DCP makes this board

[_harmony]

In an effort to make the point that apologists should be actively engaged at online discussion boards, harmony and others have pointed to the number of daily hits at RFM.

It should be remembered, though, that: 1) LDS apologist are disallowed from doing apologetics on at RFM; and 2) LDS apologists are typically banned from RFM. And, this doesn't even speak to the nominal chance of having a rational and indepth discussion there.

So, using RFM actually mitigates against your point. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You missed my point, Wade.

Daniel said FARMS gets 60,000 hits a month (as if that was impressive). RFM gets 160,000 hits a DAY. RFM is only one of the many (1200 at last count by the church) websites that are critical of the church.

I made no claims about the efficacy of RFM. I haven't been there in years. But to discount it for any reason is to ignore a huge audience.

PS. How long do critics last, on MADB? Answer: about as long as apologists do, on RFM.

[_harmony]

I think the point here is simple: Harmony wishes to point out that the messageboards have a legitimate impact, while DCP and LoaP want to insist that they are basically irrelevant, and that books and journals are far more important---be it in terms of scholarship, rhetorical heft, or impact on membership numbers.

Exactly. I wonder why it's so hard for them to understand my point? Perhaps it's because they don't want to. Perhaps because by doing so, it would undermine their agenda... which isn't to further the mission of the church through apologetics. It is only to further the mission of the church through their apologetics. We saw what they did to Meldrum.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP used to haunt that board [RFM], posting under a variety of aliases and getting booted off multiple times.

That's flatly false.

I posted perhaps three or four times, using my own name.

If I was ever "booted," I don't recall it.

Bill Hamblin once revealed his true colors by posting a highly inflammatory and offensive anti-Semitic rant on the site.

That's a wild (and patently hostile) mischaracterization.

It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

Jokes don't always reveal deep psychic "needs." Sometimes we just laugh at things because they're ridiculous. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It played a ten second part of a video Kerry Shirts shot. It was a joke. That was literally it. I wouldn't even remember it were it not brought up so often here.

But now you *do* remember it. And it pains you. It bothers you. It is a thorn in your side.

LOL.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Are they? Feel free to actually explain.

Measuring importance by number of clicks on a message board is rather tenuous.

Nothing of quality discussion actually occurs at RFM.

That isn't exactly true. DCP used to haunt that board, posting under a variety of aliases and getting booted off multiple times. Likewise, Bill Hamblin once revealed his true colors by posting a highly inflammatory and offensive anti-Semitic rant on the site. Furthermore, some interesting pieces by Tal Bachman, Steven Benson, and Bob McCue have all appeared on RfM.

Like I said, nothing of quality discussion (to me) appears there.

It is 100 times more dogmatic than the MAD board. You toe the party line or you get deleted, and quickly.

"100 times"? I think the two sites are more similar than you are willing to admit, probably due to your own dogmatism.

Nope. I have personally seen my posts deleted within seconds on that board without any notice. My posts were not inflammatory or insulting. They were direct responses to false allegations.

Even when respectfully engaging or correcting or positing. My approach is so much more nuanced than you allow, but I understand how you enjoy characterizing people into neat little packages.

Your "approach" isn't very nuanced at all. You can festoon it in all manner of superficial booklearning, joking, and screwing around, but the basic fact remains that your "approach" is little more than an extension of your missionary love for "bashing."

Bashing got old pretty fast on the mission. "Superficial booklearning [sic]," am I supposed to be hurt by that?

The navel gazing here is remarkable. To believe you have made a big splash would be a very big claim, one I believe is entirely unsubstantiated.

Hmmm. Looking at the above, I don't see the claim of a "big splash" anywhere. It seems you are engaging in hyperbole and spin. I have to ask: can you be trusted to accurately represent anything I say?

[time to pull a scratch] Well, I'm glad we agree that this board is very unsubstantial and has made no sort of big splash.

I doubt anyone who went to the FAIR conference even remembers anything about "mopologetic finance discussion" on this website ever being referred to.

More distortion. It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

That's because it is a joke.

It played a ten second part of a video Kerry Shirts shot. It was a joke. That was literally it. I wouldn't even remember it were it not brought up so often here.

But now you *do* remember it. And it pains you. It bothers you. It is a thorn in your side.

