Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Philo Sofee]

Mormonism has so destroyed even the capability of independent thinking that they actually do think any disagreement or refutation of the religion is against their own persons! Just wow! No wonder they act so boorish and are more worthy of the label infidels than priesthood holders.

[Guest]

But you don't want people to know the background of Mr. Palmer's book. Why not?

Lol. Come now, Mr. Peterson, even we, the very stupid people oinking and braying at the sty, know that Mr. Midgley's article wasn't called, Prying into Mr. Palmer's book. It was called, Prying into Palmer.

Here: let me help you (again).

Suppose you were to happen across mormondiscussions.com one day and spot a new post titled, Prying into Peterson.

step 1) write down what you think of the intentions and scope of the article.

step 2) substitute the word "Palmer" for "Peterson" in what you wrote in step 1.

Now do you understand what your reprehensible friend was trying to do to Mr. Palmer?

[_Gadianton]

thanks Lemmie for alerting us to this:

I trust that you have, by posting what you have on Dan's blog, destroyed any hopes you have for an academic career, if your remarks become known. My advice is that it would be prudent for you right now to delete everything you have posted on Dan's blog.

I realize that subjectively, Midgley's hope is for Dr. Moore's career to be ruined just for posting a couple of blog comments he doesn't like. This is the kind of person he is, after all. Notwithstanding, I can't stop laughing. Is there an institution on the planet, including BYU, that would give a rat's ass about what Mr. Moore posted on "Dan's Blog"? It's more likely that his remarks would be a feather in his cap. I'll bet he could even publish through Interpreter given those comments.

[_Dr Exiled]

But you don't want people to know the background of Mr. Palmer's book. Why not?

Lol. Come now, Mr. Peterson, even we, the very stupid people oinking and braying at the sty, know that Mr. Midgley's article wasn't called, Prying into Mr. Palmer's book. It was called, Prying into Palmer.

Here: let me help you (again).

Suppose you were to happen across mormondiscussions.com one day and spot a new post titled, Prying into Peterson.

step 1) write down what you think of the intentions and scope of the article.

step 2) substitute the word "Palmer" for "Peterson" in what you wrote.

Now do you understand what your reprehensible friend was trying to do to Mr. Palmer?

This is an impossible task for our friend DCP, at least publicly. He literally cannot get outside of himself publicly and look critically at what he says. It would be a betrayal to mopologetics. It seems that is the first rule of the mopes: do not admit hypocrisy or irony.

[_Philo Sofee]

That is so crystal clear Gad. Excellent example. Even a non Ph.d non holding dude like me grasps it easily.

[_Dr Exiled]

thanks Lemmie for alerting us to this:

I trust that you have, by posting what you have on Dan's blog, destroyed any hopes you have for an academic career, if your remarks become known. My advice is that it would be prudent for you right now to delete everything you have posted on Dan's blog.

I realize that subjectively, Midgley's hope is for Dr. Moore's career to be ruined just for posting a couple of blog comments he doesn't like. This is the kind of person he is, after all. Notwithstanding, I can't stop laughing. Is there an institution on the planet, including BYU, that would give a rat's ass about what Mr. Moore posted on "Dan's Blog"? It's more likely that his remarks would be a feather in his cap. I'll bet he could even publish through Interpreter given those comments.

Midge seems to be suffering from a 40 year indigestion problem. It makes him incredibly crabby. He needs more fiber in his diet.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's still there, Dr. Shades. Boy, things are really nuts over there, right?

Dr. Moore is absolutely destroying the arguments of the apologists in this thread. And he's really getting noticed. One of his posts got 18 up-votes, and most of those voters themselves hold doctorate degrees. This must be absolutely embarrassing for the apologists.

(quoting Mr. Midgley)"And his book has a history; he and his book cannot be separated" and "If my look at Palmer’s motivations and his own history of attempting to unravel the faith of the Saints is a personal attack, then the same is true of his treatment of Joseph Smith."

It's pretty darn clear that Midgley's work against Palmer was intended as a personal attack, and he's essentially admitted it.

Of course. This has always been evident in the Mopologists' work, though over time, they seemed to sense that they needed to conceal this fact. The basic premise of their approach is exactly that: "What?!? How dare you attack the Prophet Joseph! We'll teach you a lesson: if you do that to Joseph, we'll do it to you!" And then, of course, critics turn the Mopologists' own approaches against them, and massive butt-hurt ensues.

At a certain point, you wind up taking a step back and going, "Hold on a second here. Why *are* they so defensive of Joseph Smith?" And that's when you start to head down the rabbit-hole of Mopologetic theology, and whatever it is they imagine that they're going to get in the afterlife. Midgley has said many times that he believes that this mortal existence is "probationary," so you can interpret everything he does as being in the service of whatever it is he thinks he's going to get once he dies (e.g., Added Upon).

[_Dr. Shades]

I can't find the quote. Do you think it was deleted, or am I just blind?

try this, it’s the ‘view in discussion’ link, under the post, as given in midgley’s Disqus home. I’m on a tablet right now, and Disqus is so awkward, but it should load at the statement:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4586951156

(Bolding in my original quote of this is mine.)

If anyone has advice on how to get the Disqus links to post better, please share.

Thank you, Lemmie. I found it.

It's still there, Dr. Shades. Boy, things are really nuts over there, right? There is a Chernobyl-grade meltdown underway, with Midgley practically frothing at the mouth in a rage.

You've got that right. Talk about the reaction being incredibly disproportionate to the action! You'd think Professor Midgley would be exultant about his hit piece finally being given credit for what it is. But as we all know, one of his most endearing quirks is that he can't take even 1% of what he so liberally dishes out.

FUN FACT:

I have now been banned from Sic et Non. Therefore, when I and/or this site are mentioned there again, please understand that my lack of a response isn't because I agree with what's written; it's because I literally can't respond.

Thank you.

[_Physics Guy]

I trust that you have, by posting what you have on Dan's blog, destroyed any hopes you have for an academic career, if your remarks become known. My advice is that it would be prudent for you right now to delete everything you have posted on Dan's blog.

Well, yes, poor Moore must realize he's crossed the final line here. Joseph Lagrange's biographies all still mention that bad moment when he stood at the podium at the Institute Française and had to stuff his notes in his pocket and declare that he needed to think again. Gottlob Frege had to add that embarrassing Appendix to his great work in press upon receiving the horrible note from Bertrand Russell. But Lagrange and Frege kept their tattered careers. Wikipedia still does mention their names. Even an appalling performance in front of the Royal Society can at length be lived down, at least to the point of one day being able to stand up before a village knitting circle to introduce the guest speaker.

Profaning the Peterson Blog, however—the Olympus where Midgley himself deigns to dwell—is the fatal step beyond remedy.

Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain ...
All hope abandon, ye who enter here.

[_Gadianton]

I have now been banned from Sic et Non. Therefore, when I and/or this site are mentioned there again, please understand that my lack of a response isn't because I agree with what's written; it's because I literally can't respond.

Link?