The apologist head in a basket

[_asbestosman]

Wow. Humbled twice in such a profound way in a single evening! I should have known that is was by the Holy Spirit that charity had the power to smear Kevin without sinning. And here I asked to buy the manual. Save me, Jebus!

I was just joking. Maybe I should have added ;)

A more serious answer is that in Charity's view, it is not gossip if the name is not said. I never said I agreed. This is different than merely talking about someone behind their back--or at lest supposedly so.

[_Runtu]

Wow. Humbled twice in such a profound way in a single evening! I should have known that is was by the Holy Spirit that charity had the power to smear Kevin without sinning. And here I asked to buy the manual. Save me, Jebus!

I was just joking. Maybe I should have added ;)

A more serious answer is that in Charity's view, it is not gossip if the name is not said. I never said I agreed. This is different than merely talking about someone behind their back--or at lest supposedly so.

This is my pet peeve among some well-known apologists. They'll say, "Well, if you only knew what I knew, you would know better." Gossip, pure and simple. Kevin made some people look rather silly when they gossiped about Robert Ritner's recusal from John Gee's dissertation committee. It doesn't pay to gossip.

Now, if you only knew what I saw in the Joseph Smith Building on campus the other day, you'd lose all respect for ...

[_Trevor]

I was just joking. Maybe I should have added ;)

Or maybe I should have. ;-)

[_dartagnan]

Apparently she didn't disapprove of what was said. She disapproves of it being said in connection with a specific name.

And what do you think of this philosophy?

So unless MA&D keeps talking about that rumor publicly (and I don't remember seeing it there), then I think Charity can indeed claim ignorance about that particular rumor.

Are you kidding? We just saw it reiterated yet again, by pacman in his idiotic, publicized private message. Charity is tapped directly into that social pipeline where rumors and gossip about apostates run amuck. And yes, this has been noted on the MAD board on a few occasions in the past. In fact, I know of no other place where it has been reiterated.

It is true that you come up on MAD from time to time, but I don't remember it ever being done in connection with that particular rumor. If MAD often mentions it publicly, then please, by all means claim that I'm that dumb.

You’re not dumb, just ignorant on this point. Yes, MAD has brought this up. I am pretty sure it began with Will and then pacman ran with it. This took place early of last year when I started debating the Book of Abraham with them. I told them my story and they immediately used it against me, while adding their own psychoanalysis of why I “really” became persuaded by Metcalfe’s arguments. They then proceeded to portray me as a wussy who couldn’t hold his own every time my name was raised after that. Will once called me a “once proud lion who was scared off by a mouse.”

for what it's worth, I've been reading and posting at MAD less and less of late.

So have I (grin).

[_Trevor]

This is my pet peeve among some well-known apologists. They'll say, "Well, if you only knew what I knew, you would know better." Gossip, pure and simple. Kevin made some people look rather silly when they gossiped about Robert Ritner's recusal from John Gee's dissertation committee. It doesn't pay to gossip.

Now, if you only knew what I saw in the Joseph Smith Building on campus the other day, you'd lose all respect for ...

Let's just come out and say what we all know to be true. LDS culture is about the most gossipy that you will ever encounter. This has much to do with its leadership structure and the fact that what amounts to a click runs about every ward. I don't blame Mormons for having a screwed up take on what gossip is. Without it, there would be no LDS society, period. So, they have to rationalize gossip in refined ways in order to feel OK about themselves as they rush headlong into doing it with reckless abandon.

The above contains absolutely no hyperbole whatsoever. Or anything redundant for that matter. Really.

[_asbestosman]

This is my pet peeve among some well-known apologists. They'll say, "Well, if you only knew what I knew, you would know better." Gossip, pure and simple. Kevin made some people look rather silly when they gossiped about Robert Ritner's recusal from John Gee's dissertation committee. It doesn't pay to gossip.

Now, if you only knew what I saw in the Joseph Smith Building on campus the other day, you'd lose all respect for ...

Perhaps the problem here is that in trying not to gossip about a particular critic, instead Charity has gossiped about critics in general? Perhaps that is why I was not at ease with her comments either. I mean, I think it as possible and irresponsible to gossip about a group of people (Mormons, jews, blacks, hispanics, atheists, lawyers, engineers, etc) as to gossip about a particular person (asbestosman, runtu, charity).

Anyhow, I wish people would quit burning her over this. I think she made a mistake. I don't think she was trying to be malicious.

[_Trevor]

You’re not dumb, just ignorant on this point. Yes, MAD has brought this up. I am pretty sure it began with Will and then pacman ran with it. This took place early of last year when I started debating the Book of Abraham with them. I told them my story and they immediately used it against me, while adding their own psychoanalysis of why I “really” became persuaded by Metcalfe’s arguments. They then proceeded to portray me as a wussy who couldn’t hold his own every time my name was raised after that. Will once called me a “once proud lion who was scared off by a mouse.”

I think this all essentially boils down to the latent homoerotic desires of MA&D posters who dig your avatar poses. I think charity too has the hots for you and knows not what to do about it other than whisper naughty things about you in pacman's ear. It's sad that they can't deal with their libidos more maturely.

[_dartagnan]

I wish people would quit burning her over this.

It is her rationalization, excuse making, and her attempt to turn this around on me, which prompted me to take the gloves off.

She keeps calling me paranoid, as if she didn't provide every possible reason, short of mentioning my name, for us to believe she was referring to me. She can't admit responsibility for anything.

[_asbestosman]

Apparently she didn't disapprove of what was said. She disapproves of it being said in connection with a specific name.

And what do you think of this philosophy?

See my previous post. In short it does not sit well with me.

[_Runtu]

Perhaps the problem here is that in trying not to gossip about a particular critic, instead Charity has gossiped about critics in general? Perhaps that is why I was not at ease with her comments either. I mean, I think it as possible and irresponsible to gossip about a group of people (Mormons, jews, blacks, hispanics, atheists, lawyers, engineers, etc) as to gossip about a particular person (asbestosman, runtu, charity).

Anyhow, I wish people would quit burning her over this. I think she made a mistake. I don't think she was trying to be malicious.

I think I agree with you. This was just an unfortunate statement that everyone read as concerning someone who posted on this board who used to be an apologist. I think that's Trevor, Kevin, and me, and maybe a few others, I don't know. I read it as aimed at Kevin (and more broadly at all of us). I'm willing to take charity's word for it that she didn't intend to do that.