Problems in FARMS/FAIR: A Cassius CFP

[_Mortal Man]

To get to the heart of this matter, I think we need to discover the identity of Gee's "impeccable authority". Anyone know who this might be?

[_Kishkumen]

To get to the heart of this matter, I think we need to discover the identity of Gee's "impeccable authority". Anyone know who this might be?

Himself.

[_NorthboundZax]

This caught my eye from another thread, Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Daniel C. Peterson FARMS Review: Volume - 5, Issue - 1, Pages: 1-86)

Something with that kind of title seemed worth checking out. It didn't disappoint. I really liked footnote 75. No, no ad hominem attack there, by golly. It is an obvious connection to make that someone overlooking Sorenson's super-duper compelling work on Book of Mormon Archaeology means that they are experiencing "the gall of bitterness".

It is sheer, brazen chutzpah75 to publish a chapter on "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" in 1992 without responding to, or even noticing, the work of John Sorenson
--------------
75. Following the spectacular instance of divine intervention that ended his career as an enemy of the Church, Alma the Younger proclaimed that he had been delivered from "the gall of bitterness" (Mosiah 27:29; Alma 36:18). Ankerberg and Weldon give that interesting phrase new meaning.

[_Kevin Graham]

We should keep looking up these examples and add to the list.

Last year when I butted heads with Dan over at MAD he came up with this nonsense that I always accuse everyone with whom I disagree, of lying. He got upset that I used the word disingenuous and the moderators censored my post and thread-banned me for being insulting.

I then did a quick search through the FARMS archives and pulled a dozen examples from their "reviews" in which he or one of his hatchet men used the same exact word or something equivalent (i.e. "deceptive"). I asked him why he edited a publication that engages is such "insulting" - by their own definition - jargon. Dan finally responded by saying there was no hypocrisy there because he was justified in calling those authors deceptive. Why? Because they were!

I crap you not. I wish I could go to MAD and look up that exchange.

[_Kishkumen]

I then did a quick search through the FARMS archives and pulled a dozen examples from their "reviews" in which he or one of his hatchet men used the same exact word or something equivalent (i.e. "deceptive"). I asked him why he edited a publication that engages is such "insulting" - by their own definition - jargon. Dan finally responded by saying there was no hypocrisy there because he was justified in calling those authors deceptive. Why? Because they were!

I s*** you not. I wish I could go to MAD and look up that exchange.

Clearly they operate under a double standard.

[_Doctor Scratch]

In his editorial called "Fictionary," DCP admits what we have always known--that he gets very angry about criticisms of the Church:

I will admit that my first reaction to Howsepian's article was a somewhat angry one. The piece is clever, but fundamentally and, I think, obviously wrong-headed. Indeed, maliciously wrong-headed. Not only do I find it sophistic—sophomoric struck me initially as the more appropriate, and etymologically more precise, term—but I think its anti-Mormon motivation, though evidently sufficiently well hidden to get past the (perhaps naïve) editors of Religious Studies, manifests itself in unmistakable ways.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=285

The editorial is not an attempt to deal with Howsepian's article in a collegial and scholarly way; rather, it is an angry lashing out (DCP spends time early on attacking Howsepian's creditials):

A. A. Howsepian, someone linked with the department of psychiatry at a veterans hospital in Fresno, California, argued that,

for what it's worth, there is actually a lot in this editorial that is solid (i.e., there are legitimate grounds for criticism, and Dan does a good job of laying them out), but as usual, it gets bogged down thanks to DCP's anger, insult-slinging, and ad hominem attacks.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Last year when I butted heads with Dan over at MAD he came up with this nonsense that I always accuse everyone with whom I disagree, of lying. He got upset that I used the word disingenuous and the moderators censored my post and thread-banned me for being insulting.

You will never hear me denying that some of FARMS' stuff is over-the-top tone, a point I made which led to my excommunication from the lds-apologetics list (a cousin of skinny) when I stated some concerns about Grant Palmer criticism.

But, really Kevin, you're too much with your often incomprehensible posts and penchant for calling people with whom you disagree with "liars." You defeat yourself, others don't defeat you. And it really doesn't do you any good to issue me a rejoinder to the effect of -- yeah, well, point out the last time I called somebody a liar who wasn't lying.

[_Drifting]

And it really doesn't do you any good to issue me a rejoinder to the effect of -- yeah, well, point out the last time I called somebody a liar who wasn't lying.

Is that because you can't?

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.

[_Dr. Shades]

And it really doesn't do you any good to issue me a rejoinder to the effect of -- yeah, well, point out the last time I called somebody a liar who wasn't lying.

When you think about it, isn't that a true statement? I mean, let's face it: Who cares about the mere tone of a person's words when the truth or falsehood thereof is the only thing that matters?