Temporary Communication Channel For Maxwell Institute Operatives

[Bill Hamblin]

This whole issue really is all about you, isn't it, Kevin?

Everything is really about Kevin.

[Daniel Peterson]

You did?! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Kevin routinely defeats those with whom he disagrees. In fact, he invariably and utterly destroys them.

I can't think of a single exception.

Of course, it's not much of an achievement, really, because they're always liars, idiots, and morons.

I've watched enough of these encounters to know how they always play out -- at least, if you believe Kevin's accounts.

[Joseph Antley]

Everything is really about Kevin.

Clearly. Most of his posts seem to revolve around what an awesome and intelligent person he is compared to the idiots, liars, and chumps he interacts with.

I can't help but wonder if it's overcompensation due to intellectual insecurity or if Kevin's posts are just the product of simple narcissism.

[Loran Blood]

I haven't noticed that Scratch has much to say about LDS doctrines or practices. He specialises in spiteful vendettas against individuals.

I've noticed over the years that this has come to define much of the discourse present on the Other Board generally speaking, with Scratch being the template upon which the posting of several other active participants there has been based.

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.

He's shares Xander's general political and philosophical outlook, and this provokes him to go after others outside the Church as well, based on their views of things such as convenience abortion, homosexual marriage, and all points south of the Great and Spacious Building.

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.

Or the termite soldiers defending the immobile, bloated, egg laying queen. It just sits there and produces more termites while the workers and soldiers maintain the anti-Mormon "hive."

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.

Interesting analysis.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

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!

Moose and Squirrel have just sent a coded message from Pottsylvainia via encrypted satellite uplink:

Hokey Smoke! the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon and the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true. Repeat: Hokey Smoke! the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon and the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

Attention! If Kevin reads this sentence in reverse, He'll have us dead to rights. New coded message to follow pending receipt of go-ahead from "Q."

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I can't help but wonder if it's overcompensation due to intellectual insecurity or if Kevin's posts are just the product of simple narcissism.

That's funny, because that is what I've been saying about Kevin and what he's been saying about me and others for years. It seem that he who passes out first while going around the sugar bowl loses.

[Loran Blood]

Everything is really about Kevin.

I've always immensely enjoyed that point one reaches in any and every debate with Kevin when he says, "I've already sent you packing once with your tail tucked between your legs." or, "I've already shown that (insert name of apologist here) is a liar." or, "(insert name of apologist here) got caught red handed misrepresenting the evidence and started backpedaling as fast as he could" or, "I'm so tired of debating people who don't know what they're talking about who still use apologetic arguments that I blew out of the water ages ago." or, "No one takes (insert name of apologist here) seriously" etc., etc.

I'm afraid that KG may be to the world of philosophy, critical thought, scholarship and letters what Don Quixote was to windmills.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Bill Hamblin]

I've always immensely enjoyed that point one reaches in any and every debate with Kevin when he says, "I've already sent you packing once with your tail tucked between your legs." or, "I've already shown that (insert name of apologist here) is a liar." or, "(insert name of apologist here) got caught red handed misrepresenting the evidence and started backpedaling as fast as he could" or, "I'm so tired of debating people who don't know what they're talking about who still use apologetic arguments that I blew out of the water ages ago." or, "No one takes (insert name of apologist here) seriously" etc., etc.

I'm afraid that KG may be to the world of philosophy, critical thought, scholarship and letters what Don Quixote was to windmills.

It is, perhaps, his fate to become the ultimate parody of himself.

[Xander]

The person who wrote that e-mail was present at the event. You were not

And neither were you. But I am alluding to numerous testimonies from people who were there, whereas you're ignoring them and falling back on only one. Why? Because you finally found one that says something you like. Too bad his account conflicts with the rest, which makes his the least credible.

"FARMS scholars" here means, I take it, John Gee. And possibly, to a much lesser degree, Matt Roper.

You'll have to take that up with Ben Park, the faiithful LDS member who runs the Juvenile Instructor. You keep wanting to make this about me, but you can't. That's your problem. This is about what numerous faithful LDS members have said. People who were there.It is your job to discredit them, while trying to pretend you're only discrediting "anti-Mormons." Good luck.

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.

I see you're still at home with your apologetic straw farm.

I think it's your anti-Mormon attempt to create drama where none really exists.

Then you choose to keep ignoring the evidence. The evidence being, at least a half dozen eye witness accounts coming from faithful LDS members. You're still trying to make this about me, but you can't.

You should give it a rest. This dog won't hunt.

So says the guy who insists on starting a new thread even though the mods shut down the previous one. As I said, you're the one who keeps bringing this up. All I am doing is correcting your blatant misrepresentations of what has been said, along with Pahoran's ridiculous synopsis of the situation. The situation is quite simple really. Numerous LDS members were upset at the way Mike Reed was treated at a scholarly conference. They made their views known online. I relayed their concerns, and all you have done is obfuscate, beat up straw men and deny. That's it. That's all you ever do really. You debate nothing.

This whole issue really is all about you, isn't it, Kevin?

Why don't you ask your buddy Daniel, since he's the one who keeps dragging this out. All I am doing is responding to the attacks coming from Dan, Pahoran and now their newest tag team member, Bill Hamblin. That you and Loran have rushed to the scene to join the fun is hardly surprising either. If you can't debate the issues for a flip, you might as well take advantage straw man massacre, right?

You did?! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure you don't Bill. It was the only time you and I ever discussed anything, as far as I know. I listened to a radio show that hosted you a few years ago and the topic was raised on Kerry's blog. You spoke on Islam and said that those under Islamic rule could, and I quote, "do whatever they wanted." I simply pointed out that this wasn't really true, and you got all indignant and accused me of essentially lying. You said you never said they could do "whatever they wanted." But I had an audio copy of the radio show, and I posted a clip of your own voice online to prove I wasn't misrepresenting you. But by then Dan rushed to the scene and insisted you abandon the discussion immediately, and Kerry edited the heck out of our exchange to exclude all the data I presented which proved you were the one who wasn't really familiar with your own speech.

Now zip forward a few years and I see you jump into the middle of this discussion to attack me out of the blue. It is like old times, you and Dan blindly defending each other just because... it is the cool thing to do, apparently.

You guys can call me names if you want. Whatever you need to help your egos, I'm happy to oblige. As long as you know (and you do) that Dan has pretty much lost every argument he has tried to make on this subject.

[Bill Hamblin]

Sure you don't Bill. It was the only time you and I ever discussed anything, as far as I know. I listened to a radio show that hosted you a few years ago and the topic was raised on Kerry's blog. You spoke on Islam and said that those under Islamic rule could, and I quote, "do whatever they wanted." I simply pointed out that this wasn't really true, and you got all indignant and accused me of essentially lying. You said you never said they could do "whatever they wanted." But I had an audio copy of the radio show, and I posted a clip of your own voice online to prove I wasn't misrepresenting you. But by then Dan rushed to the scene and insisted you abandon the discussion immediately, and Kerry edited the heck out of our exchange to exclude all the data I presented which proved you were the one who wasn't really familiar with your own speech.

Now zip forward a few years and I see you jump into the middle of this discussion to attack me out of the blue. It is like old times, you and Dan blindly defending each other just because... it is the cool thing to do, apparently.

I remember now! That's when you called me one of the "BYU Islam Apologists." (In the mondo bizzaro of Kevin everyone who isn't as rabidly anti-Muslim as him must be an "apologist" for Islam.) I'm sure you won't believe me, but I had truly completely forgotten about it. Which I suspect demonstrates who is actually obsessed about whom.

Since you're actually talking about me, all I can say is your fantasies are so off the mark as to verge on delusional.

[Xander]

I remember now! That's when you called me one of the "BYU Islam Apologists."

Which I supported with evidence. When you're making absurd claims like the one you did on the radio show, well, that classifies you as an apologist. Sorry, but it is true. It is almost as absurd as saying jihad was only for defense, never offense.

(In the mondo bizzaro of Kevin everyone who isn't as rabidly anti-Muslim as him must be an "apologist" for Islam.)

Or not. And I'm not anti-Muslim. I'm just not interested in the tendencies of some Islamic scholars to produce hagiographic explanations of Islam'c history. For what it is worth, I have changed my perspective on this to a considerable degree, and Dan Peterson was instrumental in that process. Unlike most people on these forums, I have a documented history of changing my mind when presented enough evidence. Call them crazy, but some people might consider that evidence of a reasonable mind. Some Mormons hate me because I left Mormonism, apologists in particular, have a unique disgust for me because I was one of them not so long ago, extreme Right Wingers like Loran hate me because I had the audacity to change my views on politics, and I have people on anti-Muslim forums calling me traitor for the same reasons.

But I'm not interested in gratifying the stiff minds that refuse to bend. I'm interested in truth.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but I had truly completely forgotten about it. Which I suspect demonstrates who is actually obsessed about whom.

Or who is overly dismissive about his own failed arguments. Your comment was a true humdinger, and I'd want to forget it too if I were you.

Since you're actually talking about me, all I can say is your fantasies are so off the mark as to verge on delusional.

So does this mean you deny falsely accusing me of misrepresenting your comments?

It is difficult to obtain a point from all that rhetoric.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander

[Bill Hamblin]

Which I supported with evidence. When you're making absurd claims like the one you did on the radio show, well, that classifies you as an apologist. Sorry, but it is true. It is almost as absurd as saying jihad was only for defense, never offense.

