It is currently Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:12 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 37  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13451
Simon Belmont wrote:
So, is this thing happening or what? I mean, seriously.


So are you offering to pay for Brent and his children's airfare and lodging?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:25 pm 
beastie wrote:
So are you offering to pay for Brent and his children's airfare and lodging?


To something Brent comes to each year anyway? No. He'll be here anyway.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:36 pm 
Kishkumen wrote:

You deceitfully mischaracterized my criticisms of Mopologetics as anti-Mormonism.

Can you defend your lie?



What's gotten into you lately, Kish? Lighten up a bit. My position is that you are mimicking the behavior of anti-Mormonism, not that you are saying anything specific against the Church.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13844
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
What's gotten into you lately, Kish? Lighten up a bit. My position is that you are mimicking the behavior of anti-Mormonism, not that you are saying anything specific against the Church.


LOL. OK, Simon. Your resorting to fabrications, and then deceitfully modifying them after the fact is about me.

But to respond to your bogus contention--no, I am not mimicking anti-Mormonism. I am standing firm against the lie of Mopologetics, and pointing out that abandoning one's principles (note the nominal form) for a good cause is a self-defeating strategy, as well as perilous for the spirituality of the Mopologist who undertakes it.

And, one of the very worst Mopologetic lies is that criticism of Mopologia is either identical with anti-Mormonism, or close enough, that is must be deceitfully treated as though it were anti-Mormonism. Thus one regularly sees faithful members who are attacked by Mopologists with the false charge of apostasy. It is really sickening to watch, and yet Mopologists have no compunction about it.

Were you familiar with this problem? Do you condone these attacks? You are, after all, going down that road in your attacks on me.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:51 pm 
Kishkumen wrote:

Were you familiar with this problem? Do you condone these attacks? You are, after all, going down that road in your attacks on me.


No, and I wasn't attacking you. I've just noticed a drastic change in you lately -- a mean spirited one.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:53 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13844
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
No, and I wasn't attacking you. I've just noticed a drastic change in you lately -- a mean spirited one.


Really? You'll have to explain. I haven't noticed, but perhaps you can point out some of this nastiness.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:13 pm 
Kishkumen wrote:
Really? You'll have to explain. I haven't noticed, but perhaps you can point out some of this nastiness.


Seriously?

The Lies of Simon Belmont, Mopologist


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:21 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 8056
Simon Belmont wrote:
So, is this thing happening or what? I mean, seriously.


Are you really this stupid?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:25 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13844
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
Seriously?

The Lies of Simon Belmont, Mopologist


Simon, you lied! It is right there in b&w! I was blown away by your shamelessness.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:25 pm 
Themis wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:
So, is this thing happening or what? I mean, seriously.


Are you really this stupid?


Just want a straight answer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:28 pm 
Kishkumen wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:
Seriously?

The Lies of Simon Belmont, Mopologist


Simon, you lied! It is right there in b&w! I was blown away by your shamelessness.


First of all. You lie too. You name is not Kishkumen. Most of us here are liars.

Secondly, starting nasty threads about me because of my behavior is like me calling Joseph, schmo, thews, etc. bigots because of their anti-Mormon behavior. You chastised me more than once for that, yet you act exactly the same way.

My ministry may yet be able to help you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:29 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 8056
Simon Belmont wrote:

Just want a straight answer.


All it takes is some basic reading skills and then just reading the thread. It has also been spelled out to you, but yet you still pretend not to get it.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:33 pm 
Themis wrote:
All it takes is some basic reading skills and then just reading the thread. It has also been spelled out to you, but yet you still pretend not to get it.


Well the thread still exists on the front page, so the issue must be unresolved.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:39 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 8056
Simon Belmont wrote:

First of all. You lie too. You name is not Kishkumen. Most of us here are liars.


How is that lying?

Quote:
My ministry may yet be able to help you.


Is that what you think you are doing. I don't think you are doing the Church any favors

Quote:
Well the thread still exists on the front page, so the issue must be unresolved.


That wasn't your question in which I asked just how stupid you must be. Do people really have to try and spell it out, again, to you that Will has said he will not debate Brent at this time. A little reading would have communicated this to you, but then you have shown an extreme amount of bias and hypocrisy in this thread.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:48 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13844
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
My ministry may yet be able to help you.


Dude, if you don't want me to get up in your grill, don't be such a doofus. Don't tell obvious lies. Play your criticism of anti-Mormonism straight, and you'll garner more sympathy. But when you act like a douche bag, you don't win any friends, converts, or basic respect. Think about it!

Also, come up with your own damn ideas.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:52 pm 
Valiant B
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:37 pm
Posts: 187
Hi folks,

hmmm...

Human reflex, response, or perhaps hubris, can be a curious study.

I continue to read stories about me that I know are false yet are told as truth. Some (e.g., Will) claim that I'm a technical writer, despite the fact that I've never been employed as a technical writer; some (e.g., Nomad) say I only have one child at home, even though I have two; still others (e.g., B.S.) claim that I visit UT annually, while in reality I haven't been to UT since 2006 (that's four years ago for the mathematically challenged). :)

If ignorance is bliss, I suspect that more than a few Metcalfe-watchers are enraptured in euphoric asininity.

(B.S.... er, I mean, S.B., or datacycle, or whatever quaint moniker you choose—as I've mentioned before, I have no interest in repartee with anonymous netizens of your ilk.)

Give me a day or so to once again accept Will's invitation—this time with a tad more candid clarity.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3829
Geeze Brent, we were just getting used to his slumming back to the trailer park for some attention, now his head will shoot back up to the super stardom status of apologist extraordinaire knowing that you still care.
Dang might be a whole month or more now before he graces these back alleys, seeking out Paul's opposition again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 am 
Quote:
Dang might be a whole month or more now before he graces these back alleys, seeking out Paul's opposition again


Hey, I don't think a debate between Metcalfe and Schryver is in season right now. It's just too early. Besides, if Schryver fails to pick up support he may just drop the whole thing and the Cipher theory will go away into obscurity. Metcalfe would then win by default without having to do anything. Like I've said, sit back and see who sides with Schyrver and who doesn't. An endorsement from Wade is a mere drop in a bucket. Schyrver has his work cut out for him in order to pick up real votes. It's a win or loose situation for him as the LDS Cipher election draws nigh. How do you think William will feel when he loses the election for Chief BofA Apologist? He will be in no mood for a debate.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:19 am 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:07 pm
Posts: 504
Kishkumen wrote:
... Dr. Hauglid to come out of lurk mode and caution Will about the risks of throwing around the word "conclusively.")

Typical behavior here. Hauglid was expressing reservations about a single item (the "fifth degree of the second part" line). That thing had nothing to do with Schryver's FAIR presentation. Nothing at all. It was one small observation among many in a post that dealt with the Williams Abraham manuscript.

Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.

You, sir, are an intentional deceiver of the ignorant masses here in Wonderland.[/quote]

_________________
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:26 am 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:07 pm
Posts: 504
beastie wrote:
I'd greatly appreciate a link to a post wherein one of your followers clearly and accurately identifies the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP.

The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.

Their purpose appears to be an exercise or an experiment in producing some kind of cipher conforming to something they (Smith, Phelps, Cowdery, etc.) believed to be like the "pure language" of the ancients.

There, that wasn't that hard.

_________________
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:01 am 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:07 pm
Posts: 504
Brent Metcalfe wrote:
Hi folks,

hmmm...

Human reflex, response, or perhaps hubris, can be a curious study.

I continue to read stories about me that I know are false yet are told as truth. Some (e.g., Will) claim that I'm a technical writer, despite the fact that I've never been employed as a technical writer; some (e.g., Nomad) say I only have one child at home, even though I have two; still others (e.g., B.S.) claim that I visit UT annually, while in reality I haven't been to UT since 2006 (that's four years ago for the mathematically challenged). :)

If ignorance is bliss, I suspect that more than a few Metcalfe-watchers are enraptured in euphoric asininity.

(B.S.... er, I mean, S.B., or datacycle, or whatever quaint moniker you choose—as I've mentioned before, I have no interest in repartee with anonymous netizens of your ilk.)

Give me a day or so to once again accept Will's invitation—this time with a tad more candid clarity.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown


What is your occupation?

How old are your children?

Just curious.

_________________
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 37  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beefcalf, Google [Bot], huckelberry, Juggler Vain, son of Ishmael, Tchild and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group