Temporary Communication Channel For Maxwell Institute Operatives

[Pahoran]

You're absolutely correct. And, anyway, how could anyone on that side of the ideological fence possibly be wrong about the nuances and tone of an event from which he was many hundreds, even thousands, of miles distant, or mistaken in pronouncing "excellent" a paper that he hadn't read? Unthinkable. And hideously immoral even to suggest.

What side of the ideological fence? Haven't you heard? They don't have any ideology at all. They are nothing less than pure, disinterested seekers after absolute TRVTH, entirely uninfluenced by ideological considerations or partisan loyalties; the exact opposite of craven apologists such as ourselves.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Ah yes. My heartiest apologies.

[Mike Reed]

George Mitton also sent this to the "Mormon Library" email list. Here was my response.

George,

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I disagree that John Gee asked a harmless question. I think this was obvious from the mere fact that he started by saying, "First of all, Jared's presentation disproves your thesis" (a claim he seemed to be unwilling or unable to support). But moving on... Gee asked a question in the form of rhetorical trap: whether I could have "unknowingly" cited "Hoffman forgeries."

Now, it is true, that as Gee rephrased his question (while raising his voice), his question evolved to resemble the one you report, but this question was hardly clear from the start. Again... neither was it (in my view) harmless. I agree with Dan Vogell, Gee was trying to discredit us both with one stone.

As for me relying on secondary sources, I merely quoted Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe in a few paragraphs, after explaining that I was building upon their work. Thankfully, when my paper appears in print, it will be easier for people to realize my own work from Metcalfe's and Vogell's, simply by looking at the footnotes--but perhaps I should make this even more clear by stating explicitly "what follows hereafter is my research, and mine alone." I don't know, saying such a thing might come off as grandstanding.

You (George Mitton) wrote: "Matthew Roper also raised a question. Reed's paper leaves the impression (I think) that it was common knowledge in Joseph Smith's day that ancient people wrote on metal plates. Roper was cautioning about that generalization, because Mormon missionaries reported being challenged that ancient people did not write on such plates. (Indeed the Church has always heard that challenge, even today)."

Matthew Roper didn't just raise a "question." He made a *statement.* And in this statement he made the assertion that LaRoy Sunderland denied the existence of "metal records," but as I explained in my answer to Roper, this isn't accurate. I even explained in my *presentation* that the LaRoy Sunderland quote--like many other quotes (which, incidentally, have similarly been misrepresented by Matt Roper as evidence confirming that people thought the notion of Metal Records was preposterous in Smith's day)--was *very specific* in his denial.

-----------------

From my paper:

Granted, we know that some skeptics rejected Joseph Smith’s “Golden Bible” reports, partly because they associated the claim with his previous treasure seeking activities. Moreover, critics were all the more skeptical since Joseph Smith refused to publically display the plates. But rejecting Smith’s claim for having gold plates is not the same as denying the ancient practice. Few skeptics actually contended against the Gold Plates report on ancient metallurgical and archeological grounds, and those who did did so for fairly specific reasons.

· LaRoy Sunderland (in 1838) denied that Jews engraved their records on plates of brass.[1]

· John Hyde Jr. (in 1857) contended that after the reign of Zedekiah, Jews mainly wrote on rolls of parchment or papyrus (rather than plates of gold or brass). Incidentally, Hyde conceded that metal records were inscribed elsewhere in antiquity, and even cites Hesiod’s leaden tablets.[2]

· Reverend M.T. Lamb (in 1887) merely claimed that “No such records” as are found in the Book of Mormon was ever “engraved on gold plates or any other plates, in the early ages.”[3]

· Stuart Martin (in 1920) claimed that, unbeknownst to young Joseph, gold records would have most likely corroded after being buried for so long.[4]

Of these sources, and others I have read, none sweepingly denied the existence of ancient metal records, and only one source was even contemporaneous with Joseph Smith: LaRoy Sunderland, 1838. Does this aparent scarcity suggest that the notion of metal records in Joseph’s day was not so preposterous after all, and that Parley P. Pratt’s insinuation to this effect was therefore correct? I think it does. Fortunately, however, my conclusion does not merely follow from negative premises. There is much more positive evidence that I (and others) have gathered to settle the matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (New York City, 1838), 46.

[2] Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York, 1857), 217-20.

[3] The Golden Bible, or, The Book of Mormon, Is it from God? (New York, 1887), 11.

