Daniel Peterson Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Which raises another question. Do we know anyone who's gone missing recently?Has anyone seen Paul Osborne lately?Heh heh heh heh.No comment.But if anybody wants some free Jack Daniels, I hear there are fifty-seven gallons of it sitting unclaimed at a residence in the Dallas area. The previous owner had left in order to replenish his obviously dwindling supply, and seems never to have returned.. Link to comment
dblagent007 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Which raises another question. Do we know anyone who's gone missing recently?Has anyone seen Paul Osborne lately?Oh he's easy to find. Go to the other board and search for the keyword "masturbation." You will find that he is alive and well. Link to comment
William Schryver Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Can't we all just get along? Absolutely.With enough equivocation, it is almost always possible to find "peace in our time." Link to comment
jwhitlock Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Can't we all just get along?Ah, a fan of the great philosopher, Rodney King, I see. Link to comment
jwhitlock Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 With enough equivocation, it is almost always possible to find "peace in our time."That captures the essence of it. Link to comment
selek Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Will that change their effectiveness?No, they'll still fulfill thier primary function of identifying (and self-diagnosing) the paranoid delusionals who wear them.Of course, lead poisoning is not a new danger inherent to the change, nor will the the taxpayer shell out a dime for the additional material, as the "volume" of a tin-foil hat is occupied almost exclusively by the head of the wearer, and the lead there comes pre-installed. The letter does explain a great many things though, as the gross symptoms of extreme lead poisoning are indistinguishable from the "normal"behavior of the typical anti-Mormon. Link to comment
cjcampbell Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Actually, I was wrong. The Church monitors 6,500 anti-Mormon websites, not 6,000 as I originally said. The evidence is in the attached file.You are kidding, right? Where did you get this piece of nonsense? Link to comment
cjcampbell Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Yeah, but the uniforms and quarterly rallies are really cool. And I love the new banner style we approved at the last meeting. It reflects the flames so much better than the last one.Yeah, but the horses bolted when they saw the flames. Link to comment
dblagent007 Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Actually, I was wrong. The Church monitors 6,500 anti-Mormon websites, not 6,000 as I originally said. The evidence is in the attached file.You are kidding, right? Where did you get this piece of nonsense?CJ, read what I said in the post that you quoted, especially the part about the evidence being in the attached file; then go back to my post earlier in the thread and open the attached file (it is a PDF). Link to comment
cjcampbell Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 CJ, read what I said in the post that you quoted, especially the part about the evidence being in the attached file; then go back to my post earlier in the thread and open the attached file (it is a PDF). I read the attached file. It is nonsense. Real Church leaders do not talk like that or write like that. Where did you get it? Link to comment
dblagent007 Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 I read the attached file. It is nonsense. Real Church leaders do not talk like that or write like that. Where did you get it?It came from an invitation to participate in a business plan competition posted on BYU's website. The URL in the PDF file shows that it came from BYU. The webpage was taken down shortly after it was posted because the disclosure of the extent of the monitoring activity caused a big hubbub on the Internet. Link to comment
David Bokovoy Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Absolutely.With enough equivocation, it is almost always possible to find "peace in our time."Call it what you will, I'm just embarrassed that it took me ten pages to realize that I have better things to do in my life than read and respond to acrimonious judgments passed against individuals whose scholarship threatens certain members of the forum. Better things to do, like well, um... almost anything. But here's a novel suggestion though: perhaps instead of worrying about equivocation and creating multiple posts explaining how evil/apostate David Wright is and celebrating his excommunication, maybe those who feel threatened by his work should redirect that effort to providing answers to his observations. Now there would be something worthwhile to read! Link to comment
Vance Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 No, they'll still fulfill thier primary function of identifying (and self-diagnosing) the paranoid delusionals who wear them.Of course, lead poisoning is not a new danger inherent to the change, nor will the the taxpayer shell out a dime for the additional material, as the "volume" of a tin-foil hat is occupied almost exclusively by the head of the wearer, and the lead there comes pre-installed. The letter does explain a great many things though, as the gross symptoms of extreme lead poisoning are indistinguishable from the "normal"behavior of the typical anti-Mormon.Has a correlation been established between the wearing of these hats and the "normal" behavior of the typical anti-Mormon?If so, is it a cause or an affect? Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 It's a good thing the SSCE has already infiltrated the Seventy.Thanks for blowing my cover, Tsuzuk.Or is this the "watching the other hand" bit?Captain Poopie Pants, Away! Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Secret Society of Cavernous Evil.Ummm, that was so supposed to be a secret.(Now, where did I put those Danites?) Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 You don't need a church to have orthodox opinions, either. The whole point of a church is to be a social manifestation of the gospel.There is something anomalous about arguably the most unorthodox church in Christianity requiring strict orthodoxy from its members.All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Senator Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 There is something anomalous about arguably the most unorthodox church in Christianity requiring strict orthodoxy from its members.Well, the goal is to be of one heart and one mind.So, if it's not happening by the work of the spirit, then you know.....haul out the howitzers! Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Thanks for blowing my cover, Tsuzuk.Or is this the "watching the other hand" bit?Captain Poopie Pants, Away!....As long as that wasn't Popeye.... Link to comment
Tsuzuki Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Thanks for blowing my cover, Tsuzuk.Or is this the "watching the other hand" bit?Captain Poopie Pants, Away!It should be noted that, for this analogy, I have more than two hands. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 I remember that someone said they knew a member of the Seventy that occasionally reads this board.[ Link to comment
Tsuzuki Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Ummm, that was so supposed to be a secret.(Now, where did I put those Danites?)Do you remember the best way to keep a secret? Link to comment
Tsuzuki Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 There is something anomalous about arguably the most unorthodox church in Christianity requiring strict orthodoxy from its members.All the Best!--ConsiglieriWould that be strict unorthodoxy, then? Link to comment
Mortal Man Posted December 18, 2009 Author Share Posted December 18, 2009 This is not the first time Dan has been caught red-handed.Monday, Oct 16, 2006, at 08:37 AMDaniel C. Peterson Admits Being An "Agent" Of The Strengthening Church Members Committee A poster on FAIR brought up the Strengthening the Church Members Committee, apparently disquieted that such a thing even exists. During the course of the thread, most posters, notably Charity, tried to pooh-pooh away the OP's concerns, labeling them "conspiracy theory," and generally making fun of the whole thing. But what's interesting is that Prof. Peterson himself has actually functioned as an "agent" (his own word) for this committee:Daniel Peterson wrote: "[sic] .. was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings."Four hours? In a confined space? And he wants to claim that the SCMC is some kind of innocuous "newspaper clipping service"? He's got to be kidding. Further, his denials on the matter are of the "he doth protest too much" variety:Daniel Peterson wrote: "It's not much more than a (very) small clipping service. Trust me on this one. There is no spying or covert action. No trappings of "Mission Impossible." No non-Scientologist Tom Cruise. Some critics have severely overheated imaginations. "It is worth pointing out that, even if he is correct and it's only "a (very) small clipping service" (and "service" seems an odd choice of words), the "operation" would still involve people combing through newspapers, journals, blogs, etc., etc., and this really doesn't seem like a very small task. It seems that Lavina Anderson was far closer to the mark when she labeled SCMC an "internal espionage" organization. In any case, DCP appears to be in "deeper" than some may have thought.How does he keep slipping through our fingers? Link to comment
wenglund Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 This is not the first time Dan has been caught red-handed.How does he keep slipping through our fingers?By hiding in plain sight. Obviously. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.