Mortal Man Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 This is the Stalker's technique: He announces ridiculous things... 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 taleSounds like he'd be good at apologetics. 2
Calm Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 I gave two he-goats and a white salamander last week.Pahoran, isn't it your turn at the "atonement pole"DaniteI've got the bag of kittens.
Calm Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Nice try. But, I think it will take something more along the lines of bonfires of the vanities.Oh no, what I am going to do with all those kittens?
Daniel Peterson Posted August 24, 2011 Author Posted August 24, 2011 Sounds like he'd be good at apologetics.No, unfortunately not. A good apologist has got to be both sane and honest, and can't base his efforts upon fiction.I'm not surprised, though, that you find yourself attracted to his work and, on the whole, pleased with it. 4
Pahoran Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 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"!Heil "Mitchell"!There is another aspect of the stalker's technique: when nothing comes of his current crop of "predictions," he then announces that this is because something intervened, such as the "Oaks faction" being overcome by a new and powerful "Mitchell faction." Which, he smugly declares, really proves that he was right all along.Heil "Mitchell"!
Mortal Man Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 A good apologist has got to be both sane and honest, and can't base his efforts upon fiction.I concur and I'm pleased you recognize what the problem's been all these years.I'm not surprised, though, that you find yourself attracted to his work and, on the whole, pleased with it.That would only put me in your good company.
Pahoran Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 I concur and I'm pleased you recognize what the problem's been all these years.That would only put me in your good company.So "I know you are but what am I" is as advanced and sophisticated as Mortal arguments get, is it?Regards,Pahoran
Bill Hamblin Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Heil Mitchell!The tree shades the grass in the pharmacist's garden. Repeat: The tree shades the grass in the pharmacist's garden. That is all.Heil Mitchell!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Sounds like he'd be good at apologetics.Only the kind MM endorses and is familiar with.Good call MM.I find it really sad (seriously) that you would attempt to save face with such a person as Scratch and attempt to say that LDS apologists are anything like that guy.I concur and I'm pleased you recognize what the problem's been all these years.FailThat would only put me in your good company.Epic fail. You are not even trying here. Sometimes some things are just not very funny. I know, I have tried to make jokes and they fail. You make jokes too, and sometimes they fail. This is one of those times. Edited August 25, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
KevinG Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Heil Mitchell!The tree shades the grass in the pharmacist's garden. Repeat: The tree shades the grass in the pharmacist's garden. That is all.Heil Mitchell!Darn! I'm just short of 7500 posts and haven't qualified for me secret decoder CTR ring yet.
stemelbow Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Sounds like he'd be good at apologetics.I'm pretty sure this was meant as a joke, but to compare the tactics of that dude with a whole branch of studies like apologetics is quite delusional. I fear someone has fed you a pretty large cup of kool-aid for you to go that route. Joke? Mean-spirited jab? can't tell, personally.
LeSellers Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Joke? Mean-spirited jab? can't tell, personally.The two are not mutally exclusive. Lehi
stemelbow Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 The two are not mutally exclusive. LehiGood point. My mistake. There is a little truth in most jokes.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Good point. My mistake. There is a little truth in most jokes.And the jokes that a really funny contain elements of truth. Edited August 25, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
stemelbow Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 And the jokes that a really funny contain elements of truth.Having spent some time speaking with this Scratch guy and seeing how he actually has supporters (so having some familiarity with him), I don't see the joke as funny at all, but find it reflecting poorly on he who made the joke.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Having spent some time speaking with this Scratch guy and seeing how he actually has supporters (so having some familiarity with him), I don't see the joke as funny at all, but find it reflecting poorly on he who made the joke.Oh, I don't doubt his jokes are not funny. I doubt there is any truth to his jokes. Of what I have read, he is quite the dude.