[4] The Mystery of Mormonism (New York: Dutton, 1920), 27. In addition to these sources listed above, FARMS affiliates have tried to substantiate the claim (that the notion of metal records was preposterous in Joseph Smith’s day) with another much later source: In 1963, Anthony A Hoekema contended, writing “entire books” on metal “plates” was not “common” in the “sixth century B.C.” He then, however, acknowledged the existence of other metal records, such as the “copper scroll” of Qumran, and a “bronze blade” found at “Byblos” from the eleventh century B.C. Mormonism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 89-90.

-----------------------

Matthew Roper, seemingly not satisfied with my response, strangely ("strangely," since I think I dealt with *all* the quotes he has cited as evidence in his own publications on the topic *in my presentation*) insisted that I had not considered the fact that certain early Saints defended the practice from evidentally polemic attacks rejecting the notion of ancient "metal records." I responded, "What's the source? Can you quote it for us?" Roper said no. I answered, "You said LaRoy Sunderland rejected 'metal records,' but again, he actually denied specifically that Jews wrote on Brass. You were wrong about that... so why should I not conclude that you are also wrong about this other source that you don't even have?" Roper: "I have it, but I can't quote it now." Me: "Well that doesn't help us here then, does it? If you have the source as you claim, feel free to give it to me afterwards."

When my presentation ended at 3:15, there was a 15 minute break to follow, but rather than talk to me, Roper quickly left alegedly for a 5:00pm dinner. He was probably predicting a LOT of traffic, or needed to prepare a casserole Oh well. At any rate, I emailed Matthew Roper asking him to share the source he had in mind.

I am still waiting...

As far as your behavior, George... I didn't find your headshaking disruptive. I didn't even notice it while delivering my paper. But several audience members did mention to me afterwards that they noticed you guys shaking your heads constantly during my session. Perhaps it was disruptive to them. I don't know. Nor do I really care. What matters to me is that you were very civil to me afterwards when we talked about my sources. I appreciate that.

Best,

Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

I should also mention that Matthew Roper emailed me as I wrote my "Mormon Library" response. Matthew Roper hasn't yet given me the source he said he had, however, it is nice to be in contact with him, and I am encouraged by his civil tone.

This reminds me that I need to respond to Roper's most recent email.

[Mike Reed]

I likely won't be posting much on this forum for the next week or so. I need to prepare for grad school, and today's my birthday.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Mike Reed

[LeSellers]

I need to prepare for grad school, ...

Don't let it go to your head.

and today's my birthday.

Happy birthday.

Lehi

[Xander]

What side of the ideological fence? Haven't you heard? They don't have any ideology at all. They are nothing less than pure, disinterested seekers after absolute TRVTH, entirely uninfluenced by ideological considerations or partisan loyalties; the exact opposite of craven apologists such as ourselves.

Pretty much. I do not have a "doctrine" that the Church isn't true. I have a knowledge that many of the fundamental claims are not true. Knowing this doesn't define me outside this little forum. Some failed apologetic arguments could be proved truth tomorrow and my day to day life wouldn't change. However, for the apologist, much is at stake if they are wrong; especially apologists for the LDS faith. If they are wrong, their entire universe collapses. Something they believed to be true is usually one of many dominoes lined up in front of the "Church is True" house of cards. If one falls, they all fall.

The truthfulness of the Church defines who they were. and it is rooted in every aspect of their lives. So it is far more important for you to be right about EVERYTHING, than it is for me to be occasionally right. Indeed, this is why I regularly admit being wrong on various points. Because I can afford to. You cannot. Well, you can actually, but since you've never admitted being wrong about anything, you think you can't.

I know it makes it easier for you to attack critics by being able to call every single one of them a biased anti-Mormon, but the fact is I am only interested in the truth. I'm not religious about criticism towards the LDS faith. Most of the time I get lured back onto the forums via email requests. Other times I find out that my name is being dragged through the mud again. My response on this thread is a perfect example.

Your problem isn't that my bias prevents me from being persuaded by your numerous apologetic hat-tricks. This is just something you tell yourself when faced with the fact that the only people who are impressed with yoru rhetoric are those from within the choir. It is just one of the many ways an apologists deals with confirmation bias. No, your problem is that you're not defending truth, which iis what I'm looking for. Always. You're just defending your religious presuppositions. It is important to distinguish between the two. The fact that I am only looking for truth is proved because I have changed my mind on numerous points. This in and of itself proves I do not let my bias get in the way of compelling evidence. But again, your problem is that you have no compelling evidence. You have rhetoric, and as a former apologist, I recognize it well.

