MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sixteen pages! It's not out of reach!

[_beastie]

Well, I broke down and ordered it along with "Nauvoo Polygamy..but we called it celestial marriage". So much for my book budget.

Sixteen pages! It's not out of reach!

It will probably take you at least ten more pages before you break down and answer the very simple question - one that could likely be answered in one sentence.

Then, what, pray tell, is the "rest" to which you refer as obfuscation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

[I was taught in high school physics that perpetual motion machines are impossible. My teacher was plainly wrong.]

I've already explained what I meant. Quite clearly.

It wasn't that important a point, anyway.

Every explanation I give you inspires you to demand further clarifications, which, if given, lead you to require more explanation, which, if given, causes you to seek further clarification, which, if given, moves you to clamor for more explanation, and so on forever and ever and ever and ever. And each stage of the interminable process demands repeated clarifications of your misreadings.

What I said was never very hard in the first place. And it wasn't that important a point, anyway.

I've already explained what I meant. Quite clearly.

Almost to sixteen!

I wonder if it'll make it to twenty before your copy of the book arrives.

[_beastie]

I've said that the only valid way of assessing the book is by carefully reading the book.

The rest, given that the book exists and is easily accessible, is essentially obfuscation.

My mistake. Again, I assumed that the above statement had something to do with the contents of this thread. Apparently not.

This thread has primarily discussed two things: the content of the book, offered by the poster who has read the book, and discussion about the conflict of interest (in varying ways).

So who knows what "the rest" means, if not references to the discussion about conflict of interest. Trying to get a clear answer from DCP is pointless. Look how long it took him to admit that the conflict of interest is a legitimate point.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My mistake. Again, I assumed that the above statement had something to do with the contents of this thread. Apparently not.

LOL. Bzzzzt. Wrong!

Trying to get a clear answer from DCP is pointless.

Bzzzzt. Wrong again!

Trying to get yet another clear statement on the same topic from DCP is silly.

Look how long it took him to admit that the conflict of interest is a legitimate point.

Yup. The first thing he said about it.

That must have really tried your patience.

Should I repeat it again? How many times would be optimal?

We're almost to sixteen pages! I can sense the growing excitement!

An entire lengthy thread about . . . essentially nothing! Proof of creation ex nihilo!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just to show that I'm really into the spirit of this thing, here's another post.

Are we to sixteen yet?

[_Trevor]

Just to show that I'm really into the spirit of this thing, here's another post.

Are we to sixteen yet?

Will I manage to bump us over?

Edit: D'oh!!! Guess not.

[_The Nehor]

What's the record for the longest thread here?

[_TAK]

What's the record for the longest thread here?

dunno but thi one will go on for a very long time..

[_beastie]

LOL. Bzzzzt. Wrong!

Mother May I?

Will a genuflect do?

If I call you "Sir"?

If I cover my head?

If I follow two steps behind?

Not good enough?

Anyone else got any insight into what DCP was referring to when he said "the rest is obfuscation". What is "the rest"?