Now this is just dumb.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel said FARMS gets 60,000 hits a month (as if that was impressive).

No, I said that the FARMS Review -- alone, to say nothing of the rest of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute -- gets 60,000 distinct hits monthly.

RFM gets 160,000 hits a DAY.

Which isn't really comparable, because the FARMS Review is a print journal that publishes lengthy articles while RFM is a message board that features short back-and-forth conversations. A "hit" that is registered by reading a one-liner is not equivalent to a hit that involves reading a lengthy footnoted article.

How long do critics last, on MADB? Answer: about as long as apologists do, on RFM.

That doesn't seem to me even remotely correct. There are critics on the MADB who have been there, doing reasonably well, for months and even years. The life of a defender of Mormonism on RFM, from my observation, has seldom if ever exceeded a day, and typically lasts only a few minutes. Pro-Mormon posts are routinely deleted altogether within a few moments of appearing. And it isn't a question of their tone. It's a question of their being pro-LDS.





&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That doesn't seem to me even remotely correct. There are critics on the MADB who have been there, doing reasonably well, for months and even years. The life of a defender of Mormonism on RFM, from my observation, has seldom if ever exceeded a day, and typically lasts only a few minutes. Pro-Mormon posts are routinely deleted altogether within a few moments of appearing. And it isn't a question of their tone. It's a question of their being pro-LDS.

To compare the two is simply ludicrous from my own experience.

[_Mister Scratch]

DCP used to haunt that board [RFM], posting under a variety of aliases and getting booted off multiple times.

That's flatly false.

I posted perhaps three or four times, using my own name.

If I was ever "booted," I don't recall it.

The administrators of RfM have stated a number of times that you and Bill Hamblin had to be "booted" off the site after you were repeatedly asked to leave. And in all honesty, why should we trust you on this issue? You don't exactly have a good track record in terms of admitting to your many sockpuppets, right "FreeThinker"? Or "Logic Chopper"? Or "Fritz"? Or however many aliases you have used over the years?

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the RfM administrators.

Bill Hamblin once revealed his true colors by posting a highly inflammatory and offensive anti-Semitic rant on the site.

That's a wild (and patently hostile) mischaracterization.

I don't think so, and I don't appreciate your obvious distortion. If you'd like, I can repost his disgusting comments and you can go about trying to spin them. It would be interesting to watch you try and defend such inflammatory, deeply offensive language.

It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

Jokes don't always reveal deep psychic "needs."

These do, unfortunately. As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics. And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

Sometimes we just laugh at things because they're ridiculous.

What, like apologetics?

[_Mister Scratch]

Nope. I have personally seen my posts deleted within seconds on that board without any notice. My posts were not inflammatory or insulting. They were direct responses to false allegations.

Wait a second... Why on earth were you posting on RfM, let alone even reading it?

Bashing got old pretty fast on the mission. "Superficial book-learning [sic]," am I supposed to be hurt by that?

Why do it, then, LoaP? Why are you involved in apologetics?

More distortion. It was clear from the video that S. Gordon, K. Shirts, and DCP all felt the need to "joke" about the revelations concerning Mopologetic financing.

That's because it is a joke.

There is nothing inaccurate or "jokey" about the plain and unadorned fact that DCP and others have gotten paid for their apologetics. You would think that this fact would be met with a shrug. Instead, it led to a lengthy, rather goofy MADthread that was pinned; it has led to an endless string of "rebuttals" from DCP; it has led to consternation on your part; it led to the "jokes" at the FAIR conferences.

Maybe you should ask yourself just who, exactly, the "joke" is on?

[_Scottie]

These do, unfortunately. As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics. And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

[Just to be clear here, Dr Peterson never admitted any such thing.

He agreed with our decision. Period. That was the extent of it.]

[_Mister Scratch]

These do, unfortunately. As you yourself admitted on another thread, it would be a devastating blow to your credibility if it were to be learned that you make money off your apologetics. And yet, apparently, behind the scenes, you admitted just such a thing to Scottie and the other moderators.

[Just to be clear here, Dr Peterson never admitted any such thing.

He agreed with our decision. Period. That was the extent of it.]

It is a tacit admission, is it not? If you say, "We will allow discussion of you, since you are a paid Mopologist," and he agrees, is that not an admission?