You realise, Dan, that Pseudo-Mitchell's account of events cannot possibly be right.

Why do you two keep pounding this "Mitchell" nonsense? Chris said Mitchell by mistake, not knowing what his last name was exactly. Why is this such an important point for you two to trounce in two threads now? Because by doing so, you get to divert everyone's attention away from the heart of the matter, which is the fact that Mike Reed was asked a ridiculous question that made many Mormons want to put their heads down in shame. The fact that this one person above sees it differently only means you have one-eye witness testimony (from an accomplice) against several, whereas before you had none against several. Most of this email above consists of straw mans probably devised and delivered by Dan Peterson. This guy doesn't seem to be aware of what has actually been said here.

So where do we disagree? From what I can tell from the email above, the only thing I think is in dispute is his blase blow over of the controversial moment where Gee asked his question. Where he claims Gee was "trying to be helpful" several oother faithful LDS members saw it very differently. So you don't get to set this up as if it is Kevin Graham the anti-Mormon vs. someone who was there. In reality every eye-witness account from both LDS and non-LDS have given a very different take on that moment.

First let's take what he says:

I took his question as trying to be helpful to Reed, since if he were to publish the paper he would want to be sure there were no inaccuracies in his secondary sources. Unfortunately, Reed apparently could not hear the question, although that is odd because I had no trouble hearing it and I was far across the room from Gee. This caused Gee to repeat the question, more than once, raising his voice each time to be heard. I think the informant interpreted that as shouting at Gee, but that was not the intention I am sure. Reed never did answer Gee's plain question.

Ignoring the veiled insinuation that Reed was lying about not being able to hear the question, and was probably just buying time to craft a response, this guy essentially agrees with what the "critics" said, in that Gee raised his voice. But who said Gee "shouted"? I certainly didn't, and neither did Chris. I'm guessing this is something Dan misrepresented again. He refers to Gee's "plain" question but doesn't comment on why it was a weird question. He either doesn't recall or he chooses not to disclose the fact that Gee asked him if he "knew" that he "unknowingly" did something. This detail has been confirmed by three people who were there, including the person who was asked the question.

So while Dan and Pahoran are tickled pink with their little straw man thread, I thought I'd remind everyone of the eye-witness accounts. It is these accounts that shaped my opinion, not an anti-Mormon bias or whatever Pahoran asserts:

Dan's email claims this was a "plain" question and that only the critics reported drama because that is what they wanted. Even Dan should know this piece of nonsense has already been refuted. Indeed, this came to my attention on facebook when Loyd Ericson, a faithful LDS member, shared his view on Gee's remaks. What ensued was a discussion involving a number of people, some of whom were LDS attendees. So let's look at what testimonies we have actually seen:

Joseph Antley is not only LDS, but he is an apologist. He felt compelled to just put his head down, and contrary to Mitton, said "I don't think it was 'just a question.'"

Boris Balkin is presumably LDS, and he called it an "awkward moment." He also said that,"it seemed like these guys had a history and it was a continuation of that. Gee's question struck me as a little bit of a 'gotcha' type thing." So according to Balkin, there was an obvious history based on this short exchange, which means something from that exchange gave it away. And yet Mitton assures us there was no drama whatsoever, except that which was fabricated from the anti-Mormon mind.

Lloyd Ericson is LDS and he said, "John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off somone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then."

Chris Smith gave one of the two non-LDS testimonies. He said "Gee tried to discredit Mike's findings through guilt-by-association. Early in his paper, Mike had quoted Dan Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. Gee's question was something like, "Dan Vogel's work relies heavily on the Hoffman forgeries, so in your reliance on Vogel, have you unknowingly brought the Hoffmann forgeries into your work as well?" Gee was asking if the 19th century publications cited in Mike's paper might be Hoffmann forgeries, but unfortunately Mike thought Gee was saying Hoffmann had forged some metal plates. He asked Gee to clarify the question, at which point Gee merely repeated the question several times in a louder, more agitated voice. Other audience members, frustrated by the exchange, unfortunately contributed to the chaos by attempting to clarify the questions in an equally agitated tone. It was an awkward exchange for everyone. Finally Mike told Gee that he had only quoted Vogel once, and his paper was almost entirely original research. Like Roper, Gee disappeared immediately after the session was over.

