The feed back on this post has been good for me to read. I am fascinated with the comments and the insights. I wanted to make two clarifications however on my interpretation of the article:

1) as far as Mormon apologetic being ignored, one reply stated to the effect "Mormons are unclear in their answers." This is due to many factors. I have found the same among protestants, but this is due to many factors including (not limited too): jargon, attention spans (I've noticed usually a question is blurted out, and a one line answer is permitted, with no chance to explain before the next question comes), and of course, trying to beat around the bush. Both sides are guilty of these.

However, I believe the paper is referring to research, not chat or personal discussions. Most anti-Mormon authors cite and quote other anti-Mormon authors, and they ignore the other side of the debate. That is poor research.

2) the other thing I wished to bring out is that Starfires comment. "all the Mormon literature in the world would not change the fact..." Neither I, nor the paper, is trying to convert anyone with its findings. What is saying isn't that the winner of the battle determines truth; but that Mormon's have answered nearly every question protestants have fired at them, and if protestants want to disprove them, they can't continue to fire from the same slug shell they have already emptied.