Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_stemelbow]

Let's just call it what it is rather than continuing the hostilities. We disagree. We plainly disagree. My thoughts are that he acted the part of a troll in what he did here. Your thoughts are that his behavior did not merit such. That does not make either of us dishonest, nor does it make either of us idiots. Maybe both are a little biased, to say the least.

I will call it how it is:

You either do not know the accepted definition of trolling:


Or you are deliberately misusing the term in order to attack John Dehlin.

Those are the options. I don't see how anyone who knows what trolling actually is could call what John did "trolling" so simple disagreement over two equally valid definitions of the term trolling is not what this is about.

I got the definition down just fine. It seems to me it fits exactly what he did here to a "T". Did he not provocatively go after DCP? Did DCP author the "Piece" none of us have read? Apparently not. So he went off topic there too. And as a result he has surely caused a bunch of emotional responses.

You disagree? Who cares. I said my piece. Let's let it go and stop trying to conclude stupid things like, "you're dishonest because we disagree".

[_stemelbow]

DCP would have run it if not for the intervention of the apostle. Personal responsibility, Stem. It's time for you and your boss to take some.

Could have. You don't know that, neither do I. Get off the DCP dislike wagon, Buffalo.

[Guest]

I got the definition down just fine. It seems to me it fits exactly what he did here to a "T". Did he not provocatively go after DCP?

No, he did not. Where did he do that exactly?

Did DCP author the "Piece" none of us have read? Apparently not. So he went off topic there too.

Uh, Peterson is the editor of the publication that was publishing the piece. He had control over whether it got published or not, and it was John's understanding that he supported its publication.

And as a result he has surely caused a bunch of emotional responses.

Scratch posted the initial thread. Not John Dehlin. The emotional responses were there before John entered. He did not create them. And trolls throw bombs in threads for the sake of disturbing others mostly for distraction. This is not what John did.

You do not know what trolling is. You are, in fact, misrepresenting what has happened here.

You disagree? Who cares. I said my piece. Let's let it go and stop trying to conclude stupid things like, "you're dishonest because we disagree".

As I said, you either do not understand what trolling is, or you are misrepresenting what John Dehlin did. It seems like you are doing a little of both.

Those are the options. I don't see any wiggle room for your honest disagreement over two equally valid options. Because I don't see any credible evidence of trolling. I doubt any honest, informed observer does.

So, in stem's view, pleading that apologists not write aggressive and hurtful criticisms of other LDS folk is trolling.

[_Drifting]

So is anyone from MI going to address the claims of a hit piece? I get rather tired of reading stemelbow. If you eliminate her posts then this thread is only 6 pages. Apparently, stemelbow is the only one wanting to address the issue. DCP continues to hide and if Liz's suggestion is correct, that DCP cannot talk about the hit piece, then DCP should state he cannot talk about the hit piece for whatever reason.

DCP won't talk about because if he does Oaks is going to clip his wings as far as employment prospects are concerned.

[_Buffalo]

DCP would have run it if not for the intervention of the apostle. Personal responsibility, Stem. It's time for you and your boss to take some.

Could have. You don't know that, neither do I. Get off the DCP dislike wagon, Buffalo.

We both know it. The difference is you're dissembling on behalf of your boss.

[_Buffalo]

So is anyone from MI going to address the claims of a hit piece? I get rather tired of reading stemelbow. If you eliminate her posts then this thread is only 6 pages. Apparently, stemelbow is the only one wanting to address the issue. DCP continues to hide and if Liz's suggestion is correct, that DCP cannot talk about the hit piece, then DCP should state he cannot talk about the hit piece for whatever reason.

DCP won't talk about because if he does Oaks is going to clip his wings as far as employment prospects are concerned.

Sucks to be a BYU prof. No tenure = they have to tow the line or hit the road.

[_stemelbow]

No, he did not. Where did he do that exactly?

I've already pointed this out to you, at least in one of his posts. It appears we'll end up disagreeing on what it means to go after. I think he did, and unfairly. You think he did not, apparently. Why are you intent on parsing this out so tediously?

Uh, Peterson is the editor of the publication that was publishing the piece. He had control over whether it got published or not, and it was John's understanding that he supported its publication.

Is it published? Apparently the one how is in control over the publication decided not to publish it, no? There's no need to attack the man then. Right?

Scratch posted the initial thread. Not John Dehlin. The emotional responses were there before John entered. He did not create them. And trolls throw bombs in threads for the sake of disturbing others toward no particular end, and mostly for distraction. This is not what John did.

Just because Scratch acts the part of a troll does not mean others do not. It seems to me that John threw bombs int his thread disturbing anyone who is not predisposed to agreeing with him about DCP, distracting the issue, and ran off.

You do not know what trolling is. You are, in fact, misrepresenting what has happened here.

I disagree but I don't think you are dishonest, necessarily, for disagreeing with me.

As I said, you either do not understand what trolling is, or you are misrepresenting what John Dehlin did. It seems like you are doing a little of both.

Those are the options. I don't see any wiggle room for your honest disagreement over two equally valid options. Because I don't see any credible evidence of trolling. I doubt any honest, informed observer does.

Open your mind a little. There is room in there for a less narrow approach, I'd say.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Buffalo,

Sucks to be a BYU prof. No tenure = they have to tow the line or hit the road.

I believe it is "toe the line" (You must be an atheist)













Just kidding about the "you must be an atheist" bit. (Sort of!)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

We both know it. The difference is you're dissembling on behalf of your boss.

Oh, Buffalo. To claim knowledge of things you can only guess at, seems, well disingenuous. I know you don't want to come off that way. Just admit you don't know it. You just want it to be so you can go on the attack some more. Guess what? I don't necessarily put the blame solely on you for that either. Just let it go and move forward.

[_Drifting]

To claim knowledge of things you can only guess at, seems, well disingenuous.

Anyone got a spare irony meter?
Mine just burst.