Joseph Antley Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 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.'"Kevin, as long as you're citing my experience, you might also add that I've said that I think that you and others have completely and utterly blown this out of proportion, and that I have also said many times that I do not consider Dr. Gee the "bad guy."You might let go of both this issue and your blatant bitterness towards John Gee.
Bill Hamblin Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Kevin, as long as you're citing my experience, you might also add that I've said that I think that you and others have completely and utterly blown this out of proportion, and that I have also said many times that I do not consider Dr. Gee the "bad guy."You might let go of both this issue and your blatant bitterness towards John Gee.Those who actually know him often call his Dr. GLEE! 7-36-84-9-45I repeat: 7-36-84-9-45Heil Mitchell!
Joseph Antley Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Those who actually know him often call his Dr. GLEE! I don't want to think of what he would do if I he caught me calling him "Dr. Glee."
TAO Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) Uh... Pahoran... I think Mortal Man was completely joking in the above post... I don't think he was saying anything about Dan this time. But I could be wrong. It just doesn't seem like he's insulting him though. It seems more to be only sarcasm... at least to me =). Edited August 26, 2011 by TAO
Daniel Peterson Posted August 26, 2011 Author Posted August 26, 2011 123-321-666-13. The cow has seen the mountaintop.I repeat:123-321-666-13. The cow has seen the mountaintop.(They're going to be so surprised when this happens and there's nothing they can do about it!)Heil Mitchell!A supplemental note for those who may imagine -- or, more realistically, who may simply be aware of the idiotic fantasies of a certain obsessive nutcase who pretends to imagine -- that the use of "Heil Mitchell" here indicates sympathy for, or a cavalier attitude toward, Nazism: It doesn't. Instead, it's meant to poke satirical fun at a certain malignant loon who seeks, for reasons known only to him (and perhaps to the mental health professionals who care for him, if he's fortunate enough to have such), to portray the Maxwell Institute and Mormon apologetics as evil, secretive, conspiratorial, vengeance-driven, and the like (rather like the Nazi Party of the 1920s).
Daniel Peterson Posted August 26, 2011 Author Posted August 26, 2011 I don't want to think of what he would do if I he caught me calling him "Dr. Glee." Ah! So young Antley is already aware of -- and, although he himself is an apologist, now confirms -- John Gee's grimly humorous and vengeance-driven personality. How revealing! This is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.(adopting the voice, method, and approach of my Malevolent Stalker)
Mortal Man Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 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'm simply adopting the voice, method, and approach of our Benevolent Talker.
Bill Hamblin Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 A supplemental note for those who may imagine -- or, more realistically, who may simply be aware of the idiotic fantasies of a certain obsessive nutcase who pretends to imagine -- that the use of "Heil Mitchell" here indicates sympathy for, or a cavalier attitude toward, Nazism: It doesn't. Instead, it's meant to poke satirical fun at a certain malignant loon who seeks, for reasons known only to him (and perhaps to the mental health professionals who care for him, if he's fortunate enough to have such), to portray the Maxwell Institute and Mormon apologetics as evil, secretive, conspiratorial, vengeance-driven, and the like (rather like the Nazi Party of the 1920s).Only those initiated into the True Arcana understand the REAL secret. Heil Shades!
Bill Hamblin Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 What most don't realize, and I have now been authorized to reveal, is that "Mitchell" IS Shades!While he appears to be an anonymous neurotic anti-Mormon who posts wild fantasies about the LDS Church, its leaders, and the Maxwell Institute/FARMS, he is in fact, the secretive omnipresent and omniscient "Mitchell," who--as we now know--is the real power behind the throne at FARMS. His nefarious plot is to post and endless torrent of idiotic nonsense in the guise of Shades so as to throw all of anti-Mormondom into disrepute as they lap up and spread his phantasmagoric fictions. Thus the incredible and exotic mind of "Mitchell" weaves its cunning web to ensnare the anti-Mormons in his lies and bring them to their ultimate doom! Heil "Mitchell"/Shades!PS And if you believe this, I've got an Oaks Faction I'd like to sell you!
Wiki Wonka Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 123-321-666-13. The cow has seen the mountaintop.I repeat:123-321-666-13. The cow has seen the mountaintop.(They're going to be so surprised when this happens and there's nothing they can do about it!)Wasn't this the code that initiated the serving of raw chicken to Don Bradley on the night prior to his FAIR Conference talk?Or am I mixing up my messages?WW
Danite3459 Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Huckellberry 23-6715-666-0001RepeatHuckellberry 23-6715-66-0001The goat in the ditch has eaten the sack lunchoverThe goat in the ditch has eaten the sack lunch
Joseph Antley Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Ah! So young Antley is already aware of -- and, although he himself is an apologist, now confirms -- John Gee's grimly humorous and vengeance-driven personality. How revealing! This is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.(adopting the voice, method, and approach of my Malevolent Stalker)I think I shuddered while reading this.
volgadon Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Only those initiated into the True Arcana understand the REAL secret. Heil Shades!How utterly insiduous of you.
Chris Smith Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 What most don't realize, and I have now been authorized to reveal, is that "Mitchell" IS Shades!I think you meant Scratch. Or is Shades code for Scratch? Or is Shades Scratch himself? Or is Shades a code for the use of Mitchell as a code for Scratch?
Bill Hamblin Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 I think you meant Scratch. Or is Shades code for Scratch? Or is Shades Scratch himself? Or is Shades a code for the use of Mitchell as a code for Scratch?The ultimate arcane truth is that "Mitchell" is a sock puppet for both Scratch and Shades. (Just because I can't tell the difference doesn't mean that "Mitchell" can't.)
Daniel Peterson Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 I'm simply adopting the voice, method, and approach of our Benevolent Talker.That's a relief. For a few minutes, I was afraid that you imagined that you were expressing my views.
Daniel Peterson Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 I think you meant Scratch. Or is Shades code for Scratch? Or is Shades Scratch himself? Or is Shades a code for the use of Mitchell as a code for Scratch?Oy veh! This is a watershed moment in the sorry and pathetic history of Scratcholepsy!My Malevolent Stalker imagines that the attention of all Mormon apologists is fixed upon his every nutcake speculation, and yet, as it turns out, Professor Hamblin doesn't even remember whether the poor insignificant loon goes by "Scratch" or by "Shades" over at the little message board where he struts his stuff!Oh, how painful this must be for the Stalker! To realize that he is peripheral to the periphery of the margin of the outskirts of the obscurer regions of the fringe of the least concerns of the apologists for whom he harbors such passionate and all-consuming hatred!
Daniel Peterson Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 Oh yes. Almost forgot.Heil Mitchell!834-224-6753 @#&%$#&!Floss the ditch with paintbrushes.Repeat:Floss the ditch with paintbrushes.Heil Mitchell!
Bill Hamblin Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 Oy veh! This is a watershed moment in the sorry and pathetic history of Scratcholepsy!My Malevolent Stalker imagines that the attention of all Mormon apologists is fixed upon his every nutcake speculation, and yet, as it turns out, Professor Hamblin doesn't even remember whether the poor insignificant loon goes by "Scratch" or by "Shades" over at the little message board where he struts his stuff!Oh, how painful this must be for the Stalker! To realize that he is peripheral to the periphery of the margin of the outskirts of the obscurer regions of the fringe of the least concerns of the apologists for whom he harbors such passionate and all-consuming hatred!But Dan, don't you remember that "Mitchell" commanded me to pretend to confuse Scratch and Shades to further his cover as the Sock Puppet behind both Scratch and Shades?
Xander Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) Are you under some sort of compulsion to parse and spin and quibble about everything?No Bill, but apparently you are under some sort of compulsion to obfuscate the matter by glosssing over the relevant facts. I didn't start this thread. It was brought to my attention, as the purpose was to refute something I had previously said. This "refutation" (as it was described to me via email) came by way of misinformation presented by Dan and whoever wrote that email. This is what I showed. You cannot address the evidence so you want to parse, spin and quibble about the fact that I have made your buddies look foolish. They have misrepresented teh data and the argument. If you could address the facts you would, but I see you're left with the usual apologetic whine about the fact that I'm just a quibbling apostate. I guess you're still upset with me that I embarrassed you on Kerry Shirts' blog a few years ago. My advice would be to just get over it and move on.In this thread I think I summed up Dan's problem quite nicely. The majority of eye-witness testimonies come from faithful LDS members. Period. They were not happy with the way Mike Reed was treated by FARMS scholars. Therefore, Dan and his buddy don't get to say this is just some anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none exists. This "drama" was made known to me, not by the enil anti-Mormons who were present at the event. No, it was made known to me by LDS members who were upset enough about it to refer to their own LDS scholars as "hostile" and "rude."Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. But I'll leave you three to your obfuscatory tactics by continuously joking about "Mitchell."I'm pretty sure Dan intended this thread to be a serious discussion about what actually happened, given his exhibit A evidence represented in the email he presented. Now that the facts aren't on his side you want to turn this into a clown fest about "Heil Mitchell."I'm hardly surprised. Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander
Bill Hamblin Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 No Bill,but apparently you are under some sort of compulsion to obfuscate the matter by glosssing over the relevant facts. I didn't start this thread. It was brought to my attention, as the purpose was to refute something I had previously said. This "refutation" (as it was described to me via email) came by way of misinformation presented by Dan and whoever wrote that email. This is what I showed. You cannot address the evidence so you want to parse, spin and quibble about the fact that I have made your buddies look foolish. They have misrepresented teh data and the argument. If you could address the facts you would, but I see you're left with the usual apologetic whine about the fact that I'm just a quibbling apostate. I guess you're still upset with me that I embarrassed you on Kerry Shirts' blog a few years ago. My advice would be to just get over it and move on.In this thread I think I summed up Dan's problem quite nicely. The majority of eye-witness testimonies come from faithful LDS members. Period. They were not happy with the way Mike Reed was treated by FARMS scholars. Therefore, Dan and his buddy don't get to say this is just some anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none exists. This "drama" was made known to me, not by the enil anti-Mormons who were present at the event. No, it was made known to me by LDS members who were upset enough about it to refer to their own LDS scholars as "hostile" and "rude."Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. But I'll leave you three to your obfuscatory tactics by continuously joking about "Mitchell."I'm pretty sure Dan intended this thread to be a serious discussion about what actually happened.Lordy, you are one obsessive-compulsive fellow. Lighten up dude!
