Well, there you go. Again. If somebody doesn't agree with you, you call them a liar.
That's the beauty of complaining about someone calling others a liar. You can presumably get away with lying because if he calls you out for lying, you've supported your point.
This is very much the same way a number of racists like to attack people for race baiting. Juxtaposed with Bot's affinity for lying we get a something like:
Bot: "That porch monkey has nothing better to do that use the race card"
Kevin: "That was a very racist thing to say."
Bot: "See what I mean folks?"
In any event, I don't recall calling Bot a liar except that he lies when he claims I call everyone I disagree with a liar. He knows this isn't even close to being true as does Daniel Peterson. I've argued with dozens of folks on these forums without calling them liars. But they say it anyway. Why? Because they are desperately trying to shoehorn me into the caricature they've created as a means of discrediting me as one who "cries wolf."
All of this is pretty funny too, given Bot's accusation of "coward" towards anyone who uses a pseudonym.
Mormon apologists have accused virtually all critics of intentional deception on some level. What's the difference between this and calling them liars? Bot and Peterson want you to believe there is a difference. I remember last year Dan Peterson complained because I called him or someone else disingenuous, and then I scrubbed his FARMS articles and provided a half dozen examples where he used the same exact word to describe authors of books critical of Mormonism. His justification of course was hilarious. You see, to Peterson, there was nothing wrong with him doing this because the word was an accurate description of hit target authors. But when I accuse apologists of being disingenuous based on actual evidence, it is to be considered a stain on
my integrity because they assume apologists are never disingenuous. It is all about double-standards and personal delusions with these folks.
There is no difference in calling someone a liar and saying they are intentionally dishonest. Folks on the MAD board say this about me all the flippin time, especially Pahoran. Bot wants us to believe there is a huge difference but there isn't. I don't mince words. I say what's on my mind, especially if there is enough evidence to support my accusation. And much to their chagrin, there is a ton of evidence proving these people are "intentionally dishonest" with their audiences. They cannot deal with the evidence, hence these sideshows about how I call everyone I disagree with a liar. To this day, no one has dared tried to defend John Gee's blatant deception with his manipulation of the KEP photos. It just gets swept under the rug as an "honest" mistake and we're all supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is something they'd never forgive if a critic did this. Are you serious? We'd never hear the end of it! It would go down as proof that ALL critics, not just this one, are deceptive minions of Satan. But when it is proven beyond all doubt that the Church's only scholar of Egyptology is willing to lie at the drop of a hat, they think it is bad form to point this out. Because he went to Yale and is presumably a scholar, we're supposed to
lower our expectations? Only in their world. In any other context real scholars are held to a much higher standard.
Bot is also "intentionally dishonest" about my banning from all these so-called message boards. What ever in the hell is he talking about? The only forum that banned me recently invited me back for crying out loud. And off the top of my head, I can only think of a handful of people, out of literally hundreds I've conversed with, who have intentionally lied to me.
