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?

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.

And here is your answer:



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

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

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

Hi folks,

Rumors, such as...


... 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

Simon you should apologize.

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?

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



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.



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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Simon, are you some kind of nut?

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....