DCP makes this board

[_Daniel Peterson]

I bet you cannot locate a single post they lays out "EXACTLY" what the payment has been. In fact, The Good Professor has said, to the contrary, that he will not tell us since it is "none of anybody's business."

I don't think my precise income and family budget are anybody else's business.

Just as it's none of my business to know precisely what you, or Liz, or Shades, or Scottie, or Tarski earns, and the exact source of each dollar of income.

But I've repeatedly said that, even in the most "lucrative" years, the money that I've received from apologetic writing and speaking has never exceeded a few hundred bucks, and that, in many years, there's been nothing at all.

I'd just like to see DCP shrug all of this off and simply admit that he gets paid to do apologetics. In fact, I suggest that he change the thing over his avatar from "cauldron of hate" to "Paid LDS Apologist." Do you think he'll do it?

I can answer that.

No, I won't. Because it would be misleading.

99% of my apologetic work is unpaid. To call me a "paid LDS apologist" under such circumstances would be as misleading as it would be to label someone a professional driver or a paid chauffeur because he's once or twice given somebody a ride from Reno to Boise and accepted payment for the gas.

Incidentally, the description of me as a "seething cauldron of hate" that appears over my avatar comes from you, Scratch.

[_Mister Scratch]

But I've repeatedly said that, even in the most "lucrative" years, the money that I've received from apologetic writing and speaking has never exceeded a few hundred bucks, and that, in many years, there's been nothing at all.

See, I find this misleading. Obviously, "Mopologetics" constitutes more than simply "writing and speaking." The Mopologetic enterprise needs editors and administrators, and, as you have said, sometimes even portions of your salary are set aside to cover this. Yes, yes: I know---you don't feel that anything other than "writing and speaking" constitutes Mopologetics, but I disagree.

I'd just like to see DCP shrug all of this off and simply admit that he gets paid to do apologetics. In fact, I suggest that he change the thing over his avatar from "cauldron of hate" to "Paid LDS Apologist." Do you think he'll do it?

I can answer that.

No, I won't. Because it would be misleading.

Thank you for proving my point. It certainly is nowhere as misleading as your decoy strategy "not one dime of my salary covers apologetics" (though, again, even that relies on equivocation---i.e., that "apologetics" is purely writing and speaking. But, obviously, the "defense" needs editing, organization, and so on.)

99% of my apologetic work is unpaid. To call me a "paid LDS apologist" under such circumstances would be as misleading as it would be to label someone a professional driver or a paid chauffeur because he's once or twice given somebody a ride from Reno to Boise and accepted payment for the gas.

But this isn't an apt analogy. Again: you've been paid an honorarium as editor, right? You've been paid to do administration, right? Thus, this is a false analogy. Your tossing in of "professional" was a nice, albeit misleading tough, though.

Incidentally, the description of me as a "seething cauldron of hate" that appears over my avatar comes from you, Scratch.

And is it "misleading"? Are you actually a "seething cauldron of hate"? If not, then you really have no grounds for dismissing the new title of "Paid LDS Apologist." You will need to provide a different explanation for why you won't accept this new mantle.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And is it "misleading"? Are you actually a "seething cauldron of hate"? If not, then you really have no grounds for dismissing the new title of "Paid LDS Apologist." You will need to provide a different explanation for why you won't accept this new mantle.

I like "seething cauldron of hate."

Among other things, it's a nice illustration of your incessantly hostile hyperbole. It shouldn't be forgotten.

No sane person is likely to really consider me a "seething cauldron of hate," because it's so outlandish. But a naïvely trusting person could easily fall for your "paid LDS apologist" claim. It's not absurd on its face.

[_harmony]

Measuring importance by number of clicks on a message board is rather tenuous.

Somebody better tell Daniel then, because he's the one who brought up number of clicks.

[_harmony]

I think the point here is simple: Harmony wishes to point out that the messageboards have a legitimate impact, while DCP and LoaP want to insist that they are basically irrelevant, and that books and journals are far more important---be it in terms of scholarship, rhetorical heft, or impact on membership numbers.

Importance depends on purpose, goals, effects, and many other factors. My argument is that the claims made here about the impact of RFM or this website are very overinflated and self-important.

I haven't seen claims about the impact of this website at all, let alone very overinflated and self-important claims.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that claims for this website, MDB, were made? Please quote.

Nothing of quality discussion actually occurs at RFM.

This is incorrect. Please correct this statement.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Measuring importance by number of clicks on a message board is rather tenuous.

Somebody better tell Daniel then, because he's the one who brought up number of clicks.

I didn't say that 60,000 monthly hits make the FARMS Review "important."

I said that 60,000 monthly hits make your claim that virtually nobody is aware of the FARMS Review somewhat implausible.

An article (e.g., Gregor Mendel's now famous but once virtually ignored essay on genetics) can be important whether anybody pays much attention to it or not.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[_Trevor]

I said that 60,000 monthly hits make your claim that virtually nobody is aware of the FARMS Review somewhat implausible.

That, or there are a lot of confused farmers out there. "I thought I was looking for farming tips, and what pops up?!?!?!?"

[_harmony]

I said that 60,000 monthly hits make your claim that virtually nobody is aware of the FARMS Review somewhat implausible.

That, or there are a lot of confused farmers out there. "I thought I was looking for farming tips, and what pops up?!?!?!?"

Okay, THAT was funny!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Gee, to think that you were willing to just toss and innocent such as Scottie into the flames all due to your abject hatred of me.

????

Am I on Candid Camera?

Scratch seems off the handle even more than usual of late.

[_Scottie]

It is a tacit admission, is it not? If you say, "We will allow discussion of you, since you are a paid Mopologist," and he agrees, is that not an admission?

[No, it's not an admission. Agreeing to our moderation decision to treat him as a different class of poster does not in any way mean he agreed with our reasons why. Only that he agreed with our decision.]