Degrees, Credentials, Egyptian, Hypocrites and Will

[_Runtu]

That is an interesting perspective, rich with irony. And to think this off-topic rant was evidently prompted by me paying you a genuine compliment couched in facetiousness that wasn't directed at you. Seems I did push your button, though I can assure you that it wasn't intentional, and I didn't know that I had pushed your button until your excessive and unwarranted reaction. You are obviously still raw with emotion, and so I will try not to aggitate you even with a well intended compliment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess our definitions of "rant" are different. It was just an observation in response to beastie, so no, it wasn't "prompted" by your compliment, such as it was. I wasn't offended by your suggestion that I came up with something good in spite of myself. I know what to expect from you, and it doesn't bother me like it used to. As I said originally, your post reminded me that I have a lot of work to do in treating others kindly.

Oddly enough, there wasn't a lot of emotion behind my post, raw or otherwise. I wonder why you read it that way.

To repeat, apologists don't have a monopoly on contempt, but it does trouble me that the church continues to teach that ex-Mormons are a contemptible lot. We can be, certainly. :)

[_wenglund]

I wasn't offended by your suggestion that I came up with something good in spite of myself.

Correction. I was suggesting that you came up with something good in spite of what others (not myself, but the critics) may believe is possible given your situation. I was using your good example (as one of the critics' own) to counter the critics' insinuation that for something to be worthy of note regarding the Book of Abraham, it need to be peer-reviewed and published in in a scholarly journal (this has been the inane criticism leveled heavily here against Will Schryver).

Oddly enough, there wasn't a lot of emotion behind my post, raw or otherwise. I wonder why you read it that way.

Perhaps it is because your mention of buttons being pushed, but also how tenatiously you seem to have held onto the misperception, mentioned above, against my kindly clarifications to the contrary. I figured there must be some emotional weight balancing it in that direction. But, I could be wrong, and am open to correction, and will gladly take your word for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Correction. I was suggesting that you came up with something good in spite of what others (not myself, but the critics) may believe is possible given your situation. I was using your good example (as one of the critics' own) to counter the critics' insinuation that for something to be worthy of note regarding the Book of Abraham, it need to be peer-reviewed and published in in a scholarly journal (this has been the inane criticism leveled heavily here against Will Schryver).

Admittedly, I haven't seen Will criticized for not being peer-reviewed (maybe I wasn't paying attention), but my point was that we should all agree on certain issues, as they really aren't in dispute.

Perhaps it is because your mention of buttons being pushed, but also how tenatiously you seem to have held onto the misperception, mentioned above, against my kindly clarifications to the contrary. I figured there must be some emotional weight balancing it in that direction. But, I could be wrong, and am open to correction, and will gladly take your word for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You didn't push my buttons today, but you certainly have before. If I've held onto anything "tenatiously" it's just that which has been confirmed by repeated experience. When my wife's father swore he'd stopped drinking, I didn't tenaciously cling to a misperception that he was still drinking. I just saw when he was drunk and found the bottles he had hidden.

[_MCB]

When my wife's father swore he'd stopped drinking, I didn't tenaciously cling to a misperception that he was still drinking. I just saw when he was drunk and found the bottles he had hidden.

Sort of like LDS no longer practicing religious bigotry, racism, and (one-sided) blood-feud?

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin, I was looking for a simple yes/no/depends answer to my general question. I couldn't tell from your response what your answer was. Could you please clarify.

Clarifying is precisely what I did, Jesus. I said it is hypocritical "if"... do you know what "if" means? It is an attempt to qualify a statement.

Here is the abbreviated question agtain: is it hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, but not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted?

And here is my response again: "It is hypocritical only if they have a history of arguing the opposite." This is that standard definition of hypocrisy. Whether someone "believes" credentials matter in only specific matters is irrelevant to the fact that it is still a double-standard., especially for the MADites who have given Will a free pass to with his uneducated and uncredetialed opinion, while lambasting critics for daring to opine on the same subject matter.

I am confused. The first time you answered question #1, you answered with an emphatic "no". Now, in response to my clarifying question to #1, you are answering, "it depends". Which is it?

What the hell? You just said my response to #1 didn't meet your request because it wasn't a yes/no answer, and now you say it was an "emphatic no"? Make up your mind how you want to interpret my responses already.

And, does your differing answers somehow make you a "liar"?

No, but you're certainly one now. You said you needed further clarification for my answer, and then when it was convenient, you said I answered with an "emphatic no."

If you go with the "it depends" answer, would you please explain what general criteria you propose for deciding in which cases the credentialed and recognized experts should be trusted over regular "Joes" like myself?

Do you know what "it depends" means? It means I would have to take it on a case by case basis. But you don't like that so you demand I present a yes/no answer that would encompass all possible scenarios? Why would I do such a stupid thing? Stick with the subject and stop trying to bludgeon me into sumbission with an onslaught of mind-numbing questions. Obviously, I do not think Will is "unqualified" to interpret the KEP, since I have done the same thing for years. But that isn't the point now is it? What I criticize is the double-standard and hypocrisy exhibited by Will and FAIR. They are the ones who for years demanded expertise and qualifications the second they thought that was the only advantage they had.

Again, once we establish the generally agreed upon standards, we can look at the specific instances you are so eager to explore.

