Here's why I think Dan has held a grudge against me:
On MAD, I insisted that the apologists had made the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable. Ben argued that wasn't true, so I used the same tactics I had seen used with the Book of Mormon on the Gospel of Barnabas. The piece de resistance was when Dan inadvertently handed the perfect demonstration on different thread. So I used Dan's exact words - and even noted they were dan's words - and Ben roundly criticized the method.
white crow
beastie:
Ben asked me to support my contention that the text demanded a figurative use of Jubilee. It's the only way the text makes sense. If we assume a first century origin for the text, and ask how it makes sense within that context, the only answer is figurative.
Besides, unless you can demonstrate that no individual in first century Israel ever used the Jubilee in a figurative context, yours is a none-too-compelling argument from silence.
As the saying has it, all that's needed to disprove the contention that all crows are black is one white crow. It is impossible to survey all of the "crows" who ever lived in ancient Israel. The evidence is gone, never to be recovered.
(note, thanks to Dan Peterson for demonstrating this particular argument on the thread "Mesoamericans, Pagans or Christians"? I thought I'd have to do various searches to find it exemplified, and then my procrastination paid off and it fell in my lap.)
Ben:
In other words, you are attempting to make you claim unfalisifiable.
beastie:
DING DING DING!
You win the prize. by the way, you do realize that I was using Peterson's words, simply changing the nouns? And this was your response. I have made the text unfalsifiable.
Thank you for finally getting it.
Ben:
And Beastie - the problem is that this is not what Brant or I do with the text of the Book of Mormon.
I'm not saying Dan remembers this specific conversation. But I think it's possible that it colored his perception of me.
I still think it's one of the funniest net moments I've ever experienced.