Nibley -- Again

[_Mister Scratch]

So, does the aptly named MADboard represent the "official" Mopologetic party line? Yes, it most certainly does.

How would one go about demonstrating such a thing?

And what, exactly, would it even mean?

That MA&D represents the official point of view of an organization called the Mopologetic Party?

It's easy enough to understand what an official statement of the Democratic Party, or of General Motors Corporation, or of the National Organization of Women would be. But it seems to me rather difficult to understand what might be meant by speaking of an "official party line" in a case where no office, organization, leadership, or coördination exists. Or are you perhaps suggesting that "Charity," "Confidential Informant," "urroner," "Bsix," the various "Julianns," and all of the other "Mopologists" have an editorial meeting each morning, perhaps by conference call, in order to formulate and unify their plans for the day's threads?

Actually, I don't think that's terribly far from the truth. My impression---verified in part by accounts from folks such as Liz and Kevin Graham among others---is that there is a good deal of communication (or "coordination", if you will) that takes place behind-the-scenes, via PMs or listserves and so forth. You are aware that there is a separate MAD forum which logs the activities of the moderators, right? And you are further aware that the MADmods surreptitiously monitor the posters' PMs, right?

But what about much more prominent "Mopologists," like John Welch, John Sorenson, David Paulsen, John Clark, Noel Reynolds, and the like, who never post on MA&D and very likely don't even know that it exists? How, precisely, does it represent them? Or do they, in fact, receive and follow the morning MA&D editorial directives, too?

My point is simply this: If one wants to know what the "current trends" are in Mopologetics---any, by extension, what some of the more crucial issues are that pertain to Mormonism---the MADboard represents the "official" views better than perhaps any other online source. As to your last paragraph, I just think you've got it backwards. The "more prominent 'Mopologists'" such as the folks you name might not participate on MAD, but if one wants to know about there work, MAD is probably the best place to begin one's investigation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, I don't think that's terribly far from the truth.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

You are aware that there is a separate MAD forum which logs the activities of the moderators, right?

I am.

And you are further aware that the MADmods surreptitiously monitor the posters' PMs, right?

I'm not. And I'm inclined to doubt it.

The "more prominent 'Mopologists'" such as the folks you name might not participate on MAD, but if one wants to know about there work, MAD is probably the best place to begin one's investigation.

Their work is the best place to begin one's investigation.

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, I don't think that's terribly far from the truth.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

You are aware that there is a separate MAD forum which logs the activities of the moderators, right?

I am.

And you are further aware that the MADmods surreptitiously monitor the posters' PMs, right?

I'm not. And I'm inclined to doubt it.

It was documented quite thoroughly on Kevin Graham's messageboard. Also, I'm glad to see that you have no problem with being "inclined to doubt." I'm sure this will be reflected in your commentary on the 2nd Watson Letter discussion.

The "more prominent 'Mopologists'" such as the folks you name might not participate on MAD, but if one wants to know about there work, MAD is probably the best place to begin one's investigation.

Their work is the best place to begin one's investigation.

I'm afraid I disagree. By approaching these apologists' work via MAD, one gets a more holistic view---i.e., you get the apologetic arguments, plus the criticism thereof. Plus, given what we know about the peer-review process these works tend to receive, going somewhere that has at least *some* semblance of balance becomes doubly important.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The "more prominent 'Mopologists'" such as the folks you name might not participate on MAD, but if one wants to know about there work, MAD is probably the best place to begin one's investigation.

Their work is the best place to begin one's investigation.

I'm afraid I disagree.

That's really quite hilarious.

By approaching these apologists' work via MAD, one gets a more holistic view---I.e., you get the apologetic arguments,

At second, third, or even fourth-hand. Perhaps as mere hearsay.

Hilarious.

Plus, given what we know about the peer-review process these works tend to receive,

Which means, "given what my malevolent and hostile fantasies insist must be the case regarding the peer-review process these works tend to receive, which I hold to despite my own utter and entire lack of direct experience with those proceses and despite the explicit contrary statements of those who do have first-hand experience with them."

going somewhere that has at least *some* semblance of balance becomes doubly important.

What a card you are.

[_Mister Scratch]

The "more prominent 'Mopologists'" such as the folks you name might not participate on MAD, but if one wants to know about there work, MAD is probably the best place to begin one's investigation.

Their work is the best place to begin one's investigation.

I'm afraid I disagree.

That's really quite hilarious.

By approaching these apologists' work via MAD, one gets a more holistic view---I.e., you get the apologetic arguments,

At second, third, or even fourth-hand. Perhaps as mere hearsay.

Hilarious.

Plus, given what we know about the peer-review process these works tend to receive,

Which means, "given what my malevolent and hostile fantasies insist must be the case regarding the peer-review process these works tend to receive, which I hold to despite my own utter and entire lack of direct experience with those proceses and despite the explicit contrary statements of those who do have first-hand experience with them."

going somewhere that has at least *some* semblance of balance becomes doubly important.

What a card you are.

Gee, you're not saying that you wished TBMs would avoid MAD.... are you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Gee, you're not saying that you wished TBMs would avoid MAD.... are you?

You have a kind of sheer manic genius for misreading. Is it cultivated, or innate?

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee, you're not saying that you wished TBMs would avoid MAD.... are you?

You have a kind of sheer manic genius for misreading. Is it cultivated, or innate?

Cultivated. I spent a good deal of time reading FARMS Review before I decided to try my hand at it. ; )

[_Some Schmo]

Gee, you're not saying that you wished TBMs would avoid MAD.... are you?

You have a kind of sheer manic genius for misreading. Is it cultivated, or innate?

LMAO... Look who's talking!

I suspected for the longest time that you had to be dicatating your posts, because you rarely seem literate at all.

Why do you hurt so much, Danny boy? Still smarting from your inner child's wounds? Why are you so sad? Maybe it might help to talk about it. Let your little boy scream. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else. Are you gay? You like little kids? What's the issue?

I'm listening. You can tell me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Cultivated. I spent a good deal of time reading FARMS Review before I decided to try my hand at it. ; )

Heh heh heh. The MoLo works on you, too!

[_Doctor Steuss]

And to think this almost made it a full two pages as such a cordial thread taking a look at the belated Dr. Nibley. It came to an amiable (and according to the beautiful and intelligent Ms. Blixa – “diplomatic”) compromise regarding this man and his intellect and scholarship.

*Sigh*

Oh how the winds of change can turn things of beauty to poop.