Mike Reed is the other non-LDS testimony: "what a ridiculous thing to ask if I knew I unknowingly did something"

Other LDS members like Blair Hodges said it was "uncomfy." Ben Park, who identifies on facebook as a Mormon, said, and I quote, "That was tremendously embarrassing and awkward." On his blog he states:

Predictably, several FARMS associates in the audience offered challenges in the Q&A session, and a combination of ambiguity (and in one case, hostility) on the part of the questioners and Mike’s inability to comprehend what the questions were really asking led to tremendous awkwardness for all those present—perhaps the most tension felt at a Bushman/Givens Seminar to date. Oh, well.

So no, this isn't Mitton's first hand account vs. the evil Kevin Graham who wasn't even there. This is Mitton's account vs. numerous eye-witness accounts, most of which come from LDS members.

So we're looking at SEVEN different people who give testimonies that conflict with Mitton's nonchalance. FIVE of those come from LDS members.

Kevin Graham drew his conclusion based on these testimonies.

That he would say he is "setting the record straight" in a way that conflicts with numerous eye-witnesses, is pretty funny to me, and should be embarrassing to him.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

I disagree that John Gee asked a harmless question. I think this was obvious from the mere fact that he started by saying, "First of all, Jared's presentation disproves your thesis" (a claim he seemed to be unwilling or unable to support). But moving on... Gee asked a question in the form of rhetorical trap: whether I could have "unknowingly" cited "Hoffman forgeries."

Mike, you have to appreciate the fact that this guy is just as critical of you and your work as Gee and Roper. For him to overlook Gee's confrontational questioning, which was clearly perceived by all other known witnesses, tells us all we need to know really about his bias. These are his colleagues. He is not going to give a balanced account if that means further incriminating Gee for being belligerent. He is going to offer recrimination instead.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

I likely won't be posting much on this forum for the next week or so. I need to prepare for grad school, and today's my birthday.

Happy Birthday Mike.

[Bill Hamblin]

Pretty much. I do not have a "doctrine" that the Church isn't true. I have a knowledge that many of the fundamental claims are not true. Knowing this doesn't define me outside this little forum. Some failed apologetic arguments could be proved truth tomorrow and my day to day life wouldn't change. However, for the apologist, much is at stake if they are wrong; especially apologists for the LDS faith. If they are wrong, their entire universe collapses. Something they believed to be true is usually one of many dominoes lined up in front of the "Church is True" house of cards. If one falls, they all fall.

The truthfulness of the Church defines who they were. and it is rooted in every aspect of their lives. So it is far more important for you to be right about EVERYTHING, than it is for me to be occasionally right. Indeed, this is why I regularly admit being wrong on various points. Because I can afford to. You cannot. Well, you can actually, but since you've never admitted being wrong about anything, you think you can't.

I know it makes it easier for you to attack critics by being able to call every single one of them a biased anti-Mormon, but the fact is I am only interested in the truth. I'm not religious about criticism towards the LDS faith. Most of the time I get lured back onto the forums via email requests. Other times I find out that my name is being dragged through the mud again. My response on this thread is a perfect example.

Your problem isn't that my bias prevents me from being persuaded by your numerous apologetic hat-tricks. This is just something you tell yourself when faced with the fact that the only people who are impressed with yoru rhetoric are those from within the choir. It is just one of the many ways an apologists deals with confirmation bias. No, your problem is that you're not defending truth, which iis what I'm looking for. Always. You're just defending your religious presuppositions. It is important to distinguish between the two. The fact that I am only looking for truth is proved because I have changed my mind on numerous points. This in and of itself proves I do not let my bias get in the way of compelling evidence. But again, your problem is that you have no compelling evidence. You have rhetoric, and as a former apologist, I recognize it well.

Why do you two keep pounding this "Mitchell" nonsense? Chris said Mitchell by mistake, not knowing what his last name was exactly. Why is this such an important point for you two to trounce in two threads now? Because by doing so, you get to divert everyone's attention away from the heart of the matter, which is the fact that Mike Reed was asked a ridiculous question that made many Mormons want to put their heads down in shame. The fact that this one person above sees it differently only means you have one-eye witness testimony (from an accomplice) against several, whereas before you had none against several. Most of this email above consists of straw mans probably devised and delivered by Dan Peterson. This guy doesn't seem to be aware of what has actually been said here.

So where do we disagree? From what I can tell from the email above, the only thing I think is in dispute is his blase blow over of the controversial moment where Gee asked his question. Where he claims Gee was "trying to be helpful" several oother faithful LDS members saw it very differently. So you don't get to set this up as if it is Kevin Graham the anti-Mormon vs. someone who was there. In reality every eye-witness account from both LDS and non-LDS have given a very different take on that moment.