Mortal Man Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 I'm pretty sure this was meant as a joke, but to compare the tactics of that dude with a whole branch of studies like apologetics is quite delusional. I fear someone has fed you a pretty large cup of kool-aid for you to go that route. Joke? Mean-spirited jab? can't tell, personally.Dan comes to these boards seeking comments at which to take umbrage. He loves to draw fouls. Out of a sense of duty and respect, I sometimes give him what he's looking for. We each have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Dan comes to these boards seeking comments at which to take umbrage. He loves to draw fouls. Out of a sense of duty and respect, I sometimes give him what he's looking for. We each have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.Sorry for giving you to much crap. And indeed, we do have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.
stemelbow Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Dan comes to these boards seeking comments at which to take umbrage. He loves to draw fouls. Out of a sense of duty and respect, I sometimes give him what he's looking for. We each have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.whatever the case it'd be nice if someone who runs in the circles of critics of mormonism would publically denounce Scratch and his behavior once in a while. Instead I see far more cheerleading by, what I'd consider, otherwise reasonable people. I guess i took your comment as cheerleading. Its still frustrating and I can only hope that's understandable.
Pahoran Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Dan comes to these boards seeking comments at which to take umbrage.Call for references, please.He loves to draw fouls.Call for references, please.Out of a sense of duty and respect, I sometimes give him what he's looking for. We each have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.I'm not sure which is more palpable: your sarcasm or your disdain.But referring to your cheerleading for Scratch: I don't know about "good," but he is certainly successful at a certain brand of apologetics. As an apologist for anti-Mormonism, he enjoys the distinct advantage of being trammelled by no ethical considerations of any kind.And he milks that advantage for all he can get from it.I'm not the least surprised that you so enthusiastically approve.Regards,Pahoran Edited August 25, 2011 by Pahoran 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Call for references, please.Call for references, please.I'm not sure which is more palpable: your sarcasm or your disdain.But referring to your cheerleading for Scratch: I don't know about "good," but he is certainly successful at a certain brand of apologetics. As an apologist for anti-Mormonism, he enjoys the distinct advantage of being trammelled by no ethical considerations of any kind.And he milks that advantage for all he can get from it.I'm not the least surprised that you so enthusiastically approve.Regards,PahoranCould you label Scratch as "Anti-Mormon"? He seems to have a really different approach than I have seen from traditional anti's. I mean, sure, he act similarly in some forms. But most anti-s don't stock other people.
Pahoran Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Could you label Scratch as "Anti-Mormon"? He seems to have a really different approach than I have seen from traditional anti's. I mean, sure, he act similarly in some forms. But most anti-s don't stock other people.I haven't noticed that Scratch has much to say about LDS doctrines or practices. He specialises in spiteful vendettas against individuals. But all of the people he goes after are Latter-day Saints. And not just any Latter-day Saints, but those who defend the Church against attack.There's an analogy here to aspects of naval warfare. If you have a fleet at sea, there will be some capital ships (such as aircraft carriers) surrounded by escorts. It is the job of the escorts to defend the capital ships.So if a hostile force wishes to attack that fleet, they will usually task some of their assets to first attack the escorts and keep them busy. While the escorts are engaged in trying to stay alive, a second hostile group will then attack the capital ships, which will be without escort protection. Note that the first group are not themselves attacking the capital ships, but their activities are an integral part of that attack.I see Scratch's role in anti-Mormonism as being similar to the first hostile group; he attacks the defenders so that they will be distracted when others attack the Church.Regards,Pahoran 1
Calm Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Dan comes to these boards seeking comments at which to take umbrage. He loves to draw fouls. Out of a sense of duty and respect, I sometimes give him what he's looking for. We each have our own unique ways of serving our fellowmen.If it was actually so, then don't you think it is wrong of you to enable such unhealthy behaviour? Why would one reward childish behaviour unless one wanted someone to continue to look childish?I do not believe Dan is the least bit childish or revels in being insulted, etc. Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah
Chris Smith Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Dan threw a soft pitch with that whole "fiction" thing. To fail to take a swing would have been a betrayal of the Way of Things. The Banter must go on, after all.ETA: (Heil Mitchell?) Edited August 25, 2011 by Chris Smith 1
Ares Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 Punches were thrown long before this thread was started. Groups that are the target of criticism or outright bigotry often exercise humor and parody as a way of taking the sting out of opposition.This thread is not an excuse to engage in Mormon and apologist bashing the likes of which can be found on any number of other sites and where critics of Mormonism are welcome to exercise their freedom of expression. This thread is also not the place to start a board war, engage in bold faced critic bashing or any other overt nastiness.
Recommended Posts