Or not. And I'm not anti-Muslim. I'm just not interested in the tendencies of some Islamic scholars to produce hagiographic explanations of Islam'c history. For what it is worth, I have changed my perspective on this to a considerable degree, and Dan Peterson was instrumental in that process. Unlike most people on these forums, I have a documented history of changing my mind when presented enough evidence. Call them crazy, but some people might consider that evidence of a reasonable mind. Some Mormons hate me because I left Mormonism, apologists in particular, have a unique disgust for me because I was one of them not so long ago, extreme Right Wingers like Loran hate me because I had the audacity to change my views on politics, and I have people on anti-Muslim forums calling me traitor for the same reasons.

But I'm not interested in gratifying the stiff minds that refuse to bend. I'm interested in truth.

Or who is overly dismissive about his own failed arguments. Your comment was a true humdinger, and I'd want to forget it too if I were you.

So does this mean you deny falsely accusing me of misrepresenting your comments?

It is difficult to obtain a point from all that rhetoric.

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. (That way you're sure to win.) I'm really not interested in having any discussion with you.

Do you really enjoy this endless spinning, parsing, quibbling and fantasizing? Most people find it utterly tiresome.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

And neither were you.

Quite correct. And, for that reason, unlike you, I'm disinclined to draw sweeping conclusions about the Bushman symposium or to try to turn it into some sort of enormously significant melodrama or morality play.

Somebody asked a question at a seminar. Perhaps it was a bit confrontational. Perhaps the person being asked didn't like the question. So what? This happens all the time. I've experienced it on many occasions, both Mormon-related and non-Mormon-related. Such instances haven't scarred me for life. This probably hasn't damaged Mike Reed, either. (If it has, he should get out of academia as soon as possible.)

But I am alluding to numerous testimonies from people who were there, whereas you're ignoring them and falling back on only one.

Actually, besides Pseudo-Mitchell, both Chris Smith and Joseph Antley have, unless I'm mistaken, strongly suggested on this very message board that you're overdoing this story. You're hyping it and spinning it.

Of course, you have a multi-year public record of expressing vituperative contempt for John Gee -- even more than you do with regard to others with whom you disagree -- so this is scarcely surprising.

Dan has pretty much lost every argument he has tried to make on this subject.

Everyone who disagrees with you always loses.

And they're always morons and/or liars and/or idiots.

Yawn.

[Xander]

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. (That way you're sure to win.

Feel free to back out of every challenge (That way you're sure never to lose)

I'm really not interested in having any discussion with you.

Of course not. Like Dan, you're only interested in taking personal jabs and making baseless accusations. You're never interested in backing up your attacks with evidence because, well that might resemble something of a "discussion."

Do you really enjoy this endless spinning, parsing, quibbling and fantasizing? Most people find it utterly tiresome.

Again, back to the accusations. Why don't you prove I am fantasizing instead of continuously asserting that it is so? Oh, because that would involve something similar to a debate, right? You only fight battles you know you can win. We know this is true of both you and Dan. This is why you rarely ever do anything that could be mistaken for a debate.

Remember, you engaged me, not the other way around. Does it sound like I am trying to argue with myself?? You refuse to answer simple questions, so if I cannot get you to finish what you started, it isn't my fault.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander

[Daniel Peterson]

Feel free to back out of every challenge (That way you're sure never to lose)

Bill, Kevin's being disingenuous. The only way you can be sure of never losing is to agree with him. Quickly.

To engage him is to lose. To withdraw from engaging him is to lose. To disagree with him is to lose.

We know this is true of both you and Dan. This is why you rarely ever do anything that could be mistaken for a debate.

LOL. I've publicly debated Robert Spencer (twice), James White (with Bill Hamblin), William Lane Craig, Bill McKeever, and quite a number of others.

Some Mormons hate me because I left Mormonism, apologists in particular, have a unique disgust for me because I was one of them not so long ago

I can honestly say that those are not the reasons I dislike you.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, Kevin's being disingenuous. The only way you can be sure of never losing is to agree with him. Quickly.

To engage him is to lose. To withdraw from engaging him is to lose. To disagree with him is to lose.

LOL. I've publicly debated Robert Spencer (twice), James White (with Bill Hamblin), William Lane Craig, Bill McKeever, and quite a number of others.

I can honestly say that those are not the reasons I dislike you.

I like debating you, Dan. Because we agree about everything we can both win all the time!

By the way, when Kevin rants and I tell him I don't want to talk to him, is that a debate?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Loran Blood]

Interesting. This began as a light hearted satirical poke at the world of antipologetics, and has now devolved into a personal war between Kevin and his various mythical enemies.

Kevin, if you would kindly leave the thread, we could return to the light hearted poke at the world of antipologetics (and especially the wonderful, wacky, mad, mad, mad, mad world of Scratch) and move away from having to deal with your personal psychological fixations and animosities regarding messrs Hamblin, Peterson, etc.

