This one I find somewhat true.

I honestly do not know why so many on this board seem to praise and worship Metcalfe as some sort of expert on the subject, or the critics Hero of the KEP when he a) has not made his position clear, and therefore probably doesn't even have a position, and b) has not published a position on the KEP in any respectable journal. He's also been eerily absent from both forums. It is becoming more and more clear he has no authority on this subject.

From my many years of observing Brent, I think he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Which explains why he isn't exactly a regular visitor on the boards.

As for him having authority... I'm wondering just who you think DOES have authority on this subject?

You're a newbie, Simon. You might want to keep that in mind, when addressing issues and people who have been working on this for decades. You don't have any idea what you don't know, nor do you realize that what you DO know is a mere molecule.

You know that "drive-by dumb ass" thing you're so excited about? That's about a person who makes bold, unsupported assertions as if they are substantive insights, and stereotypes as if they are facts.

With that precept in mind, other than Kevin Graham, who is familiar with Metcalfe's arguments, who are the critics who see Metcalfe as their hero of the KEP? Who are the critics who even really care about the KEP?

Also, Simon, since you're all about intellectual honesty and not at all into double standards, I look forward to your announcement that all of the cheerleaders need to stop praising Schryver's theories until his position is published in a respectable journal.

Mr. William "Gookie Cookie/Circle Jerk" Schryver has a long history of changing usernames into an insult. This one is just the latest of his unsavory posting style:



V/R
Dr. Cam

I liked it better when I was "Dearth J." I liked to think that he was blending "Dear" and "Darth."

Now, apparently I'm just Daffy Duck. However, you will be pleased to know that there is precedent for cartoon ducks among the ranks of the Sith:

Why?

Why not?

I wonder if Droopy suggests that since church attendance is so utterly bereft of content, inspiration and joy, that, why would you ever attend and suffer so, unless you were anything less than a fully deluded believer? Sounds rather logical to me.

I see Droopy's question as it would be posed from one death row inmate to another. "If you could get out and be free, "Why" would you come back" (to death row)?

It really is mindboggling to the person still on death row I suppose.

Yes yes, that term fits Joseph Inc. perfectly! A thousand thank yous.



Yes, the definition of "drive-by dumb-ass."



After "doomsday" several people ran for cover to one Brent Metcalfe. He, and only he would know what to do. When the word came back that Brent "wasn't impressed," the critics let a sigh of relief. If Brent Metcalfe was not impressed, then William Schryver's presentation could be entirely discounted.

CaliforniaKid first broke the news that His Holiness was not impressed:


Then Kevin Graham high-fives CaliforniaKid thusly:


In the same thread, Trevor joins the Metcalfe bandwagon:


Other, random Metcalfe worship as of late.

Earlier, Kevin Graham worshiped:


And Doctor Scratch"


Cinepro, the fence-sitter:


Trevor again:


thews, the nasty one, glorifies Brent:


TBSkeptic:


RockSlider:


Trevor again:


truth danver:


Paul Osborne the perpetual drunk:





He is going to be published shortly.

Yes, I know. One challenging question or comment and he flutters off like a delicate butterfly. He can sure dish it out, but he absolutely cannot take it.



Try this on for size, harmony. GOD has authority on the subject.



How do you know? I may be the most published person on here. My identity is unknown. I could be Barak Obama for all you know.



Pardon me for not kneeling to worship Metcalfe like almost everyone here does.

Simon,

Look. No one is going to take you seriously so long as you go on lying about your sockpuppets. Frankly, I was sort of blown away that the guy who posts as "Skywalker"/"oxygenadam" would lie about having a sockpuppet, though I guess I should have expected it. If you want to come clean, I'm ready to forgive, but this charade has gone on long enough. It's disgusting, and it's going to ruin your shot at celestial glory.

Wait a second, it has not been established that I am a sock puppet. I am not. Since there is no way for me to prove this, you will have to take my word for it.



