Do Apologists Want to Destroy Critics' Lives?

[_cksalmon]

Boo!

LOL.

I vahnt to drink your blood, Scratchie!

C'mon, Dr. Peterson. SHIELDS ("Scholarly and Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints"!?) is both inaptly named and, well, to my mind, at any rate, the glaring canker sore of online LDS apologetics.

I realize that you may have no personally compelling reason to opine against the site (or the information therein provided), but Barker has shown himself more than willing to "rise" to the discursive level of even the most vociferous LDS critics.

I have no affection for Infymus and find him a crude crusader against Mormonism, but, goodness, SHIELDS is doing no one any favors by continuing to exist: not Latter-day Saints, not critics, not neutral observers.

When I have had occasion to venture into SHIELDS-land, I have been embarrassed (for the most part) for all parties involved in its "scholarly and historical information exchange" programme--"my" side as well as yours.

Anyone truly interested in the exchange of scholarly and historical information re: Mormonism probably ought to be embarrassed by SHIELDS, I'd say. It appears to be, to my mind, a sewer home for folks who like to document the exploits of their fellow sewer denizens: "we can be just as nasty as you."

Meh.

cks

[_Doctor Scratch]

Sorry, Scratch, but these threads are really, really silly.

Hmm, I don't know, Mill. You posted your image down in Telestial once, didn't you? Would you like it if SHIELDS or some other apologist got a hold of it and then used it to tar you? What if, after your schooling, prospective employers Googled your name and the top result was whatever the apologist(s) had written about you? You yourself have a tendency to sometimes use profanity in your posts...

My point is that these apologists and their behavior need to be condemned. It's not my fault if the likes of DCP and JonasS turn up to post "sillyness." I personally don't find it very "silly" that these LDS apologists are on a vendetta-driven mission to ruin people's lives.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thank you, JonasS, for by far the best and most cogent note in the thread.

You *did* hear about it. You told everyone on the old FAIRboard that you'd been chatting with a friend of Quinn's "then-Stake President." You were privy to the wheels turning in motion to squash out Quinn's reputation. You yourself posted multiple times about how Quinn's history is "untrustworthy," and you went out of your way to paint him as a homosexual sinner.

Still preachin' that ol' time religion, eh Scratchie?

It pretty much undoes all the smoke you've been blowing on this thread, doesn't it?

Incidentally, I noticed that you've completely skimmed over your role in this recent SHIELDS business.

And I'm intending to continue to skim it over.

Suffer!

Honestly, what was your intention in sending the emails to Stan Barker?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Scratch in Hell:

"We now are lost and punished just with this:
we have no hope and yet we live in longing."
Dante, Inferno, Canto IV.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Sorry, Scratch, but these threads are really, really silly.

Hmm, I don't know, Mill. You posted your image down in Telestial once, didn't you? Would you like it if SHIELDS or some other apologist got a hold of it and then used it to tar you? What if, after your schooling, prospective employers Googled your name and the top result was whatever the apologist(s) had written about you? You yourself have a tendency to sometimes use profanity in your posts...

My point is that these apologists and their behavior need to be condemned. It's not my fault if the likes of DCP and JonasS turn up to post "sillyness." I personally don't find it very "silly" that these LDS apologists are on a vendetta-driven mission to ruin people's lives.

It's silly because I've never seen any evidence that apologists viciously attack the more measured critics. If Dan Peterson were trying to get Chris Smith or EAllusion fired, you'd have a point. As it is, there's a bunch of intemperate rhetoric and petty BS from both sides, and it's absurd to act as if the blame resides entirely in one party.

[_JonasS]

I do believe that I am just making noise. That is, noise with zero frequency.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hmm, I don't know, Mill. You posted your image down in Telestial once, didn't you? Would you like it if SHIELDS or some other apologist got a hold of it and then used it to tar you? What if, after your schooling, prospective employers Googled your name and the top result was whatever the apologist(s) had written about you? You yourself have a tendency to sometimes use profanity in your posts...

My point is that these apologists and their behavior need to be condemned. It's not my fault if the likes of DCP and JonasS turn up to post "sillyness." I personally don't find it very "silly" that these LDS apologists are on a vendetta-driven mission to ruin people's lives.

It's silly because I've never seen any evidence that apologists viciously attack the more measured critics.

Oh, they do. You must have missed the "Mr. Itchy" blog which went after critics like Dr. Shades, among and others. They posted the photo of a poster, too. Think of the smearing that has gone on against Robert Ritner, Mike Quinn, and Brent Metcalfe, all of whom, I think you'll agree, are "measured critics."

If Dan Peterson were trying to get Chris Smith or EAllusion fired, you'd have a point.

Well, obviously it's not quite so simple as that. It's not as if the apologists sat there and said, "Hey, let's deliberately target so-and-so and try to get him/her fired." But, if such a thing happens to occur, then they all just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well." Bear in mind that Infymus told Barker that the SHIELDS stuff was affecting his employment, and Barker completely disregarded him. I just think it's best to give everyone fair warning on this. In some cases, the apologists completely make stuff up (as with the missing Murphy "transcript"); in other cases, they peddle negative rumors against people like Metcalfe, Ritner, and so on. In still other cases, they bait the critic (as with Infymus) until the critic has finally had enough and says so.

by the way: Didn't you know that John Gee threatened to slap Chris Smith was a slander lawsuit?

Bottom line: Yes, the apologists absolutely go after the "more measured critics."

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have to admit it: The image of nassssty mean-spirit Me harrassing, provoking, and goading poor innocent Infymus until the gentle creature could simply endure it no longer is . . . well, it's just priceless.

[_Ray A]

Oh, they do. You must have missed the "Mr. Itchy" blog which went after critics like Dr. Shades, among and others. They posted the photo of a poster, too. Think of the smearing that has gone on against Robert Ritner, Mike Quinn, and Brent Metcalfe, all of whom, I think you'll agree, are "measured critics."

I think it's only fair to point out that Infymus has 42 entries on DCP at The Mormon Curtain, and the correspondence was initially sparked by one of those entries.

Section 1.

Section 2.

It's not as if this is a case of David and Goliath. Did DCP have any other reason to initiate an attack on Infymus? Can he control Google priority? Seriously, Doctor, did you expect DCP to say something like, "I'm really concerned about Infymus' job", "so I'll just let him publicly smear me all he wants"? On a website that had over 7 million hits last year?

[_Trevor]

Now Infymus, in my book, is an anti-Mormon. And although I do not wish him ill, I will say that he made himself into a lightning rod for every zealous defender of the LDS Church.