With Malice Aforethought

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wonder if MCB understands that your friend is mocking her, and exposing her to ridicule.

Don't act like you've never done the same thing, Dan!

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=21&num=2&id=774

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't act like you've never done the same thing, Dan!

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=21&num=2&id=774

I admit it. That was cruel.

I should be ashamed of myself.

Fortunately, I don't think LOAP is sharp enough to ever notice.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

My advice for MCB - join www.writingforums.com. There is a workgroup where you will receive some critiques of your work there. Be prepared to have a different set of critics provide you a review of what you have written.

Yet, my personal opinion, trash the book and do some real research and critical thinking.

[Tarski]

I wonder if MCB understands that your friend is mocking her, and exposing her to ridicule.

Or do you think that her voluminous tome is, itself, a joke?

Couldn't say. I am only pointing out some possibilites.

Maybe the book isn't a joke afer all. I wouldn't take Pahoran's word for it. That's for sure.

[Pahoran]

Let it be noted that, with an attempt at plausible deniability, Pahoran has stooped to insinuating that I am gay.

I've "insinuated" nothing. I am simply trying to steer the thread back on topic and away from any attempt to turn every thread into a referendum on Prop 8. Part of that was nipping in the bud any further discussion of your inserting your views on "gay" issues into the thread.

Let it be noted that Tarski has got my intention quite spectacularly wrong.

Will he ever apologise and admit it?

Not in my lifetime.

Whatever.

I am reminded of a quote by Christopher Hitchens regarding religious leaders who repreatedly and feverishly denounce homosexuality.

Yeah, quoting Ditchkins will really add credibility to your argument.

There really never was a point in responding to you Pahoran. All you do is jump in from the sidelines with aggressive insulting personal and self-righteous attacks and you seldom if ever wield the sword of logic or evidence. Hence there is never really anything important to respond to.

From the sidelines?

Ahem: in case you didn't notice, this is my thread. I started it, you know.

Who actually jumped in from the sidelines with a mighty display of holier-than-thou?

Why, it was thou.

Calm down, please. Or else don't bother responding.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Couldn't say. I am only pointing out some possibilites.

Maybe the book isn't a joke afer all. I wouldn't take Pahoran's word for it. That's for sure.

Let it be noted that, with a maybe half-hearted attempt at plausible deniability, Tarski has stooped to insinuating that I am dishonest.

I claim no special insight into the author's state of mind. All I know is that she's spent a lot of time and energy getting up her 552-page tome; and if it's a joke, she never quite got around to giving us the punchline.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hick Preacher]

Do they really tear them apart or their arguments apart, or the silly strawmen they deem to be Petersen, Hamblin, and others apart?

Is this you in your birthday suit?

OH man this is funny-- lol-

[Tarski]

I've "insinuated" nothing. I am simply trying to steer the thread back on topic and away from any attempt to turn every thread into a referendum on Prop 8.

Riiight.

Part of that was nipping in the bud any further discussion of your inserting your views on "gay" issues into the thread.

I didn't insert gay issues. I made a point about the vitue (or lack of virtue) of being against something. The use of Mormon opposition to the gay agenda was clearly incidental to anyone who doesn't see read everytime the word "gay" pops up.

Re-read my post so I don't have to retype it.

Let it be noted that Tarski has got my intention quite spectacularly wrong.

Sure. Must I pretend to believe this?

Not in my lifetime.

Correct.

Yeah, quoting Ditchkins will really add credibility to your argument.

I don't know any Ditchkins. Hitchens on the other hand, is a very intelligent and well-read person who often gets people's goat. He can also turn a phrase and use ironic humor to make a point like no other. In this case, he did just that.

Who actually jumped in from the sidelines with a mighty display of holier-than-thou?

You would be hard pressed to explain why that was "holier-than-thou" since there wasn't the slightest aspect of the point that had anything to do with me. The point made was that if a person who condemns others for being actively against something would stop and reflect, they would realize that they also fit this description with respect to another group.

The point was independent of the incidental use of opposition to gay agenda as an example and there wasn't the slightest bit of self-righteousness in my point.

You saw red and avoided the real point thereby dragging the thread in off in the other direction yourself while managing to make a quip about my "orientation" (Why the quotes Pahoran? We both know.)

But then, you know all that.