you want to talk about my prose style (you people act as if you've never read a single Buckley essay, or anything by any continental philosopher or serious contemporary American social/political philosopher or theorist) and how much I supposedly use a thesaurus (as if these things were invented to sit on a self and gather dust).

Come out of the seventh/eighth grade reading comprehension and literary realms many of your are apparently plateaued at and join the world of ideas and the possibilities of the English language.

You have nothing to lose but your small talk.

Sigh. I don't debate you because my experience tells me that there's no upside to it. If I actually thought you were interested in discussing ideas, I would engage you. If you seriously want to discuss ideas without the nastiness, I will be happy to give you another chance. But, I'm sorry. I am wary of you.

As for my writing style and my professional opinion about it, I make no apologies. I write for clarity, not for effect.

[_Droopy]

Nope...

Yup. None of my philosophy or political science professors seemed to have any problems with it. You're editing experience appears to have been focused in some other venue.

I wasn't making any psychoanalysis of you, Loran, as I have no idea what motivates you and don't care to speculate.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you just wrote this:

Precisely. Overwrought prose screams of someone who desperately needs others to take him seriously...

Yes, Doctor Phil, no psychologizing going on here. You're just partaking of the Zeitgeist around here, John, and its so ingrained at this point you're not even aware of it.

What I said is that people read stuff like yours and read exactly that: a desperate need to be taken seriously. It doesn't matter whether you actually do have that need, as that is how it perceived.

As someone who once studied a substantial amount of psychology myself, and who has given it a great deal of hard reflection, it appears to me that those with a need to interpret my writing in this way (ignoring its substance and attempting to read "read between the lines" into the dynamics of my personality) are going to do so. I know from long experience that any number of others do not see it that way.

I also suspect - very highly - that if I was on Metcalf's, Smith's, and Graham's side on the Book of Mormon issue, as well as on other issues (such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon), my prose style would never come up at all.