First let's take what he says:

Ignoring the veiled insinuation that Reed was lying about not being able to hear the question, and was probably just buying time to craft a response, this guy essentially agrees with what the "critics" said, in that Gee raised his voice. But who said Gee "shouted"? I certainly didn't, and neither did Chris. I'm guessing this is something Dan misrepresented again. He refers to Gee's "plain" question but doesn't comment on why it was a weird question. He either doesn't recall or he chooses not to disclose the fact that Gee asked him if he "knew" that he "unknowingly" did something. This detail has been confirmed by three people who were there, including the person who was asked the question.

So while Dan and Pahoran are tickled pink with their little straw man thread, I thought I'd remind everyone of the eye-witness accounts. It is these accounts that shaped my opinion, not an anti-Mormon bias or whatever Pahoran asserts:

Dan's email claims this was a "plain" question and that only the critics reported drama because that is what they wanted. Even Dan should know this piece of nonsense has already been refuted. Indeed, this came to my attention on facebook when Loyd Ericson, a faithful LDS member, shared his view on Gee's remaks. What ensued was a discussion involving a number of people, some of whom were LDS attendees. So let's look at what testimonies we have actually seen:

Joseph Antley is not only LDS, but he is an apologist. He felt compelled to just put his head down, and contrary to Mitton, said "I don't think it was 'just a question.'"

Boris Balkin is presumably LDS, and he called it an "awkward moment. He also said that,"it seemed like these guys had a history and it was a continuation of that. Gee's question struck me as a little bit of a 'gotcha' type thing." So according to Balkin, there was an obvious history based on thsi shorte xchange. And yet Mitton assures us there was no drama except that which was fabricated from the anti-Mormon mind.

Lloyd Ericson is LDS and he said, "John Gee basically asked Michael if he knew if he was unknowingly using Hoffman forgeries for all of his sources, implying both that Mike was a terrible scholar who was simply ripping off somone else's work (who supposedly used some Hoffman forgeries) and that Hoffman somehow actually managed to go back in time and forge dozens of whole books that became popular back then.

Chris Smith gave one of the two non-LDS testimonies. He said "Gee tried to discredit Mike's findings through guilt-by-association. Early in his paper, Mike had quoted Dan Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. Gee's question was something like, "Dan Vogel's work relies heavily on the Hoffman forgeries, so in your reliance on Vogel, have you unknowingly brought the Hoffmann forgeries into your work as well?" Gee was asking if the 19th century publications cited in Mike's paper might be Hoffmann forgeries, but unfortunately Mike thought Gee was saying Hoffmann had forged some metal plates. He asked Gee to clarify the question, at which point Gee merely repeated the question several times in a louder, more agitated voice. Other audience members, frustrated by the exchange, unfortunately contributed to the chaos by attempting to clarify the questions in an equally agitated tone. It was an awkward exchange for everyone. Finally Mike told Gee that he had only quoted Vogel once, and his paper was almost entirely original research. Like Roper, Gee disappeared immediately after the session was over.

Mike Reed is the other non-LDS testimony: "what a ridiculous thing to ask if I knew I unknowingly did something"

Other LDS members like Blair Hodges said it was "uncomfy." Ben Park, who identifies on facebook as a Mormon, said, and I quote, "That was tremendously embarrassing and awkward."

So no, this isn't Mitton's first hand account vs. the evil Kevin Graham who wasn't even there. This is Mitton's account vs. numerous eye-witness accounts, most of which come from LDS members.

So we're looking at SEVEN different people who give testimonies that conflict with Mitton's nonchalance. FIVE of those come from LDS members.

Kevin Graham drew his conclusion based on these testimonies.

That he would say he is "setting the record straight" in a way that conflicts with numerous eye-witnesses, is pretty funny to me, and should be embarrassing to him.

Good Lord! Is there no end to this idiotic parsing of events? Will no one rid me of these meddlesome quibblers?

Heil Mitchell!

[Xander]

Good Lord! Is there no end to this idiotic parsing of events? Will no one rid me of these meddlesome quibblers?

Heil Mitchell!

I agree Bill, but why did you quote my post instead of Dan's?

This was shutdown in a previous thread but Dan felt he needed to drag it out further. Pahoran thought he could misrepresent the facts and accuse me of letting my anti-Mormon bias get the best of me. I simply showed up to refute that piece of nonsense with the facts. I can see why you would want to rush to the aid of your buddies, but the bomb already went off. There is nothing for you to diffuse here.

