I have to echo Kish, here. I don't know what else I have to say about it.

"Intimidation" isn't my intention at all, Simon! I just want to get at the truth of the matter. That's all.



Simon: you said you were the IT Director. That would naturally lead one to assume that you are/were the Big Boss, the Head Cheese, etc. Now it turns out that this isn't the case at all.

Were you careless with your words? Or were you being dishonest?



I did read the thread. I phrased my inquiry here exactly as it should have been phrased. You're dodging yet again. And your behavior was extremely odd. You immediately installed "David Taylor" as a Professor at Amplus, and then later, inexplicably, you deleted his name from the faculty listing on the Amplus site. (He complained about it later in the thread.)

How are we supposed to interpret your erratic and problematic behavior, Simon? Are you so hell-bent on exacting revenge on critics that you would stoop to dragging an innocent company (Stamford Hospital) into your story-telling?



As I recall, I said something to the effect that I was under the impression that you lived in the Stamford, CT area. Why don't *you* go back and see what I wrote? Soon after I made that observation, you deleted "New England" from the "location" listing on your avatar, which I suppose is yet another addition to your bizarrely paranoid antics.



And you told Liz that you're the "IT Director" at Stamford Hospital---something which, increasingly, is seeming like a whopper of a tall tale. (Plus you've been boasting that it's "unverifiable." My, how convenient for you!)



Oh, I'm not trying to intimidate you at all! I promise, Simon. I'm just trying to get at the truth. If you feel "intimidated," then you have my utmost and heartfelt apologies, because that wasn't my intention at all.



I think my terms are reasonable, Simon. If you don't want to put up the abstract, then I guess you must not want to see the articles.



Sure, Simon. Send me an IRL picture of yourself and I'll have your entry finished by the end of the day. You have my word on that.



Did you make the quote, Simon? If you did, it would explain a lot. For example, it would explain why you didn't go on a mission.

Calm down. Metcalfe and I go way back, I have read his posts for many years, and I have read a book which was edited by him. I have a right to criticize him, just as he believes he has a right to criticize Mormonism.



Do you imagine that I listed my entire life-long reading list, Kishkumen? I have read enough Metcalfe over the years to know what his MO is, and to criticize him if he criticized my faith. If he can't handle it, I know of one sure way to make it stop.

Just out of curiosity, can you please describe Brent's MO?

Why not give us at least a few ideas about what's on there, then? At least, that way none of us will be so shocked to find you arguing about things you've never looked at.



You've mentioned one book he co-edited. Where is this other study taking place? You're talking about message boards, right?



I'm guessing, at least I hope and pray I'm right, that you have no idea how unbalanced that sentence makes you sound. You know how it reads to me? Psycho-level scary. Enough to make me think very carefully about ever having any interaction with you again.

Deliberately ambiguous? or just thoughtless?

You "go way back", Metcalf and yourself ehh? I remember him, on these very boards asking you to write a private correspondance to reveal who you were, and in essence, to stop bothering him.

So, when you say "go way back", you aren't saying you are friends, acquaintances or anything of the sort, but rather, more along the lines of you being an unwanted stalker?

Shove your patronizing "calm down" up your rear end, Simon. I don't give a crap whether you and Metcalfe "go way back," that you have "read his posts," or that you have further gone the completely unimpressive lengths of reading one volume he edited. You're an ignoramus who is taking people to task who have done far more than you to grapple with the material at issue, and you don't even bother to scrutinize their arguments properly before you tangle with them.

Simon, I read the FROB. I read articles in the JBMORS. I have familiarized myself with the apologetic writings of Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, et al. In other words, I am not going out half-cocked and braying out of my rear end when I have not in fact done the leg work. I read the recent MMM book before I criticized it. Your pathetic display of "learning" shows me that you don't know crap, and yet you have the temerity to express your uninformed and utterly fatuous opinions about it. You are nothing but a Mopologetic mynah bird.

You have lost what little respect I had for you. The president of Amplus University is a living insult to the academy. If you had a shred of decency, you would take a break from the board to acquire an education on the issues you pretend to be informed about, and then return to provide something substantive.

At least a guy like Joseph doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. You, sir, are a complete phony.

I can practically intuit what he's going to say:



And btw: check out my sig line if you what to understand Elder Belmont's modus operandi.

Belmont


I don't believe that's true. How could you possibly have every IP address from this board?

Wait a minute. This sentence is unbalanced. You say you have the right to criticize an individualbecause said individual criticizes an institution to which you belong. If this was balanced it would read that you have the right to criticize an individual because the individual has criticized you as an individual (which hasn't happened), OR you have the right to criticize that individual's institution because that individual criticizes your institution (which you haven't done).

You don't have the right to criticize him. You have the right to criticize his criticism of your institution.

Some people take criticism of the institution as personal criticism. Weird, but true.

I think you enjoy having Simon around, so you can sneer at him in your peculiarly condescending way. In terms of what I call the pathétique ratio, or the obvious educational attainment of a poster divided by the inverse proportion of silly time spent with this board, you take the cake over Mr. Simon.

I must confess, I am beginning to feel deep skepticism about several aspects of Belmont. This is one of them: but of course I may be mistaken in my suspicions.

Let's do a test. Can Belmont send me a PM to tell me what city I am in at the moment? I'd be happy to confirm on the board whether he is right or not.

If it turns out that Belmont can find our IP addresses from this message board, may I say that its technology may be in need of improvement.

... sneered Bob, in his peculiarly condescending way. ;-)

It is so obvious that I sneer; I don't attempt to hide it. I find your performance and that of Mr. Kish simply disgraceful as human beings and former or existing members of the Church.

The difference between me and Mr. Kish is that I don't hold any particular pretensions to intelligence, educational attainments or intellectual ability. But I can see what is sad and pathetic.

Back to work.

Great, now I'm disgraceful, pretentious, sad, and pathetic. Tell me something I didn't know.

Congratulations to Yahoo Bot for managing to avoid any references to the end-products of digestion in this post. It must have been a severe strain, but he did it!

Let that be an example to those others of us who have hard-to-break bad habits ...

I had no malevolent intent with that sentence, I simply meant that the one sure way to stop people from needling him and criticizing him would be for him to stop provoking apologists by criticizing the CoJCoLDS.

I see Belmont is online. So I repeat my little message in case he is able to prove his claim by answering my question.

I do not have everyone's IP addresses, I simply indicated that I have the ability to get them, as does everyone else.