Xander Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) LOL!Oh, so now I have OCD?That makes sense. I'm the guy who averages posting on this forum every day since 2004.Oh wait... I'm not that guy at all. Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander
Daniel Peterson Posted August 27, 2011 Author Posted August 27, 2011 misinformation presented by Dan and whoever wrote that email.The person who wrote that e-mail was present at the event. You were not.I have made your buddies look foolish.You have, indeed, made somebody look foolish. And you appear determined to continue doing so.The only legitimate question, I suppose, is why I should attempt to prevent you from it. I have no convincing answer to that question. I suppose it's just that I'm a really good fellow.The majority of eye-witness testimonies come from faithful LDS members. Period. They were not happy with the way Mike Reed was treated by FARMS scholars."FARMS scholars" here means, I take it, John Gee. And possibly, to a much lesser degree, Matt Roper.The sinister "Mitchell" and the ever-evil Louis Midgley don't appear to have asked any questions. Jerry Bradford may have been there, as well, but never seems to show up in these accounts at all. And I wasn't there and Bill Hamblin wasn't there and John Sorenson wasn't there and Stephen Ricks wasn't there and John Clark wasn't there and none of the other hundreds of "FARMS scholars" were there.Even taken at face value, the most negative of the accounts of John Gee's world-disturbing and horrific question don't seem to add up to much. And Matt Roper's supposedly scandalous and well-nigh criminal question seems even less noteworthy.There's not much to this story, really.There is certainly nothing to suggest a pre-arranged conspiracy to disrupt the Bushman seminar (which the Maxwell Institute [aka FARMS] actually co-sponsored and hosted) or "damage" Mike Reed.Therefore, Dan and his buddy don't get to say this is just some anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none exists. This "drama" was made known to me, not by the enil anti-Mormons who were present at the event. No, it was made known to me by LDS members who were upset enough about it to refer to their own LDS scholars as "hostile" and "rude."I think it's your anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none really exists. At least two of your own eyewitness sources on this very board have suggested that you're overdoing this. And you are.You should give it a rest. This dog won't hunt.Heil Mitchell! 1
Joseph Antley Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) You cannot address the evidence so you want to parse, spin and quibble about the fact that I have made your buddies look foolish. ... I guess you're still upset with me that I embarrassed you on Kerry Shirts' blog a few years ago.This whole issue really is all about you, isn't it, Kevin? Edited August 27, 2011 by Joseph Antley 1
Bill Hamblin Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 No Bill, but apparently you are under some sort of compulsion to obfuscate the matter by glosssing over the relevant facts. I didn't start this thread. It was brought to my attention, as the purpose was to refute something I had previously said. This "refutation" (as it was described to me via email) came by way of misinformation presented by Dan and whoever wrote that email. This is what I showed. You cannot address the evidence so you want to parse, spin and quibble about the fact that I have made your buddies look foolish. They have misrepresented teh data and the argument. If you could address the facts you would, but I see you're left with the usual apologetic whine about the fact that I'm just a quibbling apostate. I guess you're still upset with me that I embarrassed you on Kerry Shirts' blog a few years ago. My advice would be to just get over it and move on.In this thread I think I summed up Dan's problem quite nicely. The majority of eye-witness testimonies come from faithful LDS members. Period. They were not happy with the way Mike Reed was treated by FARMS scholars. Therefore, Dan and his buddy don't get to say this is just some anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none exists. This "drama" was made known to me, not by the enil anti-Mormons who were present at the event. No, it was made known to me by LDS members who were upset enough about it to refer to their own LDS scholars as "hostile" and "rude."Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. But I'll leave you three to your obfuscatory tactics by continuously joking about "Mitchell."I'm pretty sure Dan intended this thread to be a serious discussion about what actually happened, given his exhibit A evidence represented in the email he presented. Now that the facts aren't on his side you want to turn this into a clown fest about "Heil Mitchell."I'm hardly surprised.You did?! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Recommended Posts