Gadianton wrote:Absolutely Nehor, I wouldn't have it any other way. Though, it might not buy you what you're looking for. None of the critics I know well and respect appeal to their own authority so it's a moot point.
A few do but none here. I was referring to how we can judge how successful and brilliant the critics here are by judging whether other critics reference and use their work. DCP for example is well known in apologetics and is talked about and his pieces read with interest. Meanwhile, Scratch routinely announces groundbreaking watershed moments that should be of great interest to all critics of the faith. I see no such interest. It would seem that the skilled apologists here are taken seriously by the apologists while the critics here are in their own little world and are not of interest to other critics.
What does this say?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Gadianton wrote:Absolutely Nehor, I wouldn't have it any other way. Though, it might not buy you what you're looking for. None of the critics I know well and respect appeal to their own authority so it's a moot point.
A few do but none here. I was referring to how we can judge how successful and brilliant the critics here are by judging whether other critics reference and use their work. DCP for example is well known in apologetics and is talked about and his pieces read with interest. Meanwhile, Scratch routinely announces groundbreaking watershed moments that should be of great interest to all critics of the faith. I see no such interest. It would seem that the skilled apologists here are taken seriously by the apologists while the critics here are in their own little world and are not of interest to other critics.
What does this say?
About your naïvété? Plenty. Since, you know: no one ever references Dr. Shades's Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy. No one ever mentions Brent Metcalfe's work with the Book of Abraham. No one ever mentions Richard Packham's writings. No one ever mentions Quinngate or Ritnergate or any of Bob McCue's writings.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote:About your naïveté? Plenty. Since, you know: no one ever references Dr. Shades's Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy. No one ever mentions Brent Metcalfe's work with the Book of Abraham. No one ever mentions Richard Packham's writings. No one ever mentions Quinngate or Ritnergate or any of Bob McCue's writings.
Come now Father of Lies, think this through. They are mentioned in small groups by a very, very small number of people. I notice you left your own name out. I would assume modesty but I'm afraid you're blackened your character too much for me to buy that. I suspect more people have seriously discussed the Time Cube then your 'watershed moments'. Does that sting a little?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Doctor Scratch wrote:About your naïveté? Plenty. Since, you know: no one ever references Dr. Shades's Chapel/Internet Mormon dichotomy. No one ever mentions Brent Metcalfe's work with the Book of Abraham. No one ever mentions Richard Packham's writings. No one ever mentions Quinngate or Ritnergate or any of Bob McCue's writings.
Come now Father of Lies, think this through. They are mentioned in small groups by a very, very small number of people.
Compared to what? The apologists?
I notice you left your own name out.[/quote
Of course. Why would I mention myself? Where have I ever claimed that anything I said was so important that it merited recognition by scholars?
I would assume modesty but I'm afraid you're blackened your character too much for me to buy that.
Huh?
I suspect more people have seriously discussed the Time Cube then your 'watershed moments'. Does that sting a little?
What's your point here, The Nehor? I thought that you were trying to make a substantive point about the comparative level of recognition among critics and apologists. And quite a few critics here and there do make mention of the things I've posted on. I keyed in on the 2nd Watson Letter, for example, and that has been discussed by quite a few people. But, on the other hand, I don't really feel like I can take credit for that, since the Tanners (more critics whom no one ever discusses; I guess your stab at a substantive point has failed quite miserably) and other critics had also raised the issue.
Look: if your feelings have been hurt in some way, just say so and I'll apologize.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Well, Nehor, we could run through the scenario to an extent, but understand I'm primarily talking about apologetics on the level that publishes papers and holds conferences. I am not really concerned with online apologetics per se, I'm not sure I've ever really seen apologists online flaunt peer review and the like for specifically online venues, such as, saying that so-and-so's apologetics represent proper academic work beyond the Critics' place to critique them since they were published in the Pundits forum. See what I'm getting at?
So the same principles could be applied to both apologists and critics online, for their message board posting, might be interesting for something, but there would be a fundamental disconnect between the results of such a study and my interest for this thread.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Compared to what? The apologists?
Yes.
Of course. Why would I mention myself? Where have I ever claimed that anything I said was so important that it merited recognition by scholars?
Ah, so the watershed moments and massive breakthroughs were all hyperbole? Glad to know you're still lucid enough to recognize that.
Huh?
Think it through a little.
What's your point here, The Nehor? I thought that you were trying to make a substantive point about the comparative level of recognition among critics and apologists. And quite a few critics here and there do make mention of the things I've posted on. I keyed in on the 2nd Watson Letter, for example, and that has been discussed by quite a few people. But, on the other hand, I don't really feel like I can take credit for that, since the Tanners (more critics whom no one ever discusses; I guess your stab at a substantive point has failed quite miserably) and other critics had also raised the issue.
I wasn't making a point about critics in general. I was referring to critics here.
Look: if your feelings have been hurt in some way, just say so and I'll apologize.
Okay, I want you to apologize for being a gossip whore. I'm waiting.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo