It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:30 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:57 pm 
Quote:
When Joseph looked through his seer stone he saw exactly what the Lord intended.


Is this your way of saying that I was the best BofA apologist in the LDS church? Indeed I was. Such a loss.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:04 pm 
Paul Osborne wrote:
Quote:
When Joseph looked through his seer stone he saw exactly what the Lord intended.


Is this your way of saying that I was the best BofA apologist in the LDS church? Indeed I was. Such a loss.

Paul O



It's my way of saying:

Is this debate going to happen, or what?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:12 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7927
Simon Belmont wrote:

The point is Metcalfe lied about being a technical writer. I know no one will believe me, but when I checked his LinkedIn last month, it said "Technical Writer at Microsoft Game Studios." It was only recently changed to Editor. Now, if Brent got a promotion, congratulations, but at the time I first said it, he was a technical writer.


If you don't view any difference between editing and writing then you shouldn't view Brent as lying. I think there is a difference, and what sense does it make for Brent to lie about this? Is it not more likely that your memory is wrong. You may have seen editor with your eyes and interpreted as writer with your brain. this kind of thing is very common.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:13 pm 
Quote:
It's my way of saying:

Is this debate going to happen, or what?


And here is your answer:

Image

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:16 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7927
Simon Belmont wrote:
Paul O


When Joseph looked through his seer stone he saw exactly what the Lord intended.[/quote]

You mean God was the one who got it wrong or was purposely deceiving Joseph? Interesting

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:17 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7927
Simon Belmont wrote:
[


It's my way of saying:

Is this debate going to happen, or what?


I guess you must be stupid. It's been explained multiple times and yet you still don't get it.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:22 pm 
Themis wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:
Paul O


When Joseph looked through his seer stone he saw exactly what the Lord intended.


You mean God was the one who got it wrong or was purposely deceiving Joseph? Interesting[/quote]

Holy Joe and Brigham had their eyes on lots of things. Just look at all the women they looked at! Can men of such character be trusted to speak for God while looking through the hole of a rock? By their fruits ye shall know them. Brigham had his mouth on many fruits.

Paul O


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:06 pm 
Valiant B
User avatar

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

Rumors, such as...


The point is Metcalfe lied about being a technical writer. I know no one will believe me, but when I checked his LinkedIn last month, it said "Technical Writer at Microsoft Game Studios." It was only recently changed to Editor. Now, if Brent got a promotion, congratulations, but at the time I first said it, he was a technical writer.


... strike me as a tad bizarre since I haven't accessed my Linkedin account in years—just ask Don Bradley, or any others who have requested inclusion in my linked network over the years to whom I've never responded but would have had I continued to use this online social resource.

In any event, for Enquiring minds who want to know, I've never claimed to have been a technical writer... never. My bio appears in numerous forms on the web and in my publications; you need only spend a few minutes with the relevant sources to verify that this is the case.

And, yes, Microsoft does compensate substantive contributors well. I'm very fortunate.

Now back to my acceptance speech to Will's invitation... :)

All the best,

</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: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:27 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Simon you should apologize.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:21 am 
Themis wrote:
If you don't view any difference between editing and writing then you shouldn't view Brent as lying. I think there is a difference, and what sense does it make for Brent to lie about this? Is it not more likely that your memory is wrong. You may have seen editor with your eyes and interpreted as writer with your brain. this kind of thing is very common.


There is definitely a difference -- but editors often also write.

In any case, to become a "technical editor" it follows that Brent would have at one time been a "technical writer," and, if you'll read his post he claims to have never been employed as a technical writer.

It makes one wonder.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:47 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
There is definitely a difference -- but editors often also write.

In any case, to become a "technical editor" it follows that Brent would have at one time been a "technical writer," and, if you'll read his post he claims to have never been employed as a technical writer.

It makes one wonder.


So, what exactly is your point, Simon? Why are you so interested in discussing Brent Metcalfe's employment? How does the bear on the matter at hand?

Is this another case where you hide behind the principle (nominal form) of "tit for that"? So, you despise the fact that some people poke fun at Will Schryver for his professional profile, and, deciding that this is bad form, you decide to do the same to Brent Metcalfe? How does that work for you?

Do you generally punish people you perceive to be wrongdoers by perpetrating the same crimes against the offenders? If a person stole something from you, would you then go steal something from them? If a foul person raped a relative of yours, would you go rape one of the perpetrator's relatives?

More to the point, if you see a person urinate on the sidewalk, do you express your anger at this by doing the same thing?

I am extremely curious about this odd ethic you have adopted, which appears to be a direct contradiction of the principles (nominal form) of the religion you espouse and seek to defend. You are aware of the NT teaching, "by their works ye shall know them," yes?

_________________
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: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:06 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7927
Simon Belmont wrote:
There is definitely a difference -- but editors often also write.


