It seems to me the entire purpose of this review was to insinuate that Bergera might be gay - which means, of course, LDS can ignore everything he has to say.
How can they type this stuff with a straight (pun noted) face???
In searching for some explanation or motive for Bergera's omissions, we followed Bitton's last guideline to examine the "private life of the author." Surely such an examination, besides fulfilling Bitton's guidelines, would lead one to understand why a particular path was chosen. To avoid any potential assertions of argumentum ad hominem from any quarter, it was thought prudent to forego examination of the author's life and examine, instead, other public statements and actions by the author that might shed light on his bias and intent.
Oh, no, no quarter could possibly accuse the authors of ad hom.
Based on our search, the following conclusion finds much support: Bergera has more than a passing interest in homosexuality. For example, Bergera is included among the presenters at Affirmation conferences.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Trevor wrote:I join with Peterson and Byrd in decrying the utter travesty that is Bergera's Compendium of FPSs. How dare this Mister Bergera edit out crucial teachings about the LDS Church's Neanderthal views of human sexuality so that we clearly understand what latter-day saints ought to believe! I do hope that Mister Bergera also did not omit the crucial statements that reveal past racial bigotry against African Americans.
But seriously, the book should be as complete as possible, for historical reasons, not out of some crazy desire to make sure that the very worst of LDS culture be perpetuated. I think it is even more interesting that these reviewers chose to focus on homosexuality than that Bergera edited such references as he did.
edited for spelling
It kinda takes the sting out of a post when it has to be edited for spelling. It just lacks that punch.
harmony wrote:It kinda takes the sting out of a post when it has to be edited for spelling. It just lacks that punch.
Damn. You're right. (hangs head in shame)
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:You guys really ought to pick your battles. You can't win this one the merits of the case.
As soon as I saw the handy dandy little use of ellipses to alter the meaning of a text, that guy was a gone goose. When someone engages in that little trick, their have lost the game. It really is such an obvious error, you wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would chose to use it.
Good frigg'n Lord, Charity, elipses are used all the time. They are a literary tool and come in quite useful for long quotes where parts of the quote are not necessary or relevant to the point being made. They can be used to alter the meaning of a quote, but if so, then this is inappropriate. A good writer will not commit this error.
It is not ". . . such an obvious error . . . ."
It makes me wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would make such a simple minded and erroneous blanket statement.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:It makes me wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would make such a simple minded and erroneous blanket statement.
I guess you answered your own question.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:You guys really ought to pick your battles. You can't win this one the merits of the case.
As soon as I saw the handy dandy little use of ellipses to alter the meaning of a text, that guy was a gone goose. When someone engages in that little trick, their have lost the game. It really is such an obvious error, you wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would chose to use it.
Charity, elipses are used all the time. They are a literary tool and come in quite useful for long quotes where parts of the quote are not necessary or relevant to the point being made. They can be used to alter the meaning of a quote, but if so, then this is inappropriate. A good writer will not commit this error.
It is not ". . . such an obvious error . . . ."
It makes me wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would make such a simple minded and erroneous blanket statement.
How in the world can you ignore an obviously important part of what I said? I have bolded it for you. And bolded what you said which was exaclty what I said. Gosh, guy, if you say exactly what I said, how can you then make your ending statement?
Or did you just read the name "charity" on the post and decide I couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say?
Tom wrote:Peterson's latest ad hominem review is reminiscent of his 1994 ad hominem masterpiece "Text and Context."
Tom, do you have anything to contribute to the conversation, any comments besides introducing another DCP gem? Becaues we all could produce DCP gems going back years, and still not have them all. What is your stake in this whole thing? Because I don't know you, so I don't know where you're coming from.
charity wrote:Or did you just read the name "charity" on the post and decide I couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say?
I guess I did. Sorry.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:You guys really ought to pick your battles. You can't win this one the merits of the case.
As soon as I saw the handy dandy little use of ellipses to alter the meaning of a text, that guy was a gone goose. When someone engages in that little trick, their have lost the game. It really is such an obvious error, you wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would chose to use it.
Charity, elipses are used all the time. They are a literary tool and come in quite useful for long quotes where parts of the quote are not necessary or relevant to the point being made. They can be used to alter the meaning of a quote, but if so, then this is inappropriate. A good writer will not commit this error.
It is not ". . . such an obvious error . . . ."
It makes me wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would make such a simple minded and erroneous blanket statement.
How in the world can you ignore an obviously important part of what I said? I have bolded it for you. And bolded what you said which was exaclty what I said. Gosh, guy, if you say exactly what I said, how can you then make your ending statement?
Or did you just read the name "charity" on the post and decide I couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say?
You're right, I did miss that particular implication of your statement. Mea culpa.
I interpreted it to be a statement implying that the use of elipses was primarily a means to alter the meaning of the text. You have now clarified your meaning, and I accept your clarification.
In my defense, you make so many outrageously silly statements, that it's easy to impute silliness to you. It was, I think, an understandable error.
I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong.
Yet something else that differentiates you from me.
I'd rather be the one straining at gnats than the one swallowing camels.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."