Rocky

Right! At least that's the façade they try to project. Fortunately, we've pierced their balloon.

You're right, Mike, we don't see anything about you but your words. I don't attempt to read between the lines. Just your words. You haven't conveyed with your words any such "rich sense of balance" here anyway.

I know what it means. I was remarking on your unconscionable sycophancy.

1) Constantly show you... gimme a break. Do you think you're still addressing twentysomethings? 2) You posted an explanation of known events? No you didn't. You made claims about the sources and connections of things. You didn't even make arguments, let alone valid, sound arguments demonstrating the alleged items are "known events." You may have tried to explain what you understand those items to mean but you fell far short of an explanation of known events. You may not be required to "show proof" but you ought to at least make an argument that makes sense.

Good grief... written PFLAP? really?

That looks awfully like an unreasonable supposition (aka assumption). OTOH, it seems too bad you don't see anything outside of the box of dictor's supposed godly inspiration.

Sigh... Mike, you seem to overestimate yourself. I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing, but really... how do you know you're not doing some serious projecting yourself?

Not playing in Arizona until January 11. I fully intend to see it the first weekend it's available here.

Me too!

Kindle app for PC. Piece of cake?

I gave Mike the link a couple of days ago. When he acts like he doesn't know, it's a demonstration of disingenous play acting.

Well... just yesterday, taxidev mentioned that JCING didn't have a bibliography. That book was published as the cult was growing rapidly. Nevertheless, I don't accept your assertion that when dictor's ministry was small he had no obligation to cite his sources.

You seem not to have gotten my point. "They weren't scholars..." Well THEY weren't the authors either. I never suggested there was anything sexual about your relationship with the 14-year old adolescent girls who witnessed to you. Both of the comments you posted subsequent to my previous comment both quoted me AND your responses seemed very oddly to not be related to my quotes you included.

Source citations are to protect and support the author and are not at all dependent on the target market. Btw, 14-year old girls aren't "hippie chicks." They are adolescents. Do you even read what you post?

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. I was giving Mike the benefit of the doubt. ;)

You may mean well, but that's a misuse of the idiom. In PFLAP, Dictor made a point of illustrating the distinction of whether the label was deceptive. The idiom "not judging a book by its cover" supposes the label is correct (accurate as far as it goes) but may not provide a good way to assess the quality of the material inside.

I think you both are correct. Dictor wanted to project a credible (intellectual) persona... but he only tolerated anti-intellectuals among his followers. Once anyone developed a sense of cognitive dissonance and said so out loud, he banished them.

What if? Heck that's what the American economic model is all about! #MAGA, as they say. OOPS...

Indeed, it is. :)

OS and Chockfull, reading over the last couple of days' exchanges you had with Mike, my distinct impression is that Mike's quasi-intellectual verbosity constitutes a strong example of what Paul warned Timothy about in II Timothy 2:16. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. To put it terms I've used frequently on my blog -- it's mostly bull$hit.

Yes. Lots of us. He was early way corpse and a genuine hard a$$. OTOH, subsequent to his twi departure, some folks have had good experiences with him.