You could start a dogpile thread at the Cesspark and have a very good time there with all of us. I'm just kind of enjoying the fun and don't want the thread locked before it runs its satirical course.

[Daniel Peterson]

You win, Bill!

And I win!

We're both winners!

When Kevin rants, and you tell him that you're not interested in conversing with him, that is -- in his mind -- a debate. And, also in his mind, you've just lost.

And you're an idiot and a moron and a liar. (He probably has other favorite words, but those are the three that immediately come to mind.)

[Loran Blood]

I like debating you, Dan. Because we agree about everything we can both win all the time!

By the way, when Kevin rants and I tell him I don't want to talk to him, is that a debate?

No, that means you're bloodshot eyeballed terrified of having Kevin make a fool of you with his steel trap mind, vast educational fund of knowledge, and laser sharp, penetrating intellect.

All of us have run away, tails tucked unceremoniously beneath us, at some point, in Kevin's mind, and doubtless, will again soon enough.

Suffice it to say, I don't quite see it that way, but, Que Sera, Sera.

[Bill Hamblin]

You win, Bill!

And I win!

We're both winners!

When Kevin rants, and you tell him that you're not interested in conversing with him, that is -- in his mind -- a debate. And, also in his mind, you've just lost.

And you're an idiot and a moron and a liar. (He probably has other favorite words, but those are the three that immediately come to mind.)

So if I debate you I will inevitably win, but if I debate Kevin, I will inevitably lose?

After careful consideration I choose to debate you.

I think Dan is intelligent, charming, witty, and amusing. What do you think, Dan?

[ERayR]

I am beginning to feel like people are turning against me too so before he leaves I would like Kevin to tell me how to make tin foil hats.

[Loran Blood]

I am beginning to feel like people are turning against me too so before he leaves I would like Kevin to tell me how to make tin foil hats.

I don't think Kevin makes those kinds of hats...

Edited August 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Pahoran]

Unlike most people on these forums, I have a documented history of changing my mind when presented enough evidence. Call them crazy, but some people might consider that evidence of a reasonable mind.

Okay, so of what do you say it is evidence here?

Apologists have been scrambling to edit, update and rewrite previous apologetic articles to accommodate Don's findings, precisely because they had been arguing for years things Don refutes.

Or here?

As I said before, they have to alter absolutely nothing in their arguments, whereas the apologists have already started taking evasive maneuvers, rewriting one apologetic article after another in order to incorporate Don’s findings. The FAIR wiki article that once argued against Clayton’s account, has been nuked from the web.

Or here?

There is nothing for me to "salvage," as evidenced by the fact that we're not the ones desperately trying to give our argument a complete overhaul. The only "wreckage" I see here is what Don left for Schryver and the latest wave of KEP apologetics. And of course, you're upset because I raise the issue. You want to confine discussion to K-Hook alone, for obvious reasons. It is the only way for you to create this impression that you've scored a point. But the broader consequences of Don's findings are beyond your understanding, and so you absolutely refuse to deal with them. That isn't my fault.

As far as K-Hook goes, it seems perfectly clear to me that the Tanners, the McKeevers and the Wilson's of the anti-Mormon community will need to alter absolutely nothing in thier traditional treatments of this subject. The only thing I can see them doing is editing their existing articles to include Don's devastating evidence that, contrary to years of apologetic denial, Joseph Smith did in fact believe K-Hook contained a legitimate ancient record, and thus, far from being "eviscerated," their primary criticism is strengthened ; because for them, "only a bogus prophet would translate bogus plates."

Thus, it seems that when Kevin changes his mind, it is evidence of him being a reasonable, open-minded and all-around splendid fellow. It doesn't matter how dogmatically, accusingly or even abusively he expressed his previous opinion; changing his mind shows how gosh-darned superior that mind is.

But when Kevin's ideological opponents change their arguments to accomodate new information, that is because they're "scrambling" or something; they've lost, comprehensively, and now are desperately trying to save face.

What's the difference?

Well, AFAICT the only observable difference between the two sets of mind-changers is that the former is "Kevin" and the latter "not-Kevin."

And thus it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

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!

I am sorry, but could you say that a bit slower? The battery on my decoder ring is running low, and so I can't handle the necessary encryption at normal speeds.

Sorry to be such a pest, but it is very important that I get this message. After all, the earth is teetering in the balance, not to mention the Constitution hanging by a thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am sorry, but could you say that a bit slower? The battery on my decoder ring is running low, and so I can't handle the necessary encryption at normal speeds.

Never mind. I was able to transfer your message to an old 8088 IBM computer with DOS operating system, and I printed it out on a dot-matrix printer, and that did the trick. It now makes perfect sense, and the world has been brought back from the brink.

Just so you know, the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-