In that case you are not very clever. He has referred you to his blog (that's the "I am a servile conformist" link). Click on that, and you will even see a link to his Facebook page.
Heck, you can't be that dumb. You are just acting dumb because admitting that he is open about his identity would put a crimp in your tired 'anonymous coward' rhetoric.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Wow, Bob---look at you backing down! I hadn't expected that you would be afraid of Mr. Stakhanovite, and yet, look at you.... You're practically cowering!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:Wow, Bob---look at you backing down! I hadn't expected that you would be afraid of Mr. Stakhanovite, and yet, look at you.... You're practically cowering!
Think so? I just don't approve of Midgley -- well, the way he approaches apologetis in tone only -- and I don't think gay baiting is moral or ethical. If that is backing down than so be it.
Midgley is an interesting character. To call me his stalking horse is curious.
He was kicked out of BYU for being a communist and my grandfather was instrumental in his reinstatement.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look, when you're trying to be taken seriously as a scholar and defender of a shameless corporate entity that espouses belief in a Kolobian demigod who started the human race in Missouri in 6,000 B.C., trolling people about being "anonymous cowards" and is pretty much the only bullet in your gun.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Wow, Bob---look at you backing down! I hadn't expected that you would be afraid of Mr. Stakhanovite, and yet, look at you.... You're practically cowering!
Think so? I just don't approve of Midgley -- well, they way he approaches apologetis in tone only -- and I don't think gay baiting is moral or ethical. If that is backing down than so be it.
I'm confused as to why Mr. Stakhanovite thinks that you've acted as a "pawn" for Midgley. Were you acting all "nicey-nice" for him so that you could score your interview with him, or what?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Darth J wrote:Look, when you're trying to be taken seriously as a scholar and defender of a shameless corporate entity that espouses belief in a Kolobian demigod who started the human race in Missouri in 6,000 B.C., trolling people about being "anonymous cowards" and is pretty much the only bullet in your gun.
I don't consider myself a scholar in the church nor an apologist. I have published for FARMS but only in one narrow topic, and that was the legal aftermath of the MMM in my two reviews. So I am here to poke fun at the pompous and to be entertained, and not to demand recognition as a scholar.
Darth J wrote:Look, when you're trying to be taken seriously as a scholar and defender of a shameless corporate entity that espouses belief in a Kolobian demigod who started the human race in Missouri in 6,000 B.C., trolling people about being "anonymous cowards" and is pretty much the only bullet in your gun.
I don't consider myself a scholar in the church nor an apologist. I have published for FARMS but only in one narrow topic, and that was the legal aftermath of the MMM in my two reviews. So I am here to poke fun at the pompous and to be entertained, and not to demand recognition as a scholar.
Point conceded. I greatly overreached by alluding to being published by FARMS as qualifying anyone as a scholar.
Darth J wrote:Point conceded. I greatly overreached by alluding to being published by FARMS as qualifying anyone as a scholar.
I wonder if it's wrong to go on referring to FARMS in the present tense? It's clear that the entity no longer exists--possibly having been utterly canned by the Brethren. Maybe we should call it, "The Organization Formerly Known as FARMS"?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14