Top Professor receives Stand Down Order from BYU

Let's put it this way.
How likely is it that they have not spoken about Steven Jones at all?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The 9-11 deniers are going to go nuts over this:

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Bush20and20Hinckley.jpg[/qimg]

This picture was taken a few days before Jones's recent vacation was announced. We all know who the gentleman on the right is. The small grey haired man is mormon Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Just behind him and mostly obscured is his 1st councilor, Thomas S. Monson.

You just know what the deniers are going to assume. That the mormon church has knuckled under to the NWO.

Ironically, I first came here to defend my religion. To assure the sceptics that Jones doesn't represent us. Now the shoe is likely going to end up on the other foot. I'll get to defend my faith from a jihad declared by the truthseeker cult!

This should be amusing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean how often does the President go to Utah? Try to find out the reason for the visit. That might help, but I doubt it. Also, try to find the number of time the Pres. has visited other religious leaders (The Pope for example).
 
Like any other piece of research, Steven Jones' work stands or falls on its own. Even if the president 'ordered' the Mormons to do something about Jones, that doesn't change the fact that his papers are worthless. They were worthless when he was in good standing at BYU and they're worthless now. In any case, we all know that George Bush takes orders from religious leaders, not the other way around.
 
realitybites said:
Paid leave.... How is that disciplinary in any way? I've never understood.

"You're an effin' nutjob, so we're gonna pay you to not work."

The only plus side is that he won't have contact with those young, impressionable minds at BYU.
Click to expand...


I actually LOLed reading this.

Mormons are funny.
 
R.Mackey said:
Worried how? I don't understand.
Click to expand...
While arguably Jones has provided good reason to put him on leave, it is nonetheless important to know what the actually operative reason was.

In other words: suppose Bush talked Hinckley into putting pressure on BYU regarding Jones, which then resulted in his being put on leave just before 9/11/06. He would most likely not have asked Hinckley to do so because of Jones' failing to live up to academic standards, and neither would Hinckley have pressured BYU for that reason.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.
 
brumsen said:
While arguably Jones has provided good reason to put him on leave, it is nonetheless important to know what the actually operative reason was.

In other words: suppose Bush talked Hinckley into putting pressure on BYU regarding Jones, which then resulted in his being put on leave just before 9/11/06. He would most likely not have asked Hinckley to do so because of Jones' failing to live up to academic standards, and neither would Hinckley have pressured BYU for that reason.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.
Click to expand...

Releasing such information would most likely be a breach of contract for Jones or BYU and would impinge upon his privacy.

What is the source of the picture in question?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Releasing such information would most likely be a breach of contract for Jones or BYU and would impinge upon his privacy.
Click to expand...
:confused: :confused: :confused:
What I meant to say is that one reason can be given by BYU, and be upheld in appeal and all that....
while another reason, via Bush and Hinckley is actually operative.

That information will not be released, unless by someone present at that meeting (or a secretary of BYU's principal or whatever it's called coming out with stories about a phone call from Hinckley).

So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.
 
brumsen said:
So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, be very worried. I guarantee you Bush is shaking in his shoes now that the TRUTH™ that Jones posseses is about to be blown wide open. So obviously the man who killed 3,000 people in the US to start his murderous war to steal oil and award contracts to friends called a meeting in the White House w/ Mormon leaders (who must also be in on this massive conspiracy) and ordered them to pay him not to go to work.

WTF kind of paranoid lunacy is this Brumsen? Jones now has more time to spout his nonsense to his adoring little mindless conspiracy nutters, and he's getting paid to boot!

A curious attempt at silencing someone, don't you think?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
As for Brumsens speculation, if you have evidence that Jones was discussed, bring it.
Click to expand...
Of course it is speculation, and I've been saying that I've got no evidence.

The attitude that only that which can be supported by evidence is worth debating is something that I find rather tiresome. It all depends on what it is that one is debating.

WildCat said:
A curious attempt at silencing someone, don't you think?
Click to expand...
No, not really. Officially robbing him of his scholarly credentials will definitely convince plenty of fence-sitters not to listen to him.
(Now, there might be other reasons not to... but that's a different story)
 
brumsen said:
:confused: :confused: :confused:
What I meant to say is that one reason can be given by BYU, and be upheld in appeal and all that....
while another reason, via Bush and Hinckley is actually operative.

That information will not be released, unless by someone present at that meeting (or a secretary of BYU's principal or whatever it's called coming out with stories about a phone call from Hinckley).

So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.
Click to expand...

So, you are making an assertion based upon something that you know is not falsifiable/confirmable. You do realize that makes it an unsubstantiated/uncorroboratable assertion, and therefore of no value.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
So, you are making an assertion based upon something that you know is not falsifiable/confirmable. You do realize that makes it an unsubstantiated/uncorroboratable assertion, and therefore of no value.
Click to expand...
No. I think you misunderstand me.

I meant to say that even if we have no way of knowing which was the operative reason in putting Jones on leave, it would be a relevant piece of knowledge if it were available.

That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence.

My further thought was that the photograph provides us with a further incentive to come into possession of this piece of knowledge.
Sadly I have no idea how to proceed with that, though.
 
brumsen said:
Officially robbing him of his scholarly credentials will definitely convince plenty of fence-sitters not to listen to him.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Lack of scholarly credentials hasn't been an obstacle to other leading lights of the 9-11 Conspiracy crowd.
 
gacycarter.jpg


Uh-oh Brunsen, this picture proves that Rosalyn Carter (and no doubt her hubby Jimmy) was in cahoots w/ serial killer John Wayne Gacy... CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, when you guys substitute speculation for evidence and mistake coincidence for causation you open yourselves up to a whole host of false pre-determined conclusions.
 
Of course it is speculation, and I've been saying that I've got no evidence.
Click to expand...

So...you would like to just argue, about something, for the sake of arguing?
Very telling, indeed!
 
WildCat said:
Seriously, when you guys substitute speculation for evidence and mistake coincidence for causation you open yourselves up to a whole host of false pre-determined conclusions.
Click to expand...
You just don't want to understand what I'm actually saying, do you? Must be too subtle.
 
brumsen said:
You just don't want to understand what I'm actually saying, do you? Must be too subtle.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly what you're trying to do. Jumping on every lunatic asshatted theory as if it's some serious intellectual inquiry because you have a fanatical hatred of the policies of the Bush admin.

It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom