Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Just had lunch in Provo with two members of the Maxwell Institute.

They have both been getting a huge kick out of reading SeN and the many recent meltdowns Prie$tcraft and Woody are having. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

SeN really is a parody of itself and a prime example of why BYU kicked the Mopologists out in 2012.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Moore. Mr. Peterson projects his pathos onto others. He obsesses over this board, checking it dozens of times a day. He also will never, and I mean NEVER, retract an erroneous accusation or admit ‘wrongness’.

Anyway. Whatever you post here will be read by him and his cabal of sycophantic loafer lickers. For a good primer on the man you’ve been dealing with, it might help reading up on this Peterson Plagiarism thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=47236

He besmirches your university, friend.

- Doc

[_Philo Sofee]

Notice that he actually mentions sitting in the back of the room, unaware, working on his laptop. What do you suppose he was working on with his laptop in the back of that room? I suspect, and with time stamp data it can even be proven, that he was on his blog or reading posts from this vile hate swamp, feeding the martyr.

True! Without us, Peterson would be an internet nobody, there would be nothing interesting to say and no interesting way to say it because Mormonism is boring, so he HAS to focus on critics or no one will read much of what he has to say. Yes, you're welcome Dan. Now if you could just get an honest clue, and finally be honest with yourself... alas, the money from BYU and the church is more important than truth. I've recognized that with you and other rich BYU faculty for a long time. And when the rubber actually meets the road, as you well knows it does, as in the Jenkins Hamblin debates, you even ignore your own dearest friends plight against the onslaught of truth against your apologetic information. You never have to say it, we know it already as we witnessed it as it unfolded. Jenkins won hands down, slapped the Jr apologists around like flies, and Hamblin went down in flames all due to just one important nuance apologetics cannot get over. The evidence is not in existence for Mormon scripture antiquity and truth. That's the fact that kept you silent while Hamblin destroyed his own credibility for the world to see. It's the only salient fact that matters, and why so very many in these internet days are leaving because without evidence, reality cannot be established. That's what galls you about science. It has the goods, Mormon testimonies are built on pie in the sky wishful thinking. The contrast is eternal. The contrast is solid. The contrast is real. Accomodation of science with Mormonism cannot work. Your special conference with Mormon bias a few years back did nothing to change this. It simply demonstrated you are not the only one with a Mormon bias.

[_Dr Moore]

BYU... what can we say. Being involved with the school - as I still am - serves as constant reminder to check my expectations.

I had high hopes for Tanner Mangum, too.

[_Physics Guy]

It is worth noting that there are four discussion boards here. Celestial is quite polite and refined, and this Terrestrial board is not actually a vile swamp, but Telestial can get rowdy and Outer Darkness is, um, not tightly moderated, though still tame as dark pits of the Internet go.

[_Pahoran]

FUN FACT:

I have now been banned from Sic et Non. Therefore, when I and/or this site are mentioned there again, please understand that my lack of a response isn't because I agree with what's written; it's because I literally can't respond.

Thank you.

Ah. A "FUN FACT:" I guess that means "let's pretend, just for fun, that this claim is a fact."

Here's the real fact:

"Dr. Moore" and "Dr. Shades" are now claiming, over at their hate site, that they've been banned from commenting here.

So far as I'm aware, however, they aren't banned.

And the folks there are making the most of it. ("Dr. Moore," who came here feigning an unconvincing sort of friendliness, has now dropped that pretense.)

"Dr. Shades" first made that claim at 12:15 AM this morning.

However, in my "Deleted" folder I find a comment from "Dr. Shades" that is identified by the Discus system as having been posted here "5 hours ago," which puts its appearance at roughly 9:00 AM this morning -- approximately nine hours after "Dr. Shades" was allegedly banned from the board. "This comment," says the Discus system, "has been deleted by the user and can't be changed."

Oops.

So Shades: nine hours after you claimed to have been banned, you posted a comment, then deleted it.

Got it.

[_Dr Moore]

I attempted to post yesterday at 6:30pm (edit: 6:55pm - checked the screenshot I took) MST and received a message saying that I could not post because I was banned from Sic et Non.

Perhaps Dr. Peterson changed his mind.

Notice how he carefully worded his response in present tense. But Dr. Peterson, I was banned. And you are the only person who could have banned me. Lying again, or cleverly not lying while not telling the whole truth.

This is like saying there was no “suppression” about the 1832 first vision account, especially not in the last 50 years.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Edit2: /salute Daniel. At least I made an effort at a pretense of civility. Wish I could say the same for you and yours in my brief experience at SeN.

[_Jersey Girl]

FUN FACT:

I have now been banned from Sic et Non. Therefore, when I and/or this site are mentioned there again, please understand that my lack of a response isn't because I agree with what's written; it's because I literally can't respond.

Thank you.

Ah. A "FUN FACT:" I guess that means "let's pretend, just for fun, that this claim is a fact."

Here's the real fact:

"Dr. Moore" and "Dr. Shades" are now claiming, over at their hate site, that they've been banned from commenting here.

So far as I'm aware, however, they aren't banned.

And the folks there are making the most of it. ("Dr. Moore," who came here feigning an unconvincing sort of friendliness, has now dropped that pretense.)

"Dr. Shades" first made that claim at 12:15 AM this morning.

However, in my "Deleted" folder I find a comment from "Dr. Shades" that is identified by the Discus system as having been posted here "5 hours ago," which puts its appearance at roughly 9:00 AM this morning -- approximately nine hours after "Dr. Shades" was allegedly banned from the board. "This comment," says the Discus system, "has been deleted by the user and can't be changed."

Oops.

So Shades: nine hours after you claimed to have been banned, you posted a comment, then deleted it.

Got it.

Hi honey! You home too?

[_Gadianton]

If I were ever to post on SeN and if it appeared I'd been banned, I would try from all 3 major browsers after clearing cookies and then get screen shots just to be sure.

That site is a virus waiting to happen, and is probably the least trustworthy site I visit (Patheos in general, not SeN). It's possible this was a misunderstanding.

At any rate, good to have one of the famous "Doctors" of SeN visit us, Dr. Moore. It must have been thrilling for you to get up-votes from the likes of Dr. Hamburgler, Dr. Dreamboat, and the iconic Professor Lemming. I know I'd be thrilled to get accolades from these serious scholars.

Dr. VB (I admit I can't spell it) is probably feeling a little lonely right now.

Believe it or not, it is quite easy to be an active member in good standing, who also happens to take issue with Dr. Midgley's "counterproductive and harmful" writings. In fact, I posit that the majority of active members would take issue with Dr. Midgley's hit piece.

Indeed. We have a few members in good standing here. Technically, I'm in good standing myself.

The selfish side of me hopes you'll find your way back to SeN for some more conversation with Mr. Midgley and Kiwi57.

[_Gadianton]

a bunch of participants from "Dr. Shades's" hate site showed up in a concerted attack on Professor Louis Midgley

Examples?

I don't think a single one of the comment-section Doctors or associates have any history here at all. Perhaps they've lurked, but certainly, none of the long-time participants here have shown up over there. Dr. Shades is all. Dr. Cam mentioned he'd visited but I never saw those threads, and so I doubt he means that.

Am I missing somebody?