And, true to my characterization above, you have sifted through the substance and honed in on the one line that allows you to take offense, giving you an excuse not to engage.

And true to my characterization of the board, you fail to take responsibility for the insult and perhaps consider your own flaw in having to include such a thing and causing the dialouge to derail.

JMS

You're right, Josh. I shouldn't have insulted you. By including that line, I am responsible for derailing what otherwise promised to be a fruitful dialogue.

I have deleted that line from my previous post, and offer my apologies. I hope that you now feel free to respond to what remains in a meaningful way.

Absolutely. Your statement that because of my response to Chris, I can not be taken seriously, by definition is flawed logically. Just because you disagree with my response to Chris does not have any relationship to how seriously, I as a person, should be taken.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

JMS

If the issue under discussion was one independent of human judgement, such as arithmetical calculations, you would be quite right that it would be misleading to suggest that your views on such matters were to be discounted on the mere grounds that I disagreed with you about some matter of opinion.

But if the issue is how posters on this board are to be judged - then I am quite happy to state as my considered view that anyone who evaluates the work of Chris Smith in the dismissive and contemptuous fashion you do is not a person on whose judgements of other posters I would place much weight.

The argument goes like this, you see:

Anyone who views Chris Smith's work with contempt has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.
Jskains has viewed Chris Smith's work with contempt.
Therefore jskains has demonstrated a low ability to evaluate the intelligence and sincerity of posters.

The logic is flawless. Your problem is with the truth value of the premises.

That is even deeper of a flawed argument. You've made it worse.

Now your into:

Joshua Likes Ice Cream.
Strawberry is a flavor of Ice Cream.
There for Joshua must like Strawberry Ice Cream.

Sad.

JMS

I don't think I've ever seen you even honestly attempt to engage in serious dialogue, Jskains. It's just like Sophocles has said: you tend to zero in on posts that allow you to avoid the issue and to take offense. Either that, or your posts turn into circular potifications ("What would it be like if I was prophet of the LDS Church?"), or reflections on your own views.

CaliforniaKid has given you a terrific opening here, and you've ignored it. My bet is that you haven't even read his article. Either that, or you didn't understand it. C'est la vie, Monsieur Potato-head. Your Yukon-Gold-eqsue dome seems incapable of absorbing and/or grappling with this sort of thing.

Thank you for reminding us all exactly how you function Scratch. The same ol' tactics, the same spin, the same garbage. You just barf it up in a different colored pail and act as if it has meaning.



And back to childish insults. I still wonder if you are nothing more than a product of bullying in school. Most people who act like bullies in adulthood are often the ones who were the most bullied.

JMS

I refuse to charge after the water boy after being plucked by the pitcher.

Sorry J, but you're just too ignorant on this matter and I don't have the time to hash everything out for you AGAIN. I've done it for you in the past and it just zooms right over your head and then you come back months or years later regurgitating the same FAIR nonsense that has already been rendered obsolete. You've never been interested in this subject so don't pretend to be now.

Well, let's try to carry something positive away from this, shall we?

At least jskains has at last conceded that the name of the famous physicist is not spelled 'Einstien'.

Let us be grateful for small mercies.

Awww, Poor Kevin. Had to get some attention by jumping onto the pile and spew the same thing already said.

Look, I get you got in bed with Satan and decided to turn your time and talent to hate. I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for the people who have to be around you. I am sure you are happily trying to destroy faith and families with your rhetoric. You are lost, and I feel sorry for you.

JMS

BTW, it says a lot about your own debate skills when you hide behind the cheap "ignorant" tactic. In a neutral environment, I bet I could easily keep up with you if not surpass you on this issue.

But there it is. You rather play games with your trailertrash companions and hide behind insults and trashtalk.

JMS

Yep .That's why people don't believe in the Book of Abraham.

Lots of people do actually.

JMS

That's it, I'm putting jskains on ignore because I'm tired of his continuous garbage. jskains, you take the Explanations of Facismile No. 3 and shove it. Your prophet Joe Smith was a dirty rotten liar.



Paul O

You mean like the continuous repeat about F3?

JMS

Course he could.

Why, he has done it so often before.

(Post a link to where you have excelled in debate, jskains? Of course we realise we can't expect you to do any excelling now, counta' this board being so unnatural and all. But you must have 'surpassed' somewhere, sometime.

So where was that?)

Could you link us to your best post on Facsimile 3, please?

I'm gonna blow you away with a shocking factoid. There is a world beyond the Internet.

*GASP*

Like World of WarCraft, I've played Dungeons and Dragons on pen and paper..... So have I gotten together and had interesting verbal debates in *gasp* the REAL WORLD!

Neat, ey?

JMS

That doesn't make sense. I am not the one obsessed with F3. That's the drama queen above.

jskains has no defense for the false translations offered by Joe Smith.

If it was another self proclaimed prophet from a different religion other than Mormonism who offered up Facismile No. 3 there is no doubt in my mind that jskains would be jumping all over it and crying FRAUD!

Paul O