Well we both agree you have a learning disability. Can we agree that you're have a reading disability too? Seriously Wade, these are answers even my kids can understand.

[_wenglund]

Clarifying is precisely what I did, Jesus. I said it is hypocritical "if"... do you know what "if" means? It is an attempt to qualify a statement.

Yes, I know what "if" means, and I understand that it is a qualifier. The problem is, you don't provide any "yes" or "no" or "depends" to qualify. You stated a qualifier without mentioning what it qualifies.

Not only that, but your qualifier essentially speaks to what ISN"T being asked rather than what IS being asked.

But, since you said that you have a learnging disability, perhaps that explains it. In which case, I will try and be sensitive to that and make an attempt to correctly interpret what it is you are really trying to say.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you really meant to answer is an unqualified "no". In other words, you agree with me that it is NOT hypocritical for people to question credentials in matters where they believe credentials are warranted, and not question credentials in matters where they don't believe credential are warranted.

To you, what is hypocritical is to have a history doing the opposite.

However, what I think you actually meant to say is that it is hypocritical to have a history of inconsistantly applying the standard above. In other words, you believe it is hypocritical for people to sometimes question and sometimes not question credetials when they believe credentials are warrant; or to sometimes question and sometime not question credetials when they believe credentials aren't warranted.

I can also agree with this.

Whether someone "believes" credentials matter in only specific matters is irrelevant to the fact that it is still a double-standard., especially for the MADites who have given Will a free pass to with his uneducated and uncredetialed opinion, while lambasting critics for daring to opine on the same subject matter.

The first part of this statement doesn't make sense in light of your rephrased answer above. However, what I think you are trying to say is that in matters where credentials aren't warranted, MADites understandably don't question Will's credentials, but not understandably they do question the credentials of critics. Right?

With that genreal framework now in place, if you would be so kind as to provide specific examples so we can see whether your perception above is accurate or not?

What the hell? You just said my response to #1 didn't meet your request because it wasn't a yes/no answer, and now you say it was an "emphatic no"? Make up your mind how you want to interpret my responses already.

Wrong. Your answer above was actually in regards to question #5. Your confused response here is a misguided and over reaction to my attempt to clarify your answer to question 1a as well as attempt to unravel the apparent inconsistency between your answer to question 1a and your answer to question 1. Do you see the important difference? (I bolded the numbers for your benefit)

I intentionally numbered the questions so that you wouldn't get them confused. But, somehow you managed to do just that.

Anyway, I understand that you have a learning disability, and I am senstive to that. So, now that you correctly understand which questions I was actuallyreferring to, I will kindly let you go back and edit your previous post, and erase the misdirected assumptions and accusations (particularally the one where you mistakenly thought it was me who has the reading comprehension problem, when it turns out to be you), and then have you answer the the right questions as intended. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Why is it that only you appear to be "confused," wade?

This isn't a yes/no question, which means it is probably beyond your capacity to respond, but I'll grade you on effort too so give it a shot. You already have a reputation void of credibility and you've proved you're a moron, so what do you have to lose? Why is it that only you have comprehension issues when having an exchange with us?

And what exactly is it that you hope to accomplish here when the facts are indisputable? Peterson claimed Ritner was thrown off Gee's committee whereas Ritners denies it. Peterson said there was a personal history that led to the decision, and Ritner denies it. Those are the indisputable facts. Do you really expect to get to the bottom of this and ascertain which of the two is telling the truth, based on your "Dinner with Schmucks" approach to interrogating me?

I must need my head examined for even indulging your mind-numbing question session. I knew it was a mistake to give you the benefit of the doubt. As it is, I feel like I'm getting dumber with every post of yours.

Again, you said you were looking for "yes/no/depends" answers and you don't even know what the word "if" denotes. Who has the mental stamina for such stupidity? Not I.

[_Kevin Graham]

I didn't say I had a learning disability so why are you lying? You are the one who made excuses for yourself a while back by telling us you had a learning disability, and therefore you didn't know how to use a spell checker.

Years ago you told us about "dyslexia and auditory processing issues (both of which I have been diagnoses as having)."

What are the symptoms of possible auditory processing difficulty?

Children with auditory processing difficulty typically have normal hearing and intelligence. However, they have also been observed to

* Have trouble paying attention to and remembering information presented orally
* Have problems carrying out multistep directions
* Have poor listening skills
* Need more time to process information
* Have low academic performance
* Have behavior problems
* Have language difficulty (e.g., they confuse syllable sequences and have problems developing vocabulary and understanding language)
* Have difficulty with reading, comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/auditory.asp

Yep, that explains plenty. But your attempt to project this onto me is better explained by your dishonesty, which in turns explains why you feel the need to associate with and defend other dishonest people.

[_wenglund]

Kevin,

Let me know if or when you plan to stop conveniently evading my on-topic investigative questions. If you don't plan to answer them, just explicitly let me know. I will understand. It can't be easy for you to see your irresponsible accusations and pervasive banality so thoroughly exposed--particularly before your home crowd. And, I don't particularly enjoy holding your feet to your own fire.

In fact, it may be wise for you to finally figure out that the giant chip on your shoulder is distorting you view and warping your behavior in such away as to make you unwittingly a cartoonish spectical (except, perhaps, among people similarly situated), and that it would be in your interest to maintain as low a profile as possible, if not also to seek professional help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-