So. That doesn't mean we call them writers for there job description.

Quote:
In any case, to become a "technical editor" it follows that Brent would have at one time been a "technical writer," and, if you'll read his post he claims to have never been employed as a technical writer.


Perhaps you could give specifics on why one must first have a job as a technical writer before one can become a technical editor. I get the feeling you know less about this subject then I do, and that you also don't want to be a bigger man by admitting to being wrong.

Quote:
It makes one wonder.


About you, YES. Your behavior on this thread has shown a lot of hypocrisy and childish behavior. Brent has no reason to lie here, and has even said who you could ask to back up what he said. Why not show some Character an admit that you are wrong?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:22 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 12067
Location: inside your heart-shaped box
Kishkumen wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:
There is definitely a difference -- but editors often also write.

In any case, to become a "technical editor" it follows that Brent would have at one time been a "technical writer," and, if you'll read his post he claims to have never been employed as a technical writer.

It makes one wonder.


So, what exactly is your point, Simon? Why are you so interested in discussing Brent Metcalfe's employment? How does the bear on the matter at hand?

Is this another case where you hide behind the principle (nominal form) of "tit for that"? So, you despise the fact that some people poke fun at Will Schryver for his professional profile, and, deciding that this is bad form, you decide to do the same to Brent Metcalfe? How does that work for you?

Do you generally punish people you perceive to be wrongdoers by perpetrating the same crimes against the offenders? If a person stole something from you, would you then go steal something from them? If a foul person raped a relative of yours, would you go rape one of the perpetrator's relatives?

More to the point, if you see a person urinate on the sidewalk, do you express your anger at this by doing the same thing?

I am extremely curious about this odd ethic you have adopted, which appears to be a direct contradiction of the principles (nominal form) of the religion you espouse and seek to defend. You are aware of the NT teaching, "by their works ye shall know them," yes?

Rev Kish,

As you well know, Mormons have to rush right passed the NT to get to their 'eye-for-an-eye' OT that they so adore and adhere to. The added by-line title to the Book of Mormon should perhaps read, Another Testament to Jehovah, Got of the OT.

_________________
Historians idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. * * * Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting. Boyd K Packer

The truth doesn't hurt unless it ought to. B C Forbes

See a sock puppet parody of Kurt Cobain here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13429
Well, Brent sure nailed Simon when he simply refused to interact with him. What a pointless pest.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:07 pm 
beastie wrote:
Well, Brent sure nailed Simon when he simply refused to interact with him. What a pointless pest.


Actually, he's just chickening out like he did with Will.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 3808
Simon Belmont wrote:
beastie wrote:
Well, Brent sure nailed Simon when he simply refused to interact with him. What a pointless pest.


Actually, he's just chickening out like he did with Will.


pointless pest for sure.

harmless but quick to the point of annoying

Rockslider over and out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:24 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7927
Simon Belmont wrote:

Actually, he's just chickening out like he did with Will.


Funny how agreeing to debate someone is called chickening out. Will is the one who will not debate at the moment. Why don't you wait for him or maybe you can talk him Will into dropping his condition of publishing first, not that I don't think it is unreasonable. Why don't you try being a little honest here.

BTW if hope you're not dumb enough to think he chickened out from debating you. You would be a waste of time considering your lack of knowledge and civility.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13429
Simon Belmont wrote:

Actually, he's just chickening out like he did with Will.


Chicken out from what? Being harassed about his employment? By your own admission, you know little to nothing about the KEP, and don't have any interest in discussing it, either.

You're just carrying on the long tradition of trying to dismiss critics by attacking them personally. The folks who called Martha Brotherton a whore would be proud.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:50 pm 
beastie wrote:
Chicken out from what? Being harassed about his employment? By your own admission, you know little to nothing about the KEP, and don't have any interest in discussing it, either.

You're just carrying on the long tradition of trying to dismiss critics by attacking them personally. The folks who called Martha Brotherton a whore would be proud.


No, beastie. I am trying to figure out why you people worship this liar as some sort of God. He said he has never been employed as a technical writer, yet to be a technical editor (his current employment) he would have had to have been a technical writer first.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go
PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:54 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13795
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
No, beastie. I am trying to figure out why you people worship this liar as some sort of God. He said he has never been employed as a technical writer, yet to be a technical editor (his current employment) he would have had to have been a technical writer first.


Simon, are you some kind of nut?

_________________
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: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13429
Simon Belmont wrote:
No, beastie. I am trying to figure out why you people worship this liar as some sort of God. He said he has never been employed as a technical writer, yet to be a technical editor (his current employment) he would have had to have been a technical writer first.


I have an idea. If you want to find out why people worship a liar as some sort of God, ask a follower of Joseph Smith.

Oh, wait....

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 771 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], malkie, Quasimodo, Roger, tana and 30 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