harmony wrote:skippy the dead wrote:Why is it that the mysterious "I know something you don't, but if you knew it, you would totally agree with me that so-and-so doesn't know what she's talking about" is somehow an acceptable argument?
I was reading this thread over on MAD about Carol Lynn Pearson (since some people are entirely too worked up over whether she should be "allowed" to be LDS), along with the linked FAIR review of her book "No More Goodbyes". And toward the end, the reviewer writes this:
Once again, I would like to remind everyone that not everyone on this board can read the MAD board. Some of us have been judged as so irredeemable, so evil that we are blocked from even reading it.
So please, if you must discuss a thread from MAD, post the relevant parts of the thread here, not a link, because many of us cannot read that board.
Thanks.
Sorry 'bout that.
The original post was titled "Carol Lynn Pearson: Still a Mormon? What's your opinion?" reads thusly:
USU78 on MADB wrote:I'd like to see a discussion of Carol Lynn Pearson's latest tome in light of this excellent review on the FAIR website.
We've discussed her work a bit some months back, but not, unless I'm greatly mistaken, since the review came out a couple of weeks ago.
USU "Votes 'probably not'" 78
The actual post on MADB spends most of its time discussing whether homosexuality is totally evil and how Ms. Pearson shouldn't be allowed to be Mormon anymore because she wants the church to change its stance on how it treats gays. But that wasn't really the important part. The thread pointed me to the FAIR book review, which contained the stoopid "I know something you don't, and it makes me magically right even though you don't know it" argument.
Seems to me that if FAIR were really interested in some sort of scholarly approach to its "mission", it wouldn't allow such wink-nudge rhetoric, and would instead insist on submissions meeting at least a minimum standard. But I suppose this only illustrates that it's a preaching tool only.