I do not know who "Skywalker" is other than the few posts I have read by him at MA&DB



If you want to come clean that Joseph is a sock puppet of yours, I'm ready to forgive, but this charade has gone on long enough. It's disgusting, and it's going to ruin your shot at celestial glory.

There are currently 998 registered users on this board. You've identified 10 who you say are worshipping Metcalfe, and your characterization is highly questionable. You think that 10 out of 998 is "almost everyone"?

President Obama has published on issues in Mormonism?

Chris Smith (CaliforniaKid) has his own published research about the Book of Abraham and does his own work on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He's also a PhD candidate at Claremont. Your characterization here is somewhat less than impressive, since you don't know who you're talking about. Here's Chris' blog:

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/

Sorry, Simon, a person who is published in this area and who studies the KEP himself doesn't count as a disciple of Metcalfe. Try again.



Since my question was "who besides Kevin Graham," you're not addressing what I asked. And since Kevin has extensively studied the KEP, and is not blindly following Metcalfe (this isn't to say that I'm convinced either of them are right), you're 0 for 2 so far.



Trevor has said extensively on this board that he isn't in any camp, and that he isn't set on any of these theories about the KEP. Trevor did not say that he agrees with Metcalfe's own theories; he said he agreed with what Metcalfe said about Schryver's presentation.



My original question was "who besides Kevin." You've now counted him twice, and said he's a Metcalfe worshipper "as of late," when Kevin's online debates about the KEP have been going on for years.

If this is indicative of your comprehension and insights, then I'm sure your unpublished purported research papers must be truly dazzling.



Scratch's main thing is meta-commentary about the world of Mormon apologetics. You might deduce that from being on this board for more than 10 minutes. His remarks about how the apologetic community reacts to Metcalfe is not equivalent to endorsing Metcalfe's theories.



Uh huh.





Yes, we'll just overlook Trevor's repeatedly saying he is open to Schryver's conclusions and that he is not in any camp on this issue. That way, you can characterize this as an endorsement of Metcalfe's theories, instead of a statement about Schryver.

Oh, I hope to read these unpublished research papers of yours someday.



And you take that as a blanket endorsement of Metcalfe's theories, and not a statement about personalities and the strength of Schryver's own arguments, because........?



And you take that as a blanket endorsement of Metcalfe's theories, and not a statement about personalities and the strength of Schryver's own arguments, because........?



And this statement is inaccurate because........? (Note: if nobody acknowledges that Metcalfe is an expert, why is Schryver singling him out?)



Truly, your intellectual honesty is impressive. Since, you know, you included the context of what Trevor said IN THE POST YOU'RE QUOTING:





And you take that as a blanket endorsement of Metcalfe's theories, and not a statement about personalities and the strength of Schryver's own arguments, because........?



And you take that as a blanket endorsement of Metcalfe's theories, and not a statement about personalities and the strength of Schryver's own arguments, because........?

If Joseph is the drive-by dumb ass, then you are already establishing yourself as the lingering, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest dumb ass. Joseph is the dumb ass surgical strike. You are the dumb ass Vietnam.





You don't know that, because you don't know the future. You expect it to be published shortly, as do I. But you avoided the question, and that's because you are the most hypocritical defender of the faith I have seen on one of these message boards, and that is saying a lot. As soon as you are willing to apply your own standards to your side, you might have a chance of anything you say being taken seriously.

There are about 6 billion potential users of this board, too. Shall we include them in the ratio?

No, it seems silly to imagine that I meant out of everyone who has ever posted anything on this board, most worship Metcalfe. Nonsense, I was, as any literate person will notice, referring to the latest flurry about the KEP, which began at the beginning of august.

simone the morgbutt wrote: "If you want to come clean that Joseph is a sock puppet of yours, I'm ready to forgive, but this charade has gone on long enough. It's disgusting, and it's going to ruin your shot at celestial glory."

Not even close girl. Now go back to putting on your panty hose.

Then you are hopelessly ignorant of what all the hoopla is about. The apologetics cheerleaders are trying to make this into an argument about proving that the Book of Abraham is true, and if you dispute that, go hang around on MADB for a few minutes.

