bcspace wrote:I have never met a liberal who knew anything at all about history or economics.
You've also never met a non-mormon who's not a lazy researcher as well, right?
You should get out more, and try to meet some new people.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Correct. Problem is, it tastes good to many. We will be fighting the Cold War over and over because of the left.
A fine example of the delusions of shallow ideologues who like to pretend they are real conservatives.
And yet, it is beginning all over again. I have never met a liberal who knew anything at all about history or economics.
Are you serious? A great number of the professional economists that have come in contact tend to be pretty liberal. That goes for history professors also. You probably just need to get out more.
Furthermore, my dear LoaP, you *never* supplied evidence of "blind submitting articles." Your best evidence was your Kevin Christiansen examples, and in the end you were finally forced to admit that you didn't know whether any conversation had taken place beforehand.
Then let me be quite clear. I personally corresponded with KC on this subject this week and discovered that not only had he submitted articles "blindly" as you say (several accepted, one rejected) but he also knew of another specific person who had done so (even though I didn't ask for that information.) Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt blind-submitted a recently published review.
So we have at least two recent examples. I'm 100% certain you will dismiss them, however. That's fine. The other readers on the board can judge for themselves.
Sure, this sounds reasonable. Please describe the submission process---i.e., what did KC do in order to get the MS ready to go, and what procedures, exactly, did he follow in submitting it?
mentalgymnast wrote:Not now. I had a good night's sleep and was able to return to an emotionally stable frame of mind. You should have seen me yesterday after having made the post you've clipped above...poor dog...
I was SOOOO angry. <g> Yep, I can laugh about it now.
by the way, I think I've got you partially figured out Mr. Scratch. You're more bark than bite.
That poor dog...
I hold you personally responsible.
Regards, MG
P.S. no, I was not angry at all. Why do you ask?
Hey, MG---
I'm still waiting for you to explain how doubt within the Church is a "besmirch" on Keyes's character. I will continue to wait patiently for you to enlighten me.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:That statement in the IE was soundly refuted by then-President of the Church George Albert Smith.
Okay, but how do you ever know what is really "true?" That's the thing that always has tripped me up. I could believe one thing right now, that is later denied. "Truth" becomes a moving target. It becomes "whatever anyone says at the moment."
Don't you, like me, completely long for everything to be steadfastly true? Doesn't it bother you that truth is a moving target?
Maybe so. But his choice of publication venue says a lot about him and his intentions.
I agree, but I am reasonably certain that we will disagree what it says. To me, what it says is that President Keyes felt compelled to correct Bachman's misrepresentations but was not desirous of getting into a pissing match with him. Bachman's response, recently posted at MADB in which Bachman levels a threat against President Keyes if President Keyes continues to correct Bachman's misrepresentations, illuminates the wisdom of President Keyes in avoiding just such a pissing contest. I'm afraid that in this instance, the end result is simply that Bachman ends up with wet shoes.
Doesn't this play out in favor of Tal, then, particularly in lieu of Tal's "open threat"? In other words, doesn't it seem likely that Keyes would want to avoid a "pissing match" (such lovely mouths on you TBMs!) due to the fact that more details concerning his doubts might get revealed?
LifeOnaPlate wrote:I'm not convinced that SP has "more to lose" in this than Tal.
In what sense, and "eternal" one? Could you be a little more specific as to how you think Tal has as much to lose as the stake president does when he claims the stake president voiced sentiments of doubt about certain aspects of the Church's message?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”