Funny how Dan and Pahoran trounce this straw man for days without interruption. But the second someone disrupts their little party with the facts, suddenly you want to complain about the dead horse. And appeal to the mods to rid you of my presence, as if this has anything whatsoever to do with you.

Classic.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

...Kevin Graham drew his conclusion based on these testimonies.

In other words, the Church of What's Wrong With John Gee is true.

Blessed be the rumor mill and the emotive zeal of its parishioners. May the lengthy rants be a continued source of edification and enlightenment and a venerated witness to the enviable lives of those who worship at its alter. Amen.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

In other words, the Church of What's Wrong With John Gee is true.

A "Church" comprised of LDS members who have no vested interest in seeing one of their own scholar/apologists discredited?

Ok, that made sense.

Blessed be the rumor mill and the emotive zeal of its parishioners.

Right, the rumor mill. Is that where you want to go with this now? Good luck.

FIve first hand accounts, all of which corroborate one another. Hardly a rumor-mill.

The only anomaly here is Mitton's account which seems more interested in attacking the "anti-Mormons" than giving accurate details of what happened. Hardly surprising though, given his involvement.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree Bill, but why did you quote my post instead of Dan's?

This was shutdown in a previous thread but Dan felt he needed to drag it out further. Pahoran thought he could misrepresent the facts and accuse me of letting my anti-Mormon bias get the best of me. I simply showed up to refute that piece of nonsense with the facts. I can see why you would want to rush to the aid of your buddies, but the bomb already went off. There is nothing for you to diffuse here.

Funny how Dan and Pahoran trounce this straw man for days without interruption. But the second someone disrupts their little party with the facts, suddenly you want to complain about the dead horse. And appeal to the mods to rid you of my presence, as if this has anything whatsoever to do with you.

Classic.

Are you under some sort of compulsion to parse and spin and quibble about everything?

[wenglund]

A "Church" comprised of LDS members who have no vested interest in seeing one of their own scholar/apologists discredited?

Ok, that made sense.

It may make sense to you. However, it doesn't to me, since it is worlds appart from what I had in mind. What it does illustrate is your abject failure to grasp the point of my parody.

Here is a helpful hint: think, if you can, in terms of a proper sense of proportion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you under some sort of compulsion to parse and spin and quibble about everything?

I would say the answer to that is: Yes.

[Bill Hamblin]

I would say the answer to that is: Yes.

You know, now that you mention it ... I believe you're right!

Heil Mitchell!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You know, now that you mention it ... I believe you're right!

Heil Mitchell!

Lol, this thread rules.

[Nemesis]

and no this isn't directed at the MI or its minions.

Nemesis

[Bill Hamblin]

and no this isn't directed at the MI or its minions.

Nemesis

I don't know what this means, but it looks extremely ominous!

[Pahoran]

I don't know what this means, but it looks extremely ominous!

Indeed. Is there an angry volcano god that needs appeasing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Indeed. Is there an angry volcano god that needs appeasing?

If the 7.0 seismic activity at the epicenter in Xanderville is any indication, then yes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Danite3459]

I gave two he-goats and a white salamander last week.

Pahoran, isn't it your turn at the "atonement pole"

Danite

Indeed. Is there an angry volcano god that needs appeasing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Heil "Mitchell"!

Incidentally: I see that there was a thread earlier today about my Malevolent Stalker's latest fantasies. Alas, it was closed before I saw it.

So far as I'm aware, there is no truth whatsoever to the notion that Elder Oaks is angry about FAIR and/or FARMS (that is, the Maxwell Institute). If there were truth to it, and if the sweeping changes that the Stalker announces were really imminent, I'm pretty confident that I would have heard about these things. But I haven't. Not so much as a whisper.

This is the Stalker's technique: He announces ridiculous things (e.g., The Packer Faction and The Oaks Faction and The Meeting in Redding between Scott Gordon and Elder Oaks) and then, once a bit of time has passed, he uses the preceding fiction -- for which he has provided no actual evidence -- as the foundation upon which to erect yet another tall tale (in this case, the volcanic anger of Elder Oaks).

Either he's making this latest nonsense up, or his "informant" is once again playing him for a fool.

Heil "Mitchell"!

[wenglund]

I gave two he-goats and a white salamander last week.

Nice try. But, I think it will take something more along the lines of bonfires of the vanities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-