Thank you, however, for being a good Mormon apologist and emphasizing that no literate person would infer what you meant from the plain meaning of the words you used.

And not only is your "almost everyone" a baseless, sweeping statement, your supposed support for that depends on taking the posts of several board members out of context. I don't know if you fully grasp how you are consistently embodying the worst stereotypes of Mormon apologetics.

Yes, I know who Chris Smith is. He stands on his own as an intellectual, but he still made it a point to say "Metcalfe was unimpressed" as if that was the final say on the KEP.



If you're going to impose conditions, why do you not just say "who, besides active posters on this forum." You will surely win the argument then!



I did not say that Metcalfe was worshiped in any specific way. Theories, what he has to say about Schryver's presentation, personal tastes in music, etc., are all worshiped.




Again, he may not endorse Metcalfe's theories, but he worships the man for being against the apologists on the KEP.



This one stands. He could say anything before or after, but the fact is Brent is his hero.



I said nothing about theories. I said Metcalfe himself.



I'll tell you what... perhaps I'll hire you to represent me in my tort case against Pfizer.



I said nothing about theories. People worship the legendary man who is Metcalfe.



I said nothing about theories. People worship the legendary man who is Metcalfe.



It may not be in accurate, but it is an example of Metcalfe worship. You are welcome to begin a thread about Metcalfe's theories or inaccurate statements by other posters about him, but on this thread let us stay on topic.



I said nothing about theories. People worship the legendary man who is Metcalfe.



I said nothing about theories. People worship the legendary man who is Metcalfe.



I like you, Darth J, we share the same sense of humor, and we both like Star Trek: TNG.





Well, I also do not know that a ton of bricks will not fall on my head as I walk out the door to go to work on Monday. I am fairly certain that this will not happen, however, so I am safe in saying "a ton of bricks will not fall on my head as I walk out the door for work on Monday."

Nope. You're Skywalker/oxygenadam. And as long as you keep denying that, you're a liar, too.



Gee, that's funny, since you were, just the other day, claiming enough familiarity w/ Skywalker's posts to say, "He uses contractions, and I do not." Lol. I bet you thought to yourself, "Yeah, here's what I'll do.... I'll put everyone's screen names in bold, and then, to throw them even further off the scent, I'll never use contractions! Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" The problem is that you have the exact same preoccupations, the exact same arguments, etc.

As Beastie said: Lame.

No, Chris has more than had his own say about the KEP. You're desperately trying to twist what happened to fit your position. Mormon apologetics at its finest.





But you haven't demonstrated the "active posters on this board" premise, either. I think it's special that you undertook to answer my questions, but now say you didn't understand it because your taking people's posts out of context isn't working.





Oh, so you didn't understand that this was all about the KEP after all, but were just generally making observations about whether people like Metcalfe as a person, even though your original statement and my question were about Metcalfe as "hero of the KEP."





Just so we're clear:

Mormons singing hymns praising Joseph Smith and saying he mingles with gods, and saying only Jesus has done more than him for the salvation of man = not worshipping Joseph Smith

Admiring that Metcalfe is willing to take on Schryver = worship





In what context? I also said Metcalfe is my hero because he's working on Halo:Reach, and said in the same post that I don't subscribe to his or anyone else's KEP theory at this point. So now you're explicitly admitting to taking things out of context to try and prove your point.





No, you didn't. You said "hero of the KEP."





I don't know, Simon. If your case is based on contriving an argument and then twisting what people said out of context to make it fit, then I'm not what you're looking for.





You said "hero of the KEP." Keep trying to unring the bell, though.





It is a topic that you brought up, Simon. This whole thing is about the apologist crowd straw man that "critics" are relying on Metcalfe's theories about the KEP to justify not believing in the Book of Abraham. You specifically said that he was all these people's "hero of the KEP." You're talking about a specific context, and now you're acting as if all this is completely divorced from Metcalfe's KEP theories.





But what we don't share is a love of b***s***.





And